Healthy Country Means less Water for South Australia
Posted by jennifer, December 8th, 2011 - under Information, Opinion.
Tags: Murray River
IT is assumed in the draft Murray Darling Basin Plan that the more water in the Murray River and in particular the more water moving down the river to South Australia, the healthier the environment. But what’s the philosophical basis for such an assumption?
As I wrote in my column for The Land newspaper this week:
If the current water reform process is truly about giving back to the environment, then we should be thinking back to a period before rivers and creeks became constricted by sheets of water running off compacted soils, before swamps were diverted, before river de-snagging and before the blasting of rock bars for paddle steamers.
As historian Bill Gammage notes in The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia, back in the dreamtime shallow streams and overflows flushed more of Australia, filling billabongs, swamps and holes, and recharging springs and soaks.
That was a time when the health of a landscape was measured less by how much water was in a river, and more by how many kangaroos it could support.
In 1901 James Cotton, a Cobar pioneer, wrote that before the district was stocked with sheep and cattle it was covered with a heavy growth of natural grasses and that the ground was soft, spongy and very absorbent.
Overstocking was a problem throughout the Murray Darling Basin particularly during the late 1800s resulting in significant land and water degradation. Overstocking transformed soils in many districts from soft and spongy to hard clay that, instead of absorbing water, caused the rain to run off in sheets as fast as it fell – to again paraphrase Mr Cotton.
In the past one hundred years there has been a gradual improvement in land management. Stocking rates have fallen, some native grasses are returning and there has been a move to minimum tillage conservation farming practices. This has resulted in a general improvement in soil structure.
The ground may not be as soft, spongy and very absorbent as it once was, but there is no doubt that when the rain now falls on the Murray Darling, much less water runs off into adjacent rivers and streams than it did one hundred years ago. This must have implications for the amount of water flowing to South Australia.
Indeed a truly healthier Murray Darling Basin would mean less water for South Australia.
******
My entire column can be read on page 9 of The Land – in newsagents now.
Bill Gammage, The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia. Allen & Unwin, 2011. I got my copy from Dymock’s in Sydney for $49.99; and bought another as a Christmas present.
Advertisement
293 Responses to “Healthy Country Means less Water for South Australia”
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All
Hi Dave,
I suppose that depends on where you live if you ask the majority of persons who live in the area around the Lakes especially the licensed fisherpersons and the others affected I would suggest the percentage would be close to 99% who would disagree with Lakes Alexandrina and Albert becoming saline and as we have been told if that were to happen and no water flowed over Lock Zero those Lakes would become hyper-saline.
There are many other reasons but some are the cost of SA Water supplied water to those who still irrigate from the Lakes and from Currency Creek and the Bremer River, all of the freshwater reliant vegetation would die, the freshwater fish, crustations, turtles and frogs that would perish, the loss of habitat for animals and birds.
Those reasons would ensure the hyper-saline Lakes would stink but of course that would only affect those unlucky enough to still live in the area.
During the drought those regions suffered terribly, but of course as Debbie keeps saying no more than anywhere else in the Basin and of course Debbie knows all.
The losses in the area would ensure that during the transition from EC levels below 1000 to seawater EC of 55,000 and then whilst the Lakes became hyper-saline that region would become a basket case.
Dave, what I have written is only a minute percentage of the problems which would befall the region but I am sure that if you contacted the council’s involved i.e., Coorong, Alexandrina and Victor Harbor Mayor Strother, Mayor McCue and Mayor Philp could enlighten you further!
Hi Debbie,
Re, “I am sick of that 7% figure too Peter” maybe you are but is it because it is the truth that SA uses only 7% of the Basins’ water.
Your argument about no increased usage in SA since the 70′s is also incorrect. Check that one too.
Re, “Your argument about no increased usage in SA since the 70′s is also incorrect. Check that one too” I just have since 1970 NSW’s increased their take by 11000-Gigalitres, Vic by 1,700-Gigalitres, SA by 250-Gigalitres, Qld by 400-Gigalitres and ACT by 50-Gigalitres!
Re, “It had very little to do with paddle steamers” try to understand that I said at the ‘same level’ as when Paddle-Steamers plied there trade and there was no need to keep the level in SA that high!
Re, “How much extra water would have been wasted and how much extra damage caused if the required amount of water had to be delivered from just the storages” I didn’t ask for water from storages but from the WEIR POOLS IN SA and one of the main reasons to stop the MASSIVE bank collapses in the Lower River Murray.
Oh Debbie, did I ever say, “that the Murray is NOT being used as a delivery channel for SA” what have you been drinking?
Re, “If you want to maintain your status quo, then figure out how to do it without lying and without punishing the wrong culprits. Throwing in sad tales about gum trees will not solve anything. If you don’t want help or advice, then stop asking for it” I am not telling lies, I am not, ‘throwing in sad tales about gum trees’ and re asking for advice I have never asked for advice from up-stream of Lock 1 because I know most advice from up-stream of Lock 1 is based on false beliefs of the Lower River Murray and Lakes Alexandrina and Lake Albert or the rubbish put forward by JM.
Peter,
If the Lakes were tidal how would they become hyper-saline ?
Some water would still flow over Lock 1 as it did before into the new pool between Lock 1 and Lock Zero and then as in the drought period 3 GL/ day ( as quoted in a meeting by Russell Seaman in Goolwa ) of water would still flow into Lake Alexandrina and because of Lock Zero the irrigators would still get their water from the Jervois and the farmers who weren’t included in the irrigation and the general public would receive their potable water from Tailem Bend as it now protected by Lock Zero. The automated gates on the barrage can be opened and allow the Lower Lakes to become tidal until the drought is over as should have happened this time. The Lakes should have never been allowed to go below sea level.
No Peter,
You didn’t say that but you are using the same figures and arguments as the people who are saying that.
You also really need to check those figs….I know where you got them from….they are not correct as they conveniently ignore the fact that SA has heavily relied on extra inflows above the caps. They are also based on totally meaningless long term averages. The MDB has never ever respected long term averages.
You also have to consider % of population and % of arable area and % of chokes and wetland areas. It is not just about volumes per state. Nature didn’t see it that way either!
I have not pretended to know all….I have merely pointed out that SA was not unique as far as hard times and suffering during the drought is concerned.
You are the one who keeps trying to say that it was worse there….once again using those same arguments from those same people who are pretending they want to ‘restore’ the MDB. and in particular the Murray.
They are also saying that all of SA’s problems are caused by greedy irrgators and over extraction…..all quite duplicitous.
As the topic of this post highlights, if we truly ‘restored’ the Murray that would mean less water for SA, particularly in low inflow periods.
False beliefs??????
There are plenty of those all over the MDB.
There is just as much rot going on at the top end of the southern connected system….it is just not the subject of this post.
However….that Mouth has trouble because it is influenced by tides and winds. River Mouths like to shift around….all over the world. It is when they are settled by humans that it becomes desirable to keep them static.
AND…the problems with the Coorong have virtually nothing to do with the MDB. Most of its water traditionally came from the SE of SA. Only about 10% was ever influenced by the Murray and that was in high inflow periods….not in Summer/Autumn.
Re engineering those barrages and re thinking about the salt water option at the lower estuarine/tidal end of the system is probably a good idea as a back up strategy for the next drought….it would have to be preferable to hyper salinity and exposed acid sulphate soils????
There are also other re engineering works that need to be done elsewhere in the basin….once again that is not the topic of this post.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “They are also based on totally meaningless long term averages” no there not there the diversion increases since 1970!
Re the topic of the post, “As the topic of this post highlights, if we truly ‘restored’ the Murray that would mean less water for SA” interestingly enough if we, “‘restored’ the Murray” SA would have the last of all water as to restore it would mean restore it to its natural condition and of course that is not possible but why do the majority up-stream of Lock 1 want to restore the Lakes to what they were before the Barrages but not chance any other section of the River Murray?
Re the figure of 7%, you say, “I am sick of that 7%” you said you were sick of the figure and then go on to say, “
You also have to consider % of population and % of arable area and % of chokes and wetland areas. It is not just about volumes per state’ make up your mind.
RE, “Re engineering those barrages and re thinking about the salt water option at the lower estuarine/tidal end of the system is probably a good idea as a backup strategy for the next drought” it’s not about what would be, “it would have to be preferable to hyper salinity and exposed acid sulphate soils” what I am saying is yes the Barrages need to be re-engineered and made able to be operated remotely but also what I am saying is that if the seawater is allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina the Lake WOULD BECOME HYPER-SALINE if there were no flows over Lock 1.
Getting back to, “the topic of this post” – “Healthy Country Means less Water for South Australia” if a healthy country means, healthier for other than SA meaning less water for Sa the rest of you can GET STUFFED.
Debbie, you stay on the Murrumbidgee and worry about your patch and I will remained on the River Murray and continue to worry about my patch and in doing so ensure that no water from the Murrumbidgee reaches the River Murray!
You are ranting Peter.
Telling me to get stuffed is not proving anything.
SA would be the last State to want everything to return to nature. That would mean that no water would arrive there in drought conditions. NONE!
Gets all the last of the water? HUH?
Seriously?
Hi Debbie,
You are right I was having a bit of a rant!
I know full well it is impossible to return the River Murray to ‘nature’ so make changes ar management level and investigate all options but don’t force those options on SA just because the Eastern States have the weight of Federal votes!
I suppose the reason or my reason is a, “Healthy Country” seems to mean less water for SA in so many people’s minds.
The simple question is why SA?
Why must SA pay more than anyone else?
What have we done to deserve everyone else’s wrath?
Is SA less important than anywhere else in the Basin?
Are South Australians’ lesser Australians’?
I may be wrong but as a regular soldier I thought during my overseas service I was protecting Australia was I wrong?
The trouble with so many South Australians’ is that they are so used to being told what to do firstly by our own corrupt Labor Government and now by Juliar Gillard they seem to have just about given up, well I haven’t.
Peter,
I think it is about time you gave it a rest and bow out of the argument for a while telling people to get stuf… is just going too far.
You mentioned to Dave :-
“I suppose that depends on where you live if you ask the majority of persons who live in the area around the Lakes especially the licensed fisherpersons”.
How many of the fisherpersons were involved in the two Government Carp lakes cleanup worth close to a $1 million dollars over a couple of years ?
How many times has the Bremer and Angas Rivers flowed into Lake Alexandrina prior to April 2010.
Why are some of the irrigators and farmers that used Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert water
now not connected to the irrigation pipeline from Jervois only the potable water from Tailem Bend, Murray Bridge and Myponga Reservoir ? Was it a S.A. Government decision as they along with the Federal Govt. put $94 million towards the irrigation pipeline ?
Peter,
SA is just as important as every other State but it has also made just as many mistakes as other States.
While you say that you dont blame upstream for mistakes that were clearly made in SA, you use the same arguments.
SA farmers are efficient, but so are farmers in the other States.
River and irrigation communities and wetlands in SA suffered during the drought but so did other states.
Yes, upstream govts have outstripped back up storage and infrastructure but so has SA.
Some of the diversion works in upstream areas have since proved to be ill conceived but SA has done that too, particularly in the SE.
So therefore Peter, SA’s problems are not particularly unique.
I concede that SA is more vulnerable but that is because of your position, not because of poor treatment. You seem to forget that even during the depth of the drought the river was kept running and there was 3 YEARS of critical supplies stored for SA in the upstream storages.
Could it have been managed better? Undoubtedly, but if it had been left up to nature that River would have been bone dry.
The popular arguments emanating from SA are using politically motivated environmental ideologies which will not solve the real issues you have there.
They will also seriously interfere with the productive capacity of inland Australia, including your upstream SA farmers in seasons when it is not necessary to do so.
As Mark A pointed out. . . making everyone suffer is just company in misery. . .it is not a good solution.
By all means keep fighting but if you keep pushing those unproductive parochial arguments then of course you are going to be pushed back.
As I keep trying to say, we need to think win/win.
I know you don’t believe it but most of your arguments use win/lose as their basis. They also come almost exclusively from the same source.
Hi Debbie,
Re, irrigation and efficiency, I’m sorry but whilst your irrigation practices may be ultra efficient SA has aimed for 80% across the State and whilst we may have not yet quite reached our target we are nearly there and I believe that should be the target across the Basin and where water is sourced from the Basin.
Re the South East it is not in the Basin so let’s agree to disagree about the Coorong and the SE drains, but the Southern Coorong MUST be pumped out!
A number of times during the drought the River DID NOT flow over Lock 1 and I put the blame for that squarely on the SA Government.
Not right, “Could it have been managed better? Undoubtedly, but if it had been left up to nature that River would have been bone dry” that would not happen unless the drought lasted for some 15 to 20 years as that’s what Dartmouth, Hume, other storages, Locks, Weirs and the Barrages were constructed to alleviate, things would have been critically bad but we would have had water for critical human needs.
I can assure every person who reads this blog I will continue to fight for ‘my patch’ the Lower River Murray and I doubt I will be ‘pushed back’ as I really hope sense will in-the-end prevail.
There is an order that I believe must be followed: -
1) A full and scientific Impact Statement into the construction of Lock Zero and the management of the Murray Darling Basin and until that is agreed to we cannot move forward, as without the correct information we will get nowhere. It is easy to say build another regulator but it is not that simple,
2) What has to be done to alleviate the problems in Lake Albert must be carried out and carried out yesterday,
3) Firstly re the Barrages we must undertake the engineering study into the best way to upgrade the Barrages and as soon as that study is completed the upgrade MUST begin.
All of the above are completely at the whims of the Federal Government as the overall costs for just the above will be close to $5-plus million but without agreements nothing will happen.
The other thing that must occur is SA MUST receive its capped amount (as the agreement) of water unless it is not available which will mean we share the water in the Basin.
Dave,
It appears trying to get some answers from Peter re his comments to you above re Lock Zero etc. were not suitable for comments. Plus telling him to take break for a while for his comments :-
“the rest of you can GET STUFFED”.
Peter,
The capped amount argument is moot.
That already happened during the drought.
It was not available and we all ‘shared’ what was left.
There were also some real issues with losses and conveyance….which BTW make a bit of a mockery of your 80% efficiency argument. You seem to like ignoring the fact that using the Murray River as a delivery channel for SA is enormously inefficient.
It’s OK….it’s just more parochial stuff that you’re not factoring in.
I agree that some of the management decisions were questionable. They made an absolute doozie that caused a lot of damage and heartache in this area and then made almost the exact opposite mistake when the drought broke.
However….when things got critical they did the best they could….I sincerely hope they learn some lessons about some of the rather ordinary decisions they made….and I particularly wish the Federal Govt and SA would stop trying to make this a debate about irrigation v the environment.
Re the Coorong.
Yes the SE is not in the basin…however the problems with the Coorong emanate from the SE. Unfortunately MDB upstream activities are being blamed for that problem too, by both the ACF and your government.
Re, “That already happened during the drought” no it didn’t as during the height of SA received less than our entitlement!
Debbie, I openly admit that the River is the most efficient mode of conveyance but all of our metering is at point of extraction.
Re, “However….when things got critical they did the best they could” maybe in your opinion and who is they?
Re, “I sincerely hope they learn some lessons about some of the rather ordinary decisions they made….and I particularly wish the Federal Govt and SA would stop trying to make this a debate about irrigation v the environment” maybe but if the environment is un-healthy we are in trouble!
Re, “Yes the SE is not in the basin…however the problems with the Coorong emanate from the SE. Unfortunately MDB upstream activities are being blamed for that problem too, by both the ACF and your government” oh Debbie please the problems in the Coorong (especially the Southern Lagoon) are because when there was not enough available water to ensure the Southern Lagoon was able to be refreshed it just continued to become more saline.
What the ACF say means nothing to me and as for our Government they don’t understand what our (my patch) problems are as they only listen to their staff not the people on the ground.
Maybe instead of relying on the blame game you should just forget about blaming and get on to the main task lets fix the problems perceived or not so we can ensure the future of the Basin!
Oh yes it did Peter….
Everyone received less than their entitlement….we actually got none one year (it went to 9% negative) and way less than 1/3 for the remaining years.
We had to share what was available as you pointed out in the previous post.
You also need to remember about conveyance and losses when we get as far down the system as you are and we are suffering from drought. It is not possible to use extra inflows as conveyance water as would normally occur in average and above average seasons.
I did some checking….although I am always suspicious of Govt figs….it gets over 1ML of loss/conveyance per ML delivered under low inflow conditions when water is being shifted from the Murrumbidgee Valley storages via the Murrumbidgee and then Via the Murray.
That is not efficient in anyone’s language.
Also…point of extraction on the Murray is not accounting for those losses and conveyances.
I’m not trying to make a big issue of it….I’m just trying to point out that the figs you are quoting do not take in all the variable factors.
Re the Coorong…you musn’t have looked at those links I supplied you?
The Coorong’s traditional fresh water supply was drained away to the ocean a long time ago.
Blame game?
You must be joking?
I have repeatedly stated we need to think win/win. I have also repeatedly stated that all basin state govts are culpable.
There are definite problems in your area….no one is denying that.
We need good technical solutions, like lock 0 to address them and we need to stop pretending the problem is ‘environmental’.
We also need to stop blaming the wrong culprits….irrigation farming and the MDB environment are not mortal enemies.
Hi Debbie,
I have just spoken to the Senior Project Office from SA Water (whiIe he is on holidays) I asked one question, did SA receive its entitlement during the drought, answer NO!
Debbie, I do understand conveyance there is an amount for NSW, Vic and SA.
Did I ever say that conveyance in our tributaries and Rivers was efficient, answer NO but do you have a better idea to move water?
Re, “Also…point of extraction on the Murray is not accounting for those losses and conveyances” the losses are factored in as the conveyance amount but nor when water is measured at farm gate along kilometres and kilometres of open channel irrigation channels.
Re the Coorong, “The Coorong’s traditional fresh water supply was drained away to the ocean a long time ago” yes a LONG TIME ago things have changed over the years it now just evaporates and the inflows are minimal so it – the Southern Lagoon is just getting more saline it is at about 150,000EC
Re, “There are definite problems in your area” are there any in your area/region?
I AM NOT INTO BLAMING! I AM ALSO NOT USING THE ENVIRONMENT AS AN EXCUSE!
What has to happen I have pointed out before and prior to any construction we must: -
1) A full and scientific Impact Statement into the construction of Lock Zero and the management of the Murray Darling Basin and until that is agreed to we cannot move forward, as without the correct information we will get nowhere. It is easy to say build another regulator but it is not that simple,
2) What has to be done to alleviate the problems in Lake Albert must be carried out and carried out yesterday,
3) Firstly re the Barrages we must undertake the engineering study into the best way to upgrade the Barrages and as soon as that study is completed the upgrade MUST begin.
All of the above are completely at the whims of the Federal Government as the overall costs for just the above will be close to $5-plus million but without agreements nothing will happen.
The other thing that must occur is SA MUST receive its capped amount (as the agreement) of water unless it is not available which will mean we share the water in the Basin.
Certain studies must be undertaken ASAP!
Of course there are problems in our area Peter. They need sensible technical solutions as well.
Also…SA did not reveive its full allocation….neither did NSW, Vic or QLD…that’s the point.
Did you misunderstand what I said about that? Maybe I wasn’t clear?
This thread is getting old.
I agree that those works need to be done….never said otherwise.
When we are in drought SA CAN’T receive its capped amount anymore than the other states can….that’s the way it DID work in the last drought.
It was far from perfect but it DID follow that basic principle.
The measurements at Farm Gates after miles and miles of open channels does not occur here. Where do you see that happening? Maybe it is an old story or it happens somewhere that makes no measurable difference to the rivers ?
Every last drop is accounted for in this area, it is a closed system run by an infrastructure company that has no intention of missing out on one single cent of water charges.
The same basically applies on the NSW Murray Irrigation Ltd system and also in Northern Victoria.
I am not aware of what happens as far as metering water goes further downstream and into SA?
Hi Debbie,
Well it seems we will have to just agree to disagree about our views are who is efficient and who isn’t and who’s right and who’s wrong.
All I would therefore ask is when you make your submission and I am sure you will and if you mention the Lower River Murray, “What has to happen before and prior to any construction we must: -
1) A full and scientific Impact Statement into the construction of Lock Zero and the management of the Murray Darling Basin and until that is agreed to we cannot move forward, as without the correct information we will get nowhere. It is easy to say build another regulator but it is not that simple,
2) What has to be done to alleviate the problems in Lake Albert must be carried out and carried out yesterday,
3) Firstly re the Barrages we must undertake the engineering study into the best way to upgrade the Barrages and as soon as that study is completed the upgrade MUST begin.
All of the above are completely at the whims of the Federal Government as the overall costs for just the above will be close to $5-plus million but without agreements nothing will happen.
The other thing that must occur is SA MUST receive its capped amount (as the agreement) of water unless it is not available which will mean we share the water in the Basin.
Certain studies must be undertaken ASAP!”
Dave & Peter,
Jennifer has infromed me that I was being re-assessed because I have a new e mail address.
Peter,
If the Lakes were tidal how would they become hyper-saline ?
Some water would still flow over Lock 1 as it did before into the new pool between Lock 1 and Lock Zero and then as in the drought period 3 GL/ day ( as quoted in a meeting by Russell Seaman in Goolwa ) of water would still flow into Lake Alexandrina and because of Lock Zero the irrigators would still get their water from the Jervois and the farmers who weren’t included in the irrigation and the general public would receive their potable water from Tailem Bend as it now protected by Lock Zero. The automated gates on the barrage can be opened and allow the Lower Lakes to become tidal until the drought is over as should have happened this time. The Lakes should have never been allowed to go below sea level.
Peter,
I think it is about time you gave it a rest and bow out of the argument for a while telling people to get stuf… is just going too far.
You mentioned to Dave :-
“I suppose that depends on where you live if you ask the majority of persons who live in the area around the Lakes especially the licensed fisherpersons”.
How many of the fisherpersons were involved in the two Government Carp lakes cleanup worth close to a $1 million dollars over a couple of years ?
How many times has the Bremer and Angas Rivers flowed into Lake Alexandrina prior to April 2010.
Why are some of the irrigators and farmers that used Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert water
now not connected to the irrigation pipeline from Jervois only the potable water from Tailem Bend, Murray Bridge and Myponga Reservoir ? Was it a S.A. Government decision as they along with the Federal Govt. put $94 million towards the irrigation pipeline ?
Yes I will be submitting Peter and of course I will be campaigning for sensible, progressive technical solutions.
I notice you didn’t answer my last question?
WHERE are these incredibly wasteful irrigation practices that allow irrigators to access miles and miles of open channels and only pay for what they receive at their farm gate?
They are obviously upstream from you, are they upstream from southern NSW & northern Vic?
If not, can you give a reasonable explanation why it is those areas which are expected to contribute the most productive water?
Hi Sean,
Re, “If the Lakes were tidal how would they become hyper-saline?” when we have another drought, and it will happen it’s not if but when, and there is no flow over Lock 1 or when so many in the Eastern States and as a matter of fact up-stream of Lock 1minimise the flow over Lock 1 (especially if Lock Zero is constructed) and there is no flow over Lock Zero and the water flowing out cannot keep the River’s mouth open you don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to work out what will happen.
Why or how would water flow over Lock Zero if none flowed over Lock1?
Re, “The automated gates on the barrage can be opened and allow the Lower Lakes to become tidal until the drought is over as should have happened this time. The Lakes should have never been allowed to go below sea level” and what if the tidal movement was not enough to do as you want it to?
Ah Sean I get pissed off at times, and whilst I have apologised to Debbie, if I want to tell people to get stuffed I will and re, “How many times has the Bremer and Angas Rivers flowed into Lake Alexandrina prior to April 2010” not very often but regulators will have to be built across the mouths of both of those tributaries if sea water is allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina to protect water users from the Bremer and Angus.
Re, “How many of the fisherpersons were involved in the two Government Carp lakes cleanup worth close to a $1 million dollars over a couple of years?” I don’t know the answer but I believe there are 33 fishing licenses in the Lower River Murray and Lakes fishery and no matter what it cost it was money well spent.
Re, “Why are some of the irrigators and farmers that used Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert water now not connected to the irrigation pipeline from Jervois only the potable water from Tailem Bend, Murray Bridge and Myponga Reservoir?” how would I know you will have to ask them.
Re, “Was it a S.A. Government decision as they along with the Federal Govt. put $94 million towards the irrigation pipeline?’ How would I know why don’t you ask them and I didn’t think the SA Government put any money in.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “WHERE are these incredibly wasteful irrigation practices that allow irrigators to access miles and miles of open channels and only pay for what they receive at their farm gate?’ are you sure that all irrigators accessing water from open channels are metering their water from point of first extraction?
Re, “They are obviously upstream from you, are they upstream from southern NSW & northern Vic?
If not, can you give a reasonable explanation why it is those areas which are expected to contribute the most productive water?” I deeply regret I cannot answer the question, “why it is those areas which are expected to contribute the most productive water?” you will need to ask the Hon Craig Knowles, how can I speak for him?
I can only answer for the areas I know Peter.
I am absolutely 100% completely and positively certain that infrastructure companies/ govt depts like NSW Office of Water, State Water, Snowy Hydro Ltd, Murrumbidgee Irrigation, Murray Irrigation, Colleambally Irrigation and Murray Golburn account for every single last drop of water as they have NO intention of missing out on any fees
Considering that accounts for a rather sizeable whack of extracted water in the Southern Basin…it must be happening somewhere else either upstream or downstream from these areas?
It was not me who made the accusation Peter….you’re the one who keeps insisting that there is incredible wastage because water is not being metered correctly and it had something to do with kilometres of open channels….I was assuming you know where that is???
Upstream or downstream from here? How much is actually not being metred efficiently and therefore not being paid for or accounted for?
Maybe it’s another one of those false assumptions that have mysteriously crept their way into the MDBA research????? You know….using a very ‘old hat’ problem that has long been addressed and then claiming it still needs to be fixed?
I’m not sure as I can only speak for the areas and the depts/companies that I either deal with or have personal knowledge of.
Hi Debbie,
I realise I have not travelled much in the last three or so years but whilst at Cowra last time I was shown many properties extracting water from open channels and being metered at farm gate and if this has changed I apologise but information being supplied to me still indicates that the practise is still occurring. It is probably time hopefully about the middle of this year, I may be able to travel up the River Murray and then the Darling again on my way to visit a friend at Tilpa or when I go to the Murray Darling Association AGM/Conference in Mildura in September.
We do have private properties along the River Murray that are not metered correctly and those properties are allowed to extract a maximum of 500-Kilolitres and I have hounded for the last 15plus years South Australian Water Ministers and I shall continue to do so, all extractions must be metered correctly!
Cowra?
That is on the Lachlan River near Wyangala Dam.
How much did their irrigation practices ever affect SA or even the southern connected NSW/Vic system Peter?
I can also assure you that farmers and communities on the Lachlan had absolutely horrendous problems during the drought….far, far worse than either your area or mine.
The Lachlan actually got shut down. It was devastating for those people. It was the one river that the Govt depts were not able to keep going….at one stage even their critical supplies were gone.
They were denied any access a very long time before & after either your area or mine.
They also had a huge whack of their groundwater taken from them….that one even went to court.
If you truly want to pick the areas that probably suffered the most….look to the irrigators and small rural communities on the Lachlan.
As a further kick in the teeth those poor people were absolutely hammered by groups such as ACF and the Wentworth Group because of the Macquarie marshes and some of their other wetland/ floodplain areas.
Of course the marshes and very impressive floodplains on the Lachlan have roared back to life because they’re ephemeral…but far too many of those people did not make it through….the suicide, depression and divorce stats from those areas are also horrendous.
I certainly hope the ‘information being supplied to you’ has included those facts as well?
If not….maybe you should take that trip and gain some perspective.
I will also clearly point out to you that their irrigation techniques and practices have almost nil affect on anything that happens in SA.
While I agree that in times past it appeared that they had access that was not correctly accounted for….they had to pay very, very dearly for that on the Water Sharing Plans.
They are way lower on the WSP and they miss out on access a very long time before you do.
Sorry Corowa. I must have had an old age moment!
Peter,
Goolwa Channel’s salinity peaked at 32,720 EC 18/2/2009 with a S.A. riverflow of 35.8 GL/week.
Lake Albert Meningie peaked at 11,680 EC 8/04/2009 riverflow 20.6 GL/week.
Lake Alexandrina Milang peaked at 5,930 EC 22/04/2009 riverflow 21.3 GL/week. The lowest weekly riverflow was 11.8 GL 17/06/2009 and S.A. was 346.5 GL in deficit of its 915 GL RAMSAR agreement. Goolwa in April 2009 was – 1.034 m AHD.
If we had Lock Zero in place you would have had a pool level and safe river banks between it and Blanchetown’s Lock 1 and not have to keep putting River water to the Lower Lakes. Unfortunately I don’t have a figure of what the Lower Lakes had in storage in April 2009 but I do know that the Lower Lakes at 0.0 m (AHD) holds 1138.2 GL of water ( 67.15 % ). If the barrages had been opened then quite a lot of fresh water would not have had to be waisted to refill the lakes until the next lot of flooding occured.
Corowa is on the Murray upstream from where Murray Irigation Ltd (MIL) operates.
I do not know how much area is irrigated there but I have driven through there quite often….and it is not that much.
I have driven through there quite regularly because one of my children live nearby.
They do definitely pump straight from the River in that area and they are not as regulated as further down stream….however I strongly suspect they are mostly metred at the river….not at their farm gates….but I do not know for sure.
In the big picture….especially since they are upstream from MIL…how much do you think they are influencing what happens in SA Peter?
Sean is desperately trying to explain to you where the work really needs to be done.
Looking at small volumes of water that are not perhaps extracted and used as efficiently as elsewhere will not provide the answers or the protection you need.
BTW, the farms and the landscape in that Corowa area are looking absolutely magnificent at the moment.
They too did it very tough during the drought. In some areas there they also copped a belting from the flooding when the drought broke so dramatically. It is good to see things have turned around for them this last season.
It is a very pretty area….lots of native critters as well.
Hi Sean,
I realise IF we had Lock Zero things would have been much different in the Lower River Murray and lakes Alexandrina and Albert but Sean we have not got Lock Zero and we must look at what is happening now.
If an ‘Impact Statement’ into Lock Zero was passed through Parliament today in my estimation by the time the ‘terms of reference’ were decided on and that is after some deal of consultation to ensure all the right questions and management answers are being properly investigated probably a year would have passed. Then the time for all the information to be gathered checked and a final report finished another year.
Then the discussion as to whether it should be constructed and how much it would cost and then where is the money going to come from?
Let’s say it all runs to plan I feel that phase would take at least two and a half years. Construction would take at least two years so if we started tomorrow I could not see it completed until at least the middle of 2015 or early 2016 and because the River is at pool level and with a strong flow it could take longer but we will keep pushing.
All you referred to above is correct but we don’t even have a commitment to an ‘Impact Statement.”
Hi Debbie,
Thank you for that information, though re, “how much do you think they are influencing what happens in SA Peter?” any extractions INCLUDING IN SA must be metered from source, efficiencies!
I know what Sean is trying say thank you!
Peter,
Jim Marsh was Barrage Superintendent at Goolwa and in the Alexandrina Local History Archive he was interviewed by Rose Geisler 27th. September,1999 Page 28. The Government must have some information on a new Barrage or Lock at Wellington if he mentioned it in his interview back in 1999. Tim Flannery mentioned doing a similar thing again 12th. July, 2008 surely they have something in their bottom draws or it got lost going between departments. I wrote to The Advertiser when the new piplines were announced :-
To Adeliade Now
Times are getting very interesting as past ideas of just ten years ago even before the current drought and water crisis were known are now coming to fruition.
Alexandrina Local History Archive
Jim Marsh Barrage Superintendant at Goolwa in September 1999
One of the positions being considered is to abandon the barrages and let the lakes return to natural estuarine condition and rebuilding the structure at Wellington. It would entail quite significant capital expenditure because they would have to build distribution works down each side and all the people who now pump out of the Lakes would have to be supplied from a large pipeline. The political ramifications of shifting the barrages would be too hot for any government to try.
Ten years later a new pipeline with filtered water from Tailem Bend to properties in the districts of Raukkan, Narrung, Meningie and Poltalloch Peninsular, Point Sturt have to wait until September has been constructed. Langhorne Creek connected to Strathalbyn, Milang and Clayton pipeline. The irrigators $12.5 million and thanks to the Commonwealth and State Governments putting in not less than $94 million will have their separate pipeline from Jervois to Langhorne Creek through to Currency Creek by October, 2009, the reliance on the Lakes no longer required. It has moved a pumping station closer to the Lakes and salt water with a weir being built in a position not suitable in the late 1930’s switched to Goolwa. One of the most suitable places to build a Barrage / Lock is a site near the Swanport Bridge ( Granite rock base ) which just happens to be above Tailem Bend.
Maybe we do not have enough government departments working on the problem.
The River Murray, Water Security, Environment & Heritage, Agriculture & Fisheries, Water Land & Biodeversity/Conservation, EPA, S.A. Water and a couple of Commonwealth Departments.
Do not worry folks water is coming I don’t know when but is coming then we can fill the Murray Darling Basin down 7713GL ( 18% ) Lake Mulawa emptied with weed problems then all the back waters and Lakes between Blanchetown and Goolwa. In 1940 they didn’t worry about the native fish Mulloway, Mullet, Flounder and Bream.
Sean Murphy
Goolwa North
S.A. 5214
Peter maybe nothing gets done because too many Governments Departments are involved as mentioned above.
As I mentioned in the letter we were looking at Swanport for the Lock where the River was 220 metres wide, has a granite base and shifting all pump stations up to Murray Bridge.
Hi Sean,
From my meetings, information and contacts with all of the Departments mentioned I can assure no-one is working on any plans that include a lock/weir in the Lower River Murray.
Re, “If there were any discussions or work being done I do not believe that any consideration would look at any option accept as close as possible to where the River narrows just down-stream of Wellington. The reason for that would be that if sea water were to be allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina the powers to be would want ensure minimal damage into the main River.
Re, “Jim Marsh” and what he said in 1999, do you really believe that anyone in this Government would consider what was said in 1999? And re what Tim Flannery has said that would also be aligned with what Jim said put away in achieves probably never to be opened again.
Re, “One of the positions being considered is to abandon the barrages and let the lakes return to natural estuarine condition and rebuilding the structure at Wellington” all my information from the Federal, State Governments and the MDBA is that the removal of the Barrages WILL NOT happen!
Peter,
They did get their pipelines that Jim Marsh said that would have to be built. The next step is Lock Zero and the automation of the barrage gates to overcome some of the weather activity thay have had at the Murray Mouth.
e.g. Recent weather happenings at the Murray Mouth with antiquated equipment.
22nd May, 2011, an intense low pressure system 0f 994 HPA with associated west to southerly winds of up to 40 knots crossed the area. This system increased the levels of Encounter Bay by about 0.66 m above the predicted astronomical tide to 1.4 m or 0.65 m above the designated FSL 0.75 m in the Lower Lakes. This event reversed the river flow and sea water intrusion caused salinities to rise to over 40,000 EC in the Goolwa Channel to Narnu Bay. The sudden increase in salinity caused a fish kill in the Goolwa Channel. 4th. July, 2011 at 6.00 pm, the Goolwa area experienced one of the highest tides observed in the previous 12 months. The tide at Reedy Island was recorded at 1.42 m AHD which was aprox. 0.6 m higher than the predicted astronomical tide at Victor Harbor. The high tide was at the end of a period of spring tides and was due to a combination of low pressure ( 1008 HPA at HL), large ocean swells and strong NW to WNW winds up to 40 knots. This event was the fifth major sea water intrusion event since May 22nd but with higher tides. The Lower Lake salinities had not fully recovered from these prior events. Had more of the barrage gates been open there would have been a major sea water intrusion much greater than the previous events.
Peter,
Just putting it out there….but Sean is basically corect that this whole debate is being made way too complicated when it really doesn’t need to be.
I can help you out with an EPA for free.
Building Lock Zero WILL (Repeat WILL) impact the environment in some ways….however….it is one of the things that MUST (repeat MUST) be done.
The environmental impact….particularly to the human environment below lock one… from doing nothing and fluffing around with all these different agendas and wasting everyone’s time and money…..will be a much more devastating impact.
If we’re writing off what was said in 1999 then we have to write off everything else that was done before then in the MDB.
If it was a smart option in 1999 it is still a smart option….too bad if it wasn’t the idea of the current crop of bureaucrats and politicians.
Extra works on the lower Murray and extra storages upstream were always part of the original plans….we still need them to be completed.
And yes….they will impact the environment and they will cost money…..doesn’t change the fact that it must be done if we are to have positive and progressive and prosperous future.
It’s all about ‘trade offs’ and correctly compensating affected areas.
Somehow we have allowed water storages and management to be redefined as ‘environmental resources’. That is complete rubbish….they were always community resources.
We need to expand and develop those resources incorporating what we have learned about environmental responsibility in the last 100 years….anything else is just political rhetoric and completely counter productive.
Personally I don’t mind if you keep the barrages….but they must defintely be re engineered and there must be a way to either access/build extra storage (not take it from other areas) or utilise the tidal/estuarine sea water option when we are next faced with low inflows.
The Murray Mouth will not stay put unless it is made to stay put….those type of areas are forever causing problems world wide because the tides and the ocean and the winds like to move them around. Extra flows of fresh water will not stop that from happening.
Sea water can also solve the hyper salinity problems. Despite your assertations otherwise, if managed correctly it is not a contaminant.
Hi Debbie,
It’s easy to say what must be done and it’s easy for you to say what must be done and thank you for, “I can help you out with an EPA for free” I will send that information to the Prime Minister and her Minister, the SA Premier and his Ministers and Craig Knowles and we should expect the work to start straight away!
Well Debbie, IT JUST AIN”T THAT EASY!
And thanks again for, “The environmental impact….particularly to the human environment below lock one… from doing nothing and fluffing around with all these different agendas and wasting everyone’s time and money…..will be a much more devastating impact” but as they have not listened so far I will give them your contacts and you will straighten them out.
Oh once again thanks, “And yes….they will impact the environment and they will cost money…..doesn’t change the fact that it must be done if we are to have positive and progressive and prosperous future” it’s obvious you are experienced in dealing with Governments it really is so pleasing to know you will get it all done.
Your right, “It’s all about ‘trade offs’ and correctly compensating affected areas” the Barrages were built as a tradeoff for Mulwala!
Your wise beyond your years and obviously understand more about the Murray Mouth than anyone else I have ever dealt with and yes I am a sarcastic bastard!
Debbie, in the last two years on behalf of the Lock Zero Group I contacted every Elected Federal Member in Australia, every Shire and Council in Australia and every major media (TV, Radio and Printed) outlet in Australia and am now compiling new contact lists and prior to the next Federal Election will be contacting EVERY candidate who is standing for election and will until then continue to push for answers, please don’t belittle my group we care!
My wife tells me my life should be more than just fighting other people’s battles and I need to spend more time
for me and us, decisions decisions?
Re, “The Murray Mouth will not stay put unless it is made to stay put” but we are not sure just allowing the mouth to be influenced by the tidal prism will achieve this and we can assure seawater will be a contaminant.
Peter,
For goodness sake…you didn’t think I was being sarcastic????
We can run around in circles forever trying to deal with pollies and bureaucrats….the answers are quite simple…..but I was joking….I realise it is not quite that simple…more’s the pity.
ROFL.
Maybe it’s time we stopped playing their stupid political and bureaucratic games? It hasn’t got us anywhere has it?
Your wife is right you know….trying to individually take the world on your shoulders is not a good idea.
Re the seawater….I may have misunderstood….. but isn’t it less saline than the hypersaline areas?
Wouldn’t flushing with seawater at least alleviate some of that problem? Or do you prefer to have it hyper saline? I am confused.
You have definitely misunderstood my comment about the Mouth.
The ocean, the tides and the winds will always try to move it around…..it is a common problem for all communities which settle around river mouths that empty into the ocean….all over Australia and all over the world.
Most of them need to dredge and continually redistribute the shifted sands back into the preferred position.
It’s a trade off thing again.
Those communities want those river mouths to stay put….so they use engineering works to make them stay put.
If it was left up to nature….those tidal estuarine mouths move around…..whether there is fresh water being flushed or not.
Debbie,
Exactly what I thought when Peter said that the lakes were tidal. The Lakes how could they become hyper saline if there is daily tidal movements. I thought lack of movement was the cause of hyper salinity.
I have found a e mail that Peter Marsh sent me 16/04/2009. I met Peter at the first meeting in Goolwa and have supported his ideas for the Lower Lakes. He has ceased this project for personal reasons and I have continued his work.
Dean Brown also pointed out a reality of how Governments worked. He said that they do not get involved in R&D because as he quoted, they are not very good at turning ideas into good products. He said that private enterprise was much better at doing that sort of thing. He also said that by trying to incorporate the wind the wind turbine,electricity generation, desalination plant was making the overall project too complicated. Governments can only handle small bits at a time so it seems and he just felt that trying to dovetail the new technology would not be considered.
Debbie,
I noticed this letter to the editor in one of our local papers.
Lower Lakes Salt Spectre is a Furphy
Differences of opinion about the Lower Lakes can be accepted, but when the facts are ignored the record must be corrected and the “mountains of salt” scare campaign of the environmental lobby is a case in point.
Salt moving through the river system to the Lower Lakes is not ‘deposited’ there, nor can it move upstream to ‘destroy’ the basin, because it is dissolved in the water – a huge amount of water – that flows ‘downhill’ to the Lakes and out through the mouth. What matters is the salt concentration – the salinity level of the water.
In fact, over the last 30 years, average salinity at Morgan has steadily reduced from about 700ECU to about 500ECU – an inconvenient truth for those who want us to believe that salinity is getting worse. The numbers tell the real story.
Even with salinity of 500ECU the Lakes contain half a million tonnes of salt but the water is fresh enough to drink and to irrigate, and when river flows bring water that is even fresher, the salt moves on with the water it is dissolved in; not left behind as some insidious poison.
The “two million tonnes of salt” repeatedly claimed by activists to accumulate annually, is a meaningless furphy designed to intimidate us into agreement with a false argument.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “Re the seawater….I may have misunderstood….. but isn’t it less saline than the hypersaline areas?” yes but if seawater where to invade Lake Alexandrina and the Murray Mouth closed the Lake would become hyper-saline, it all relies on flow!
I agree that if it was seawater (which I totally oppose) there would still need to be enough tidal pressure to keep the mouth open and I am not sure but at times there may not be enough and once the mouth is silted opening it again may require dredging once again massive costs.
There have been many engineering ideas put forward to maintain the River’s mouth but there is unique problems with the movement of water in that area so I am not sure.
Hi Sean,
Are you sure that if there is no out flow from the River Murray the mouth will remain open? Over the past the Murray’s mouth has shifted considerable distances!
Sean, I have known and worked with Dean for close to 50 years and that does not sound something he would say but I would like to see that in writing from him, you have my contacts.
Can you please send me the link to the paper you mentioned to Debbie?
Sean if you can back up (scientifically, “The two million tonnes of salt” repeatedly claimed by activists to accumulate annually, is a meaningless furphy designed to intimidate us into agreement with a false argument” as once I have that information I will desist making the two million tonnes point?
You are still confusing me Peter,
If sea water was allowed in that must mean the mouth is open musn’t it? It can’t get in if the mouth is closed can it?
Also, which paper?
I am also at a loss why you concede that the mouth moves around yet claim that it is because of river flow (or lack thereof) and not for the same reason that every other tidal/estuarine mouth in the world moves around ie because of the ocean, tides and winds.
Re the 2million tonnes of salt, gotta ask the same question, where did you get that info from? It wouldn’t be the same place that claims that 90% of the MDB’s wetlands have been destroyed would it?
Both are exaggerated misquoted furphies.
Hi Debbie,
Re that paper I misread something Sean wrote my apology.
If seawater was given the opportunity to invade Lake Alexandrina yes if the mouth remained open the tide would bring in the seawater but as it is an odd region the mouth could also close as it has done in the past i.e. in times of little or no flow out of the mouth, the tidal movement would not necessarily be enough to keep it open.
Over thousands of years researchers have found that the mouth has shifted I am not sure of the exact distance but it is some miles I believe and I am also not sure of the exact reason. I shall do some checking.
Re, “the 2million tonnes of salt, gotta ask the same question, where did you get that info from?” that is the amount quoted in all of the scientific information I have read, it is also the figure quoted by SA’s Water Department and the MDBA and it don’t believe it is a furphy and re, “It wouldn’t be the same place that claims that 90% of the MDB’s wetlands have been destroyed would it?” NO and I have never said or agreed with that comment or used it at any time so politely get stuffed!
Peter,
You will just have to take my word re Dean Brown as Peter M. had a few meetings with him and even changed his original plan for the Lower Lakes from those meetings and also reading The Walker Report 2002 “The Behaviour and the Future of the River Murray Mouth”. The original plan was to open the Tauwitchere Barrage at high tide and increase the Lakes level by 300 mm. After reading Walkers report the Lakes level would have to be at least 500 mm. The 500 mm level was confirmed at the meeting in Milang when Donna Ferretti S.A. Water Principal Planner spoke about a Seawater EIS “Will the Lakes Remain a Fresh Water System” but for some unknown reason we never received a copy of that talk. Peter you weren’t at the meeting but you did mention to me quite a while ago you were getting a copy from Donna. The other person who spoke on a “Salt Water Estuary” in Goolwa at a Signal Point Group meeting we received information on some of the questions and answers but nothing on his Power Point presentation when I contacted Mike Geddes, I am sorry but I am going on holidays tomorrow.
The problem is no one is allowed to discuss an ALTERNATIVE in S.A. because there has been over $600 million allocated to the S.A. Government by the Commonwealth Govt. and they are going to spend it on their “Fresh Water Policy”. They spent $10 million on Lake Albert and when it didn’t work all Mr. Holmes could say was “At least we tried”. They spread Limestone and Rhye grass on the Goolwa Channel even when they knew that they were going to pump water over the Clayton Regulator and bring it up to pool level 0.75 m. Russell Seaman when I questioned him at Clayton on the cost he didn’t know and still didn’t know a couple of weeks later and then when he quoted that crop dusters hourly rate you knew he wasn’t interested just like Lake Albert. The figure he gave me was a bob cat hourly rate in other words please dont’ bother me.
Hi Sean,
Yes I was told I would get a copy of Donna’s final report though she has now moved on I will follow that up next week and get back to you.
I will also contact Mike next week and follow that up also.
Re, “They spent $10 million on Lake Albert and when it didn’t work all Mr. Holmes could say was “At least we tried” I don’t think they spent that it was some promised money from some time ago I will also follow that up for you.
I will also try to catch up with Russell as he had promised me some information in November so that’s another I will chase next week.
Peter,
While every region in the world has its unique characteristics….no matter where it is or what it is…..they have more in common.
Tidal/estuarine river mouths get moved around by wind and tides.
The upstream river flows do also have influence, especially in floods, but the major factor and much stronger factor is most definitely the oceanic tides and winds.
Communities who have settled in these type of areas world wide have exactly the same issues with their tidal/estuarine river mouths continually wanting to shift around and at other times silt up.
The truth is….human settlement wants them to stay put….oceanic winds and tides love to move them around.
The issue is that your government is trying to pretend that upstream practices which have actually been in operation longer than the works done around the Murray Mouth are somehow completely responsible for the problems occuring there and that it MUST be fixed by upstream giving more water and supplying more storage space based on meaningless long term averages.
The logical conclusion of doing that is the storages will be jammed up with ‘just in case’ water that would be released in Summer/Autumn if it’s needed….which effectively excludes the large area irrgators who need to start accessing water in Spring…AND MOST IMPORTANTLY….will not solve the problems that occured in the drought….because up stream storages are not capable of freshening the Lakes or flushing out the Mouth when inflows are low. When inflows were low…before we built the storages and management infrastructures….the Murray had NO influence on what happened to that mouth….NONE!
The storages and management infrastructure were not built or designed to create flooding events….they were actually built for the opposite reason.
Expecting them to be used to create flooding events is not possible without either severely damaging upstream’s capacity to produce or without doing some highly radical infrastructure alterations.
Salt also does not travel any further upstream than what the tidal flows would take it….as Sean clearly pointed out. It is extremely easy to make a technical decision about how far that would be….From my perspective….Lock 0 looks like one of the most sensible solutions….it may not be perfect but it appears to me that it is a far, far better option than doing nothing and letting SA cop it again next time we have low inflows.
And yes….it is very likely that when the tides and winds decide to try and shift your mouth or silt it up…..you will need to dredge it out if you want to keep it there…..and yes….it costs money….it is a cost that nearly every tidal/estuarine community in the world has learned it must factor in if they want their river mouth to stay static. Quite obviously, the barrages have not been successful in mitigating that problem for the Murray mouth….quite obviously something else needs to be done.
The favoured solution of your government also has enormous costs associated with it, placed on people who have not decided to inhabit and settle a tidal/estuarine river mouth.
I recognise that we all do however bear some responsiblility for the settlement of the Murray Mouth because the governments of the day (State and Federal) definitely encouraged that to happen….the same applies to the settlement of inland Australia. We all bear some responsibility for that as well because it too was encouraged by the governments of the day.
Some mistakes were made in both areas and they need to be fixed.
So far all we’ve managed to do is go round and round in circles playing silly parochial political games…..and spending a lot of money…..and so far not actually solving the real problems.
Also Peter, telling people to get stuffed either politely or impolitely does absolutely nothing to advance your argument or discredit someone else’s.
Shooting the messenger and personal attacks are a political trick.
I do not go there as I would much prefer to actually discuss the issues.
You will gain no reaction at all from me by doing that….other than perhaps I may just start ignoring you altogether as someone who takes things far too personally and is therefore unable to sensibly discuss the issue at hand.
I too am very passionate about the MDB and I too am personally invested in the outcomes of this process….along with numerous of my family and peers and acquaintances.
However….I have never ever seen anything productive occur from being rude to people and dismissing people via personal attacks.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “Salt also does not travel any further upstream than what the tidal flows would take it” correct but without another regulator tidal movement in and out of the mouth if the Barrages were not in place and with wind seiching the salinity would be an influence to Lock 1.
Re the enormous costs in whatever is decided will not just be at the expenses of the SA Government but all of Australia as there Barrages were constructed by the Federal Government.
Points taken but also I am passionate about the Murray Darling Basin not just the Lower River Murray as I have said before the complete Basin needs better management as does the Lower Rover Murray.
[...] are a lot of comments in the thread following my blog post ‘Healthy Country Means Less Water for South Australia’. In that thread Peter R. Smith OAM has claimed that if it weren’t for the barrages Lake [...]