THERE 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 Alexandrina, a terminal coastal lake at the bottom of the Murray Darling catchment, would become hyper-saline. In the same thread Sean Murphy has replied, but Lake Alexandrina was once tidal, so how could it become hyper-saline?
It could become hyper-saline if the Murray’s sea mouth closed over completely, something that engineers warned in 1903 could happen if the barrages were built stopping inflows from the Southern Ocean – stopping the tide.
Soon after Europeans started farming on the shores of Lake Alexandrina they began devising plans to preventing it from becoming salty. The first such plan was presented to the South Australian parliament in 1890. Prepared by the Engineer in Chief Alex B. Moncrieff it proposed the building of a lock on the Goolwa channel and barrages across the other channels to prevent seawater from entering the lake.
Federation, and the 1895-1902 drought, focused the attention of the communities along the River Murray on the need for cooperation if they were to develop the waters of the River Murray. In 1902 the Corowa Water Conservation Conference led to an Interstate Royal Commission with the purposes of “To inquire and report on the conservation and distribution of the Murray and its tributaries for the purpose of irrigation, navigation and water supply.” It was another twelve years before the River Murray Waters Agreement 1915 was ratified which created water sharing principles for New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia including an annual water entitlement for South Australia to be met in equal share by Victoria and New South Wales, and the development of a program of major works including the construction of dams and weirs which the three states and the Commonwealth where to jointly fund.
In the meantime a more substantial plan was developed to prevent Lake Alexandrina becoming salty, as it had during the federation drought. The plan was presented to government in 1903 as a joint report by T.W. Keele the Principal Engineer of Harbors and Rivers of New South Wales, W. Davidson the Inspector-General of Public Works of Victoria and Mr Moncrieff who was still the Engineer in Chief in South Australia.
The report, dubbed, the “Report by Experts” begins with reference to why the best option for securing “the impounding of the fresh water” should involve the blocking of several channels from the lake that converge on the Murray’s sea mouth rather than placing a barrage across the actual sea mouth of the river. The report also explains why the barrages should be placed such that they exclude the Coorong from the Alexandrina lake system because the Coorong represented “an evaporating area of 90 square miles additional to that of the lakes”.
The report details and quantifies the tidal influence through each of the channels relative to a tidal gauge at Milang. The opening between Mundoo and Hindmarsh Islands is referred to as the most direct outlet from the lakes to the sea and with a tide that rises considerably higher than the tide through the Goolwa channel. Different barrage structure were proposed for each of the channels with a permanent earthen wall pithed with stone across Boundary Creek, while for the Goolwa it was proposed a sheet-pile structure be built with a lock large enough for river steamers.
The Report by Experts includes two important warning: that after construction of the barrages the Murray’s mouth would be expected to close over completely; and before erecting the barrages a more regular supply of fresh water from the river would first need to be secured or the lakes would dry-up during periods of drought. These important caveats have been subsequently ignored by state and commonwealth governments and are never referenced in the very many reports published with increasing regularity by the Murray Darling Basin Authority.
**********
Report by experts. The Murray Barrages. August 20, 1903. The Advertiser p. 8 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article4987833
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer,
You will still need Lock Zero and automated gates on the barrage, not just the “Southern Ocean Tides to save the Lower Lakes”.
Hi Jennifer,
I have read your article, “Southern Ocean Tides to save the Lower Lakes” and “The Murray Barrage – Report by Experts” written at and before the turn of the 20th Century and since then much as happened including the finishing of the levies for the Lower Murray Irrigation Swamps and I would venture to say critical human needs, stock water diversions, irrigation and industry diversions have increased by probably 1000% or more. I believe the diversions in 2010 were approximately 21000-Gigalitres.
I would ask a couple of relatively simple questions;
1) Save, “The Lower Lakes” from what and at whose expense?
2) Save the Lower River from salinity, how?
3) Protect all freshwater aquatic life, how?
4) Protect all freshwater reliant plant species, how?
5) Protect all critical human needs water from Lower River Murray off takes, how?
6) Protect all irrigation, stock and industry needs water, how?
7) The last and most important how can the damage by the invasion of seawater be minimised as the Lower River Murray will become a stinking saline mess with the River contaminated by death of flora, fauna and probably the lives of those animal species reliant on water of less than, let’s say 250-300EC?
Thank you Peter.
21,000?
From where and to where and under what rules and circumstances?
1000% or more?
I suspect there is a rather large case of hyperbole operating here.
Peter, did you read the linked report and the warnings contained therein?
Isn’t that almost exactly what happened in the depth of the recent drought?
Peter as far as I’m concerned the bottom end and mouth of the Murray should be returned to its natural state.
Of course compensation will have to be paid to farmers, businesses and employees over a transition period, but this is the only action that makes any sense.
The MDB is subject to droughts and floods and all we can do is build as much storage as possible in the good years to get us through the droughts.
When Sturt reached the Murray mouth in 1830 (?) he found it was completely blocked by sand dunes and they could not drag their boat over the dunes to reach the sea.
Also De Decker has found that rainfall over southern Aust has been reducing over a period of at least 5,000 years and we are currently at a very low point of his graph.
The early to mid holocene was a much wetter period over southern Aust so we know that the climate has changed by a wide margin over the last 10,000 years.
Of course during the previous ice age, more than 11,000+ years ago this area suffered much reduction in rainfall and more desertification.
Here is the Catalyst report on De Deckers 20 year study across southern Australia.
You can pause the graph at about about 8 mins 50 secs to see the very low point we are currently in, but from a very wet period about 1000 years ago.
I’ve seen another graph that shows the period 10K to 5K bp to be much wetter as well.
Just proves the climate changes by extreme degrees naturally without the help of humans.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1848641.htm
There are so many gems of insight within this report. Like this one under ‘A Disquieting Possibility’
“Supposing the barrage to have been erected, if the supply of fresh water is not sufficient to provide for evaporation, the surface level of the lake will fall below that which is now maintained by the influx of the sea, large areas of the foreshore may be left dry, and the remaining submerged areas become little better than salt swamps.”
And again from 1902,
“In view of the experience of the recent drought, there can be no doubt that if the barrage referred to had been erected five years ago it would have required nearly the whole available flow of the river to keep the lakes sweet and open for navigation.”
The ‘whole available flow of the river’. This is exactly what happened in 2009/2010. April 2009 Lake Alexandrina was .9m BELOW sea level and there was only 830 GL of active storage in the MDB. http://www.mdba.gov.au/system/files/weeklyreports/Weekly_Report_29_April_2009.pdf
Being a landholder alongside the Goolwa Channel, I would prefer a guaranteed source of estuarine waters, rather than the acidic dustbowl I faced for over a year under this misguided 1930’s attempt to provide farmers with freshwater out of an estuary.
Here is the PDO index reconstructed over the last 1,000 years, note the incredible cool phase at the start of the graph that lasts for hundreds of years.
Easily explains extreme super droughts on the US and Canadian west coasts and inland over that period.
Just imagine the numerous and extended la ninas and super cyclones that would have developed off Australia’s east coast for hundreds of years and much more rainfall as a consequence.
That last cool phase PDO shown on the right of the graph is our very wet period of floods etc during the 1950’s and 1970’s. Very extreme climate indeed over the last 1,000 years and once again without the help of humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO1000yr.svg
Susan,
Well said.
It is definitely an either/or scenario when supplies are critical….and what was done in 2009/10 to those Lakes was probably not the best option (in hindsight).
It must have been horrible to be subjected to that acidic dustbowl, especially when the winds picked up.
Peter,
No one is arguing that there is not a problem….there most certainly is one.
You do realise don’t you that somehow or other those fresh water species you have mentioned seem to have miraculously survived anyway?
Could that be becuase they are probably far more adaptable than we are and were quite happy to move elsewhere when the drought deepened?
Our natural environment is EPHEMERAL Peter….it doesn’t operate the same way as us.
However, you continue to put up objection after objection, using rather cross purposed arguments that only result in the conclusion that nothing will be done in time for us all to be prepared when the next inevitable dry sequence hits us….except for a silly idea that we can all share empty air space in the storages?????
By your own admission things have changed right accross the basin….we need to update our storage and infrastructure management regimes to cater for that.
The lower Murray has its unique set of problems along with other areas in the MDB.
SA made some mistakes along with the other States.
The solution MUST be a win/win solution that involves smart technical solutions.
While you continue to say things like this:
Murray Irrigation Swamps and I would venture to say critical human needs, stock water diversions, irrigation and industry diversions have increased by probably 1000% or more. I believe the diversions in 2010 were approximately 21000-Gigalitres.
Even if that was somehow arguably correct….it takes no notice of what happened in the MDB in 2010….SA WSP requirements and those lakes and that Murray Mouth have NOT suffered from ANY fresh water shortages since the drought broke.
However, your SA upstream irrigators were denied reasonable access when there was no demonstrable need to do so…..other than some precious (and obviously incorrect) bureaucratic long term average climate models.
What does that tell you?
Neville
Thanks so much for the link to the Catalyst program from which I found Patrick De Deckker’s home page and links to his published papers. See http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/dedeckker_p/pubs/29.pdf .
Thanks again!
Hi Debbie,
Total diversions within the Basin in 1950 were 4000-Gl’s and by 2010 had increased to 21000-Gl’s.
The reference to 1000% was an estimation from between the turn of the 20th century i.e.1900 and 2010>
Re, “Peter, did you read the linked report and the warnings contained therein? Isn’t that almost exactly what happened in the depth of the recent drought?” yes it is but we have to get over what was said in about 1900 and work with today’s situations!
Hi Neville,
Re, “Peter as far as I’m concerned the bottom end and mouth of the Murray should be returned to its natural state” why should and how can it be returned to its natural state when from the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert is totally regulated/un natural?
And re, “Of course compensation will have to be paid to farmers, businesses and employees over a transition period, but this is the only action that makes any sense” who would work out the compensation figures and how much do you put on a like?
I realise the Basin is, “subject to droughts and floods and all we can do is build as much storage as possible in the good years to get us through the droughts’ but that is easier said than done!.
Hi Susan,
Be careful mentioning evaporation as the figures of evaporation from places like Menindee Lakes, Macquarie Marshes and open channel irrigation are frightening.
Re, “Being a landholder alongside the Goolwa Channel, I would prefer a guaranteed source of estuarine waters, rather than the acidic dustbowl I faced for over a year under this misguided 1930′s attempt to provide farmers with freshwater out of an estuary” you may but how many landholders who live and work around Lakes Alexandrina and Albert agree with you. I can now see why you support http://www.lakesneedwaternow.com!
Hi Debbie,
Oh Debbie re, “It must have been horrible to be subjected to that acidic dustbowl, especially when the winds picked up” it was and many of my colleagues have related the horrific problems but none of them want to see seawater invade their Lakes!
Re, “You do realise don’t you that somehow or other those fresh water species you have mentioned seem to have miraculously survived anyway” yes they have but will the flora and fauna survive if the water in the Lower River Murray becomes SALINE?
I cannot believe freshwater turtles, crustations, fish will survive in SALINE water.
I am not putting up, “objection after objection” when are you and others going to REALISE that the first thing we MUST undertake is a proper Impact Statement/Environmental Study of the feasibility of another regulator’ All of this crap from all over Australia is not asking/seeking the right thing and if we all united behind a call for the studies we could get an answer to how/why/when/how much/how long to construct using the back door to critised SA and the SA Government is getting us no where!
And I beg to differ re, “using rather cross purposed arguments that only result in the conclusion that nothing will be done in time for us all to be prepared when the next inevitable dry sequence hits us” rubbish I want the study done yesterday and I have been calling for it for a long time!
Yes you are correct, “By your own admission things have changed right accross the basin….we need to update our storage and infrastructure management regimes to cater for that” but let’s get on with getting answers!
Re, “While you continue to say things like this: Murray Irrigation Swamps and I would venture to say critical human needs, stock water diversions, irrigation and industry diversions have increased by probably 1000% or more. I believe the diversions in 2010 were approximately 21000-Gigalitres. Even if that was somehow arguably correct” I believe that statement is no matter how much un liked is CORRECT though the 1000% is an estimation since prior to 1980’s to 2010.
And what a joke it was, “However, your SA upstream irrigators were denied reasonable access when there was no demonstrable need to do so” yes we were held on a meagre percentage as the flood waters from the North and East flowed by the last irrigators in the Basin to be put back to 100%.
But Peter,
What those figures completely ignore is what was actually happening in the basin.
As you also point out, the only people who were denied access in a season of over supply were upstream SA Irrigators….why was that do you think?
I will also add that large area irrigators upstream in NSW were also denied reasonable access. Their 100% didn’t turn up until it was too late….and this happened when SHL was dumping water into a flooded system on both sides (‘bidgee and Murray)
I think that was extremely wrong….but unfortunately it came about because of the very same figures and principles and rules that you are using to advance your argument.
The 21,000 GL is way over the top of anything remotely attributable to storage, caps and long term averages… If it is correct as you are claiming…it can only mean one thing can’t it?
You realise how much water that is in MLs don’t you????
Someone, somewhere is fudging the figures to make them fit into a pre conceived model and pre conceived rule.
Re the EPA study….I understand it must be done….but it shouldn’t really matter at the end of the day what environmental impact putting in Lock 0 will have….it will of course have some sort of impact….it will still be far preferable to what Susan highlights here and you also concede….and if we do nothing because we’re waiting for some type of political consensus….that’s exactly what you face next time.
It has to be a trade off.
And Peter,
During the drought….didn’t the lower lakes end up HYPER SALINE????? At least sea water will alleviate that won’t it?
And Peter,
The crustaceans and turtles and etc are now back aren’t they?
The same will happen when the tidal/estuarine system changes due to the boom and bust ephemeral environment.
Just like it does in every other similar estuarine/tidal environment.
You don’t have to look very far to understand that.
Your argument about regulation is moot. The river IS regulated…end of story.
We have made some mistakes and the drought has taught us that some of the things we have done are not sustainable….that 1903 report is relevant….it’s almost prophetic!
Don’t you think it would be better to fix the mistakes and stop pretending it is about something else?
Hi Debbie,
What do you mean? “What those figures completely ignore is what was actually happening in the basin” in 2010 the amount of water that was able (I didn’t say it was available) to be diverted was 21,000-Gl’s!
Re, “but unfortunately it came about because of the very same figures and principles and rules that you are using to advance your argument” I beg to differ we were told the yearly allocation had been set and agreed to by all Basin States and could not be changes.
The study HAS TO BE DONE as we don’t know WHERE it can be built and we must ensure the future management of the Lower River Murray downstream of Lock Zero management regulations are set in stone so as not to be changed at whim.
Re, “During the drought….didn’t the lower lakes end up HYPER SALINE????? At least sea water will alleviate that won’t it?” of course they didn’t become HYPER SALINE seawater was not allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina and no seawater will only alleviate that problem if seawater is allowed to invade AND the tidal prism does come in and out to freshen the seawater!
Of course, “The crustaceans and turtles and etc are now back aren’t they?” yes because they have freshwater!
How will, “The same will happen when the tidal/estuarine system changes due to the boom and bust ephemeral environment. Just like it does in every other similar estuarine/tidal environment’ FRESHWATER species survive in saline water?
Re, “Your argument about regulation is moot. The river IS regulated…end of story” I was just making a point to Neville as he stated, “Peter as far as I’m concerned the bottom end and mouth of the Murray should be returned to its natural state” and I know the River Murray can never be returned to its natural state but in SA downstream of Lock 1 should be returned to its natural state.
I get very tired of, “Don’t you think it would be better to fix the mistakes and stop pretending it is about something else?” yes as long as all Basin States are fair contributors’.
As long as all Basin States are fair contributors?
Fair contributors to what?
What’s your definition of fair Peter?
The logical conclusion of what you have advanced over several different blog posts is that SA wants to jam up storages with ‘just in case’ water to be released in Summer/Autumn if needed and then share empty air space in the storages when there isn’t any water available.
I can’t see what is fair about that other than everyone is going to suffer in order to keep the Murray Mouth open with fresh water flushes….when that was clearly not how it happened naturally a good deal of the time.
We also need to remember that the upstream storages were not designed to to what is being advanced, neither were the barrages for that matter. Neither the upstream storages or the barrages were built for ‘the environment’. If everything was left to ‘the environment’ none of us would be able to survive out here or down there at the bottom of the system.
Also…you begged to differ and then said exactly the same thing in a different manner.
It was clearly caused by the entrenched rules, closed mindsets and the blind adherence to them in the face of major flooding that created that problem. It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what was actually occuring right across the basin. There was no plausible realistic excuse to deny your upstream irrigators a reasonable allocation was there?
And the ‘freshwater species’…will move just like they always do. They are not as concerned about keeping everything the same as us humans are.
They moved away from here too when the drought deepened….they’re well and truly back now.
Before the rivers were regulated they had less opportunity to do that than they have now.
It’s not about them….that’s why we’re not solving anything.
They are actually far more adaptable than we are.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “As long as all Basin States are fair contributors? Fair contributors to what? What’s your definition of fair Peter?” what needs to be undertaken and THERE IS NO WAY it would be at SA’s expense. If you read the article JM referred to it was not just SA persons who were consulted!
Once again and I hope the for last time I HAVE NEVER SOUGHT ANY MORE OF STORAGES THAN IS IN THE BASIN STATES AGREEMENT SIGNED LATE LAST YEAR.
And once again and I hope for the last time, “I can’t see what is fair about that other than everyone is going to suffer in order to keep the Murray Mouth open with fresh water flushes….when that was clearly not how it happened naturally a good deal of the time” oh it’s SA’s problem is it?
I also happen to know what upstream storages were designed for and I am asking for no more than the Basin States agreement to be upheld with one proviso, “when it’s not possible” we will accept those consequences with everybody else!
Re, “And the ‘freshwater species’…will move just like they always do” that’s good are you going to teach them to go upstream through Lock 1?
Re, “It was clearly caused by the entrenched rules” no the agreement for space in the storages for all Basin States was only signed last year and all I am is asking that it be adhered to no more no less accept whe we are in dtought and a different set of regulations come into place.
Another gem from the 1902 report:
“The construction of a weir or dam in the tidal compartment of a river has invariably been found to result in the shoaling not only of the portion of the river immediately above the dam, but also below it. In the case under consideration, however, the area of the lakes is so immense that shoaling above the barrage would not be appreciable for a very long period of time. ”
“Below the weirs the effect would be more quickly noticeable, especially as the sandhills which separate the river from the sea below the proposed site for the barrage in the Goolwa channel are drifting badly. During dry periods, when there would be little or no discharge over the weirs, the Murray, mouth would become so shoal as to be unnavigable; indeed, were it not for the long stretch of water in the Coorong which would enable the tide to propagate itself up a distance of many miles, the Murray mouth after the barrage is constructed might be expected to shoal up completely.”
Peter,
Oh Debbie re, “It must have been horrible to be subjected to that acidic dustbowl, especially when the winds picked up” it was and many of my colleagues have related the horrific problems but none of them want to see seawater invade their Lakes.
It would have been appreciated if the EPA had done honest testing on th above. The EPA Dept.
placed a machine in the grounds of the old pumping station at Goolwa to take air samples on a North / South airflow. You wouldn’t guess where they place it, the Southerly intake had the old pump station building bloking the inflow and the Northerly was facing Two story Townhouses on Liverpool Road. We asked them to shift furhter upstream closer to where Currency Creek flows into the Murray River. They didn’t want shift the machine for security reasons. The other big joke was the River runs East to West alongside Liverpool Road even if they put a machine that took readings East to West they would have to put it on the Hindmarsh Island side of the River.
I was STUNNED when the report was released and showed a negative result ( TONGUE IN CHEEK ).
Then as mentioned on the other blog the way they went about using crop dusters to spread limestone and rhye grass into the Goolwa channel when they knew they were going to pump water over the Clayton Regulator and bring it up to pool level of 0.75 m.
Peter,
When a river’s sea mouth closes over in NSW its the business of NSW. So why should the Commonwealth pay to keep the River Murray’s Mouth open when it is in South Australia?
According to the 1903 report Jen cites, the problem of the Murray’s Mouth closing over has been exacerbated by the barrages. At a community meeting to do with the Murray Darling Water plan Water Minister Tony Burke recently said the barrages were the business of South Australia.
To the casual observer it increasingly appears to be the case that South Australia has created a real mess by building those barrages. You have really just speed up evolution of the lakes to a salt marsh. If you had any sense, you would do what we do in NSW and that is maintain a permanent sea entrance through the use of groynes.
You South Australians are probably just waiting for us in NSW and Victoria to design the groyne for you and then offer to pay for it. I mean a groyne to keep the Murray’s sea mouth open. Have you thought of that?
Sean & Susan,
It appears that an acidic dustbowl is preferable to using the sea water option?
The dodgy EPA study and Peter’s comments both indicate that.
Do you know why?
Of course it’s important to protect potable water supplies for established communities, but I was of the belief that would happen with existing pipes and pumping plus consrtucting Lock zero?
Peter?
If SA had not wanted those barrages they would not have been constructed. SA sought Federal assistance and gained it.
It was not a Federal government initiative, it was a SA initiative.
So were those SE drainage works.
Dennis is right you know. Other communities in other States situated on river mouths who have similar issues do not expect everyone else to be responsible. Neither do they pretend that is not the ocean’s doing along with the permanent
constructions they have built around their river mouth.
SA is not the only state which has towns, communities and new development projects around river mouths.
Jennifer,
If as you state, remove the barrages from the channel, what becomes of all that lovely real estate, with their marinas and waterfronts, luxury houses etc. on Hindmarsh Island ?
If the barrages were removed, there would be times the boats in the marinas would be high and dry.
This would upset real estate values drastically.
Maybe I’m just being cynical
Jefft,
Properly managed, that is managed as similar barrier estuaries are managed in NSW, the real estate value would probably increase because the risk of no water disappears.
If some of the millions sloshing about in SA for nonsense projects was instead spent on automating the barrages then the really low tides and really high tides could be avoid and the luxury houses could enjoy a change of scenery and wader bird species with the changing tide while also catching Mulloway and other good eating fish from their jetties depending again on the tide and also the season and moon.
Peter,
According to your website you are the Independent Spokesperson for LOCK ZERO.
May I make a suggestion please start talking about LOCK ZERO instead of everthing else.
LOCK ZERO WE NEED FIRST THEN THE AUTOMATION OF THE BARRAGES. The barrages can still stay until we sought out the rising sea senario which a friend pointed out to me today. There is not one single mention of sea water rise in the latest MDBA reports and no allowance for changes in river flows due to climate change.
A 2008? CSIRO report concludes that a future sea level rise of 0.4m will “ameliorate” the impact of low river flows (and they do not even model a 0.8m rise).
1) Save “The Lower Lakes” from what and at whose expense?
Build Lock Zero. Automate the barrage gates so they can be used to allow sea water to enter the Lower Lakes when they reach 0.2 m AHD and can be closed during the storms e.g theperiod from May, 22, 2011 to early June the majority of the barrage gates were open and as a consequence the volume of saline water intruding was such that it extended past Point Sturt into Lake Alexandrina even though River flows were still high. After this event Save, “The Lower Lakes” from what and at whose expense?
Build Lock Zero and then automate the the number of open gates was reduced to restrict the ingress of sea water during subsequent events. Salt levels in the Goolwa Channel reached 39,000 EC and a fish kill.
Commonwealth Government Funded.
2) Save the Lower River from salinity, how?
Build Lock Zero below Tailem Bend and create a new pool of 0.75 m up to Lock 1
3) Protect all freshwater aquatic life, how?
Encourage them go upstream from Lock Zero or into Currency Creek, Finniss, Angas and Bremer Rivers. Some have already been transferred to water ways in Mt. Barker.
4) Protect all critical human needs water from Lower River Murray off takes, how?
Build Lock Zero. The new potable pipelines have been built around the Lower Lakes.
5) Protect all irrigation, stock and industry needs water, how?
New irrigation pipelines have been built from Jervois to Currency Creek. Segregation has occurred in this area as some farmers have been excluded.
6) The last and most important how can the damage to flora, fauna and probably the lives of those animal species reliant on water of less than, let’s say 250-300EC?
The same way that consideration was given to them back in 1940.
Hi Susan,
Thank you for that gem from a report over 100-years old!
Hi Sean,
Many mistakes were made by many Government Agencies and the consultants let’s hope lessons were learnt.
Hi Dennis,
It is really simple the Barrages were constructed under agreement with the Basin States and the Federal Government and re keeping the mouth open the SA Government has been paying the bill since the dredges were first used.
If the Barrages were removed (heaven forbid) it would then become a Basin States and Federal Government with the MDBA issue.
Re, “what Bourke says doesn’t really bother me’ as he says different things in different States and in SA he signs from another hymn sheet.
Once again SA WAS NOT I REPEAT NOT the sole decision maker when it came to the Barrages and also one of the reasons the Barrages were built was when the Locks were planned there was to be 26 the last one near Wellington. That idea was scrapped and in a trade-off for the construction of the regulator/bridge that created Lake Mulwala the Barrages were constructed.
Re, “You have really just speed up evolution of the lakes to a salt marsh. If you had any sense, you would do what we do in NSW and that is maintain a permanent sea entrance through the use of groyns. You South Australians are probably just waiting for us in NSW and Victoria to design the groyne for you and then offer to pay for it. I mean a groyne to keep the Murray’s sea mouth open. Have you thought of that?” thank you for your knowledgeable input but may I ask have you ever visited the area and do you really understand the problem? If you wish to visit the Lower River Murray I can happily arrange for you to meet the locals.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “It appears that an acidic dustbowl is preferable to using the sea water option? The dodgy EPA study and Peter’s comments both indicate that. Do you know why?” what BS there were many reasons the sea was not allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina and more BS I certainly did not like what was happening and we still have a massive problem with acid level in the lower River Murray irrigated swamps.
Re the construction of the Barrages read the above to Dennis I know you believe that is BS but that’s your call.
Re, “It was not a Federal government initiative, it was a SA initiative” it was a joint decision believing it was bes at the time but as previously stated who would have know how the inland was going to grow and how much water that would require?
Please Debbie try to grasp what I am saying it is not just ‘well let’s build Lock Zero’ studies must be undertaken and they is NO political support for anything regarding Lock Zero, not for the lack of my groups trying.
Re, “Dennis is right you know” etc the River Murray is the biggest River in Australia and the tides/winds along that section of the Southern Ocean are unique, some studies must be undertaken!
Hi Jefft,
Re, your BS and “Maybe I’m just being cynical” or maybe your just being stupid un-Australian.
Hi Jennifer,
I rarely thank you but it is about managing though your comment, “If some of the millions sloshing about in SA for nonsense projects” that is not your call and of course your State Government in Queensland is, I’m sorry I forgot PERFECT!
Thank you again as it seems you no longer wish the Barrages removed but as we have been saying for years, to many to remember, “automating the barrages” though I would point out AGAIN this is not about the Mulloway speak to the professional fishers who work the Lakes, they do not want seawater in the Lakes!
Hi Sean,
My interest is and has been nearly all my life the Lower River Murray and no matter what you think/believe it is not just about Lock Zero it is about Lock Zero/Lake Albert/Up-grading the Barrages do the study about all three!
Your right, “There is not one single mention of sea water rise in the latest MDBA reports and no allowance for changes in river flows due to climate change” and that is disappointing.
Re, “Save “The Lower Lakes” from what and at whose expense?” yes do what has to be done BUT at no stage do we advocate allowing the sea to invade Lake Alexandrina as we believe it is about management but as a last case scenario seawater may be a necessity.
Re, “Build Lock Zero below Tailem Bend and create a new pool of 0.75 m up to Lock 1” there is no need to hold the River above +0.5 if Lock Zero were constructed.
Re, “Protect all freshwater aquatic life, how? Encourage them go upstream from Lock Zero or into Currency Creek, Finniss, Angas and Bremer Rivers. Some have already been transferred to water ways in Mt. Barker” if seawater was allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina regulators would need to be built across all water ways that enter the Lake, and how do you encourage aquatic life to go upstream?
Re, “The same way that consideration was given to them back in 1940” we no longer live in the 1940’s and the story of the River Murray is as I have said before, a two part story, prior to the Weirs/Dams/Locks/Barrages and since the Weirs/Dams/Locks/Barrages were completed.
Peter?
As you said yourself in a previous post. Aquatic wildlife are not stupid. If they don’t like what’s happening where they are, they move. Haven’t you noticed?
You are right, there are 2 different histories and therefore separate circumstances.
What you seem to be missing is that along with other states there have been mistakes and they need to be fixed.
In the process, just like mankind always, always has; we will influence the environment. We mostly do that in a beneficial and positive manner, but not always. Since the MDB constructions were built we have all learned a great deal about being environmentally responsible and we are more than capable of upgrading with that in mind.
Once again, there is no shortage of sensible and practical plans and ideas. What is missing is some political long term vision and political will.
Also Peter, the barrages were a joint initiative BUT it was SA who wanted it to happen. If SA had not wanted them, they would not be there.
And just for some much needed perspective,
This is what the current short term thinking and misguided and parochial ‘environmental politics’ is putting at risk.
http://www.maff.gov.au/media_office/media_releases/media_releases/2012/january/celebrating-australian-farmers-in-2012
http://www.nswic.org.au/pdf/commodity/111230%20-%20Australian%20Commodities%20Dec.pdf
Irrigated Agriculture, right accross the MDB contributes a massive whack of these economic and social benefits….paradoxically it has also created many more opportunities for native flora and fauna to thrive.
We had a crippling drought and for now it is over. We will however have another one.
It would be great if we learnt the real lessons it taught us.
All States…. most definitely including SA….. have exponentially grown and developed and our short sighted governments have not backed that up with water storage, water conservation and water infrastructure upgrades.
The ones we are currently using were mostly built when Australia’s population was only at approx 10 million.
Pretending that it is an environmental disaster caused by irrigated agriculture is just a parochial politcal diversionary tactic that does nothing to solve the problem.
It was caused by short term thinking on the part of both state and federal governments.
Redefining water storages and water management works as ‘environmental resources’ is also completely counter productive. That was NOT why they were built and they are also incapable of doing what they were built for AS WELL AS solving issues downstream when inflows get low.
And BTW…without the management systems that were in place….the lower Murray would have been in far, far worse trouble. Granted is was far from perfect…but once again some perspective would be appreciated.
ALSO….whether you like to admit it or not Peter, SA is demanding that the Murray River is used as a water irrigation and delivery channel in Summer/Autumn. That is a woefully stupid and completely unnatural idea. YOU NEED UPGRADES AND MORE STORAGE IN SA!!!! YOU NEED TO SERIOUSLY RETHINK THE WAY SA RECONFIGURED AND DEVELOPED THOSE LAKES AND THE MURRAY MOUTH!!!! And please don’t tell us it is not possible….anything is possible….look at the engineering marvel those barrages were in their time…built on sand accross a tidal/estuarine system. Hindsight has altered the opinion of them….but how technologically amazing they were….something like that built on a foundation like that in the 1940’s!
The Murray River is a dreadfully inneficient and wasteful method to convey stored water on the upper Murrumbidgee and the Upper Murray to SA….the silly paper transfers from the Northern rivers was also ill advised as the Darling river is also a hopelessly inneficient irrigation channel.
What you seem to be missing is that SA demand effectively excludes traditional and completely sustainable upstream broad acre irrigators , INCLUDING YOUR OWN SA UPSTREAM IRRIGATORS, from gaining access to their water entitlements in Spring….which is when they need to have access. They have even been denied access when you claim there was 21,000GL available…..go figure out that one!
It is most definitely a parochial ‘rob peter to pay paul’ exercise and the silliest part of all is that it will NOT protect those lakes or that mouth when we are next faced with low inflows.
Peter and Others :-
Re, “Build Lock Zero below Tailem Bend and create a new pool of 0.75 m up to Lock 1” there is no need to hold the River above +0.5 if Lock Zero were constructed.
SEAN’S PART THREE VERSION 2012
I was only using 0.75 m because that is what the experts keep saying e.g. Jim Marsh ex Superintendent Goolwa Barrage because all the major pump stations for the town, domestic or industrial come out of this pool into Mannum, Yorke Peninsular, Adelaide, Murray Bridge, Onkaparinga, Tailem Bend, Lower Lakes and Keith and the new irrigation at Jervois. In drier years, like 1982, we supplied up to 90% of Adelaide’s water. Without the Murray and the pipelines that wouldn’t happen. And without the barrages, that water there would not be able to be pumped.
Lock Zero replaces the barrages to form the pool.
2008/2009 Drought period I unfortunately don’t have the Goolwa Channel’s AHD levels until January, 2009 of – 0.78 M AHD with March and April – 0.1034 M AHD ( Oscar W sits on the River Bottom at the wharf ). October, 2009 Lake Alexandrina starts pumping 27 GL into the Goolwa Channel to the height of 0.75 M and because the Lock was allowed to operate through to Easter 2010 it then fell back to -0.059 M AHD. Lake Alexandrina came back to 0.0 M AHD holding 1138.2 GL ( 67.15% ).
PART THREE OF THE WEIRS/LOCK/ETC.
LOCK ZERO IS IN PLACE.
Drought conditions return and Lake Alexandrina reaches 0.2 M AHD.
The automated gates of the barrage are opened and sea water is allowed to flow in.
The Lower Lakes become tidal.
The Floods return as they did in 2010 the automated gates are closed and regulate the flow out
the River Mouth.
During a storm on May, 22, 2011 a majority of the barrage gates were open and as it was a Sunday nobody was working and salt levels reached 39,000 EC.
If the storms return just like this year the automated gates are closed by just pushing a button. On May 22 when spring tides coincided with an intense low pressure system and storm winds to 40 knots. This event caused saline intrusion up past Point Sturt and to Milang and Mulgundawa in Lake Alexandrina. From May22 to July 31 there were 4 similar events but from June 1 the majority of the barrage gates were closed limiting the amount of sea water inflow.
On July 4 there was a “king tide” in Encounter Bay due to a combination of tide, ocean swell and storms and the water level at Reedy Island reached 1.42m AHD and in Encounter Bay sea level would have reached close to the maximum recorded (see plot D). Again only a total of 23 gates were open limiting sea water intrusion further upstream.
Hi Debbie,
I agree re, “What is missing is some political long term vision and political will.”
Re, “Also Peter, the barrages were a joint initiative BUT it was SA who wanted it to happen. If SA had not wanted them, they would not be there” I am not sure about that but we needed a freshwater supply just like NSW and Vic wanted Lake Mulwala!
Re, more storages in SA I repeat it is not that we would not like them but the where is the problem.
I looked at the links, thank you.
Hi Sean,
Can you please think about what I am trying to convey, prior to building a Lock Zero much research must be undertaken!
I can assure you all pumping stations will operate perfectly at +0.5AHD the reason for that level in times of low in flows is why fill back waters and floodplains?
Re, “Lock Zero replaces the barrages to form the pool” we DONOT want the Barrages removed just completely upgraded.
Re, “The automated gates of the barrage are opened and sea water is allowed to flow in. The Lower Lakes become tidal” a LAST RESORT ONLY.
And re, “The Floods return as they did in 2010 the automated gates are closed and regulate the flow out the River Mouth” and Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert are saline from then on as it would being nearly impossible to remove all of the salinity!
Fair dinkum Peter,
what is wrong with with Albert and Alexandrina being salty? If lock zero is built and fresh water is channeled to downstream users why would it matter if the lakes go salty with seawater ? I think that a farm that has fresh water for irrigation supplied from a channel and frontage to a saltwater estuary would be a very attractive prospect.Maybe a few hours farming then a few hours fishing for Flathead or Mulloway would be nice.The main benefit would be that fresh water would not have to be taken away from production for human need in upstream irrigation areas.
With a billion malnourished humans to consider keeping the Lower Lakes artificially fresh seems somewhat indulgent,don’t you think ?
Peter,
Re :- Can you please think about what I am trying to convey, prior to building a Lock Zero much research must be undertaken!
Peter they are not listening to you because they don’t want to just as they treated Peter Marsh and I and others at meetings because were coming up with alternative ideas to their FRESH WATER POLICY. They have over $600 million of Commonwealth money that Mr. X extracted from Penny Wong ( Lower Lakes got their pipelines )and they will continue their Fresh Water policy until the money runs out. The only sniff the sea water got was one meeting with Donna Ferretti S.A. Water Principal Planner Seawater EIS “Will the Lakes Remain a Fresh Water System”. The information that was supposed to be passed on never came, then she was gone.
The only way people with alternative ideas in S.A. is to get help from people from other States.
I do not want to see these figures again :- Goolwa Channel’s salinity peaked at 32,720 EC 18/2/2009 with a S.A. river flow of 35.8 GL/week.
Lake Albert Meningie peaked at 11,680 EC 8/04/2009 river flow 20.6 GL/week.
Lake Alexandrina Milang peaked at 5,930 EC 22/04/2009 river flow 21.3 GL/week. The lowest weekly river flow 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.
Tonight Lake Alexandrina is 545 EC, Lake Albert the 3 stations average, 4829 EC and Goolwa Beacon 20 637 EC.
They also show that similar flooding and automated gates we can get back to similar figures as today as long as they never be allow the Lakes to get below 0.2M AHD again.
Hi Dave,
I suppose depending where you live it does matter whether Lakes Alexandrina and Albert are salty.
It is not just about constructing Lock Zero as I have tried to explain prior to any decision to construct much study and preparation must take place and that includes the management of Lakes Alexandrina, Albert and the Barrages after and if Lock Zero were constructed.
I also suppose that if you irrigated from Lakes Alexandrina and Albert the cost of piped irrigation water as the cost of that water for persons using the piped water has risen by about 60% which makes those business non viable.
And what a sarcastic load of BS, “Maybe a few hours farming then a few hours fishing for Flathead or Mulloway would be nice” it’s, I am sad to say, persons with that attitude, un-Australian, who make life hard for those who are seriously trying to better the region!
Oh really, “The main benefit would be that fresh water would not have to be taken away from production for human need in upstream irrigation areas’ what about thinking about the whole/entire/complete Murray Darling Basin?
I regret I am thinking about continuing to feed Australia with sustainable farming not about, “With a billion malnourished humans to consider keeping the Lower Lakes artificially fresh seems somewhat indulgent, don’t you think” what I really what is to not need this country to import crap from overseas!
Hi Sean,
I know they are not listening but does that mean we stop telling them and Senator Xenophon did not extract any money from anyone that was old promised money which still has not been spent.
Sean re, “The only sniff the sea water got was one meeting with Donna Ferretti S.A. Water Principal Planner Seawater EIS “Will the Lakes Remain a Fresh Water System”” that’s BS it was a study never completed into options and as I said I will follow up on what can be released re that study.
Sean, I know about the figures but if we could get everybody seeking the same outcome and that outcome being to commence those investigations NOW maybe we would get a result!
Peter,
I’m sorry to be so blunt.
While you continue to use the arguments advocated by people who intend to use upstream storages and the hopelessly inneficient Murray river as a system to deliver water to SA in summer/autumn there is nothing ‘sustainable’ about your approach.
You seriously need to pay proper attention to Sean. He is very patiently trying to explain to you that even though you have tried very hard, your approach is not working
Those storages were not built to do what you claim you want. They were built to supply inland Australia with irrigation water so that we could produce food, fibre and other agricultural products in an environment that is not threatened by floods, cyclones or the ocean. The majority of the production occurs in purpose built areas that DO NOT use the rivers as irrigation supply channels.
SA’s storage and infrastructure is not sufficient to ‘sustain’ SA’s development aspirations. Upstream storages and the Murray and Darling rivers in their present format ARE NOT CAPABLE of doing both when inflows are low. We need to do some serious upgrades to our water storage our water conservation and our water management systems, ESPECIALLY in SA!!
If you actually understood the information in those links you would understand what your approach is setting about to endanger.
Hi Debbie,
You can be as blunt as you like and you can continue to talk about the storages and continue the talk BS about what we want in the Lower River Murray and you can continue to tell SA that we need to construct more storages and I will continue to ask not only you but my Government the same questions as to where?
It is not just as easy to say build storages and build Lock Zero but you are just like the rest not listening IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT GET ON AND CONSTRUCT the preliminary work/information seeking must begin FIRST.
You can’t build major infrastructure without PLANS!
Many of my people (for want of a better term) believe with Lock Zero constructed properly the management of the Lower River Murray including Lakes Alexandrina and Albert can be done without having to allow the invasion of seawater into Lake Alexandrina.
And yes the River Murray is, “hopelessly inefficient” method to, “deliver water to SA” or anywhere else but it is all we have so until a better method is put forward it will have to stay which of course will maintain the environment.
Hi Peter,
I have been following all of this with interest and possible if you Guys keep at it we will get to a useful consensus eventually.
But just in response to your last post regarding planning for new storages.
Most of this has been done over many years. There are numerous studies and preliminary engineering assessments for extra storages within the lower MDB.
All that is required is a change of atitude and the political will to cast aside 30 years of radical environmental misinformation regarding water conservation.
Pikey.
Peter,
Re, “Lock Zero replaces the barrages to form the pool” we DONOT want the Barrages removed just completely upgraded.
I have never ever said the barrages must be removed ask Jennifer. I have always said to her that Lock Zero has to be built first then the barrages have to have automated gates and that is in the petition points 2 and 3. The only other thing I mentioned was that point 2 should have that the Lakes weren’t allowed to go below sea level again.
Re, “The automated gates of the barrage are opened and sea water is allowed to flow in. The Lower Lakes become tidal” a LAST RESORT ONLY.
Well what is 0.2 M AHD then, isn’t that a last resort.
And re, “The Floods return as they did in 2010 the automated gates are closed and regulate the flow out the River Mouth” and Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert are saline from then on as it would being nearly impossible to remove all of the salinity!
Well here is another good example of our current barrages at work.
For the last few weeks the various barrages have had approx 8/4/1/3/6 gates open respectively and flows over Lock1 are about 20 GL/d.
Did wonder whether they would have closed some of the gates last Friday due to the predicted spring tides and weather but apparently not.
Salinities increased upstream of all barrages from 500 to a max of 23,000 EC at Ewe Is.
At the HI Bridge salinity increased to 18,000 and water level dropped about 0.5m.
Peter,
Here is a storage idea Peter Marsh has put forward, just remember what Dean Brown told him about Governments.
The Burra Lakes
Allocating 1,200 GL a year to evaporate from the Southern Lakes is an absurd waste of fresh water when salt water would be just as effective at keeping the Murray Mouth open. I also think some of the water allocated for evaporation could be stored elsewhere in S.A. to deliver a large scale reliable water supply, something we haven’t had for many years ( an expansion in water storage capacity I mean).
The Burra lakes ( Apoinga lagoon, Porter lagoon ) south of Burra together can hold around 3,000 GL of water in deep bodies of water. Apoinga lagoon has a surface area of around 50 sq.km and an average depth of around 30 metres. This means that it contains 1,500 GL ( about the same volume as the Southern Lakes ). Evaporation from the South Lakes is around 1.3 metres per annum and given their surface area is 860 sq. km gives the 1,300 GL evaporation Tim Flannery mentioned.
By contrast, Apoinga lagoon with its much smaller surface are would result in only 50 x 1.3 = 65 GL year. This is a tiny amount of water lost to evaporation. It also means that if the lake was filled to capacity in a wet year ( like the current year ) it could be held in reserve for about ten years an by itself could supply Adelaide with the 100 GL that it draws from the Murray several times over.
The only obstacle is the need to build a dam and provide pumping from Morgan up to Apoinga Lagoon. Guess what – the Morgan/Whyalla pipeline runs about 5 km to its north! If we can use the abundant wind resources in the area to drive the pumping for near zero running cost, then the water moved the 50 km from the Murray will not be so valuable that it is too expensive to use again. After all, the pumps already in use from the Murray to Adelaide’s catchment reservoirs seem to do the job economically.
Better still, from the Burra Lakes, water can flow in three directions :
1. Easterly back to the River Murray by existing small creek and channels
2. South-Westerly towards Gawler and thence to our northern suburbs
3. North- Westlery into the Broughton River through Crystal Brook and south of Port Pirie.
And so there are multiple useful options for handling the situation when there is too much water in the system.
Peter,
Sean re, “The only sniff the sea water got was one meeting with Donna Ferretti S.A. Water Principal Planner Seawater EIS “Will the Lakes Remain a Fresh Water System”” that’s BS it was a study never completed into options and as I said I will follow up on what can be released re that study.
It is not BS I attended the meeting held in the Fresh Water Embassy at Milang. Isn’t that a sniff when you don’t here anymore. Maybe there are other reports floating around in the same drawer e.g. Shifting the barrages back to Wellington, Soil tests carried out on the River Murray between Murray Bridge and Wellington when they were considering the temporary weir.
Hi Pikey,
Do you know where those storages may be situated, “Most of this has been done over many years? There are numerous studies and preliminary engineering assessments for extra storages within the lower MDB”?
Re, “Allocating 1,200 GL a year to evaporate from the Southern Lakes” that is a massive exaggeration!
Tim Flannery is wrong!
I know very little about those places but will have a look thank you.
Sean, mentioning shifting the Barrages back to Wellington please give me a break, NO WAY but I will follow up on the soil testing.
Yes Flannery’s figure for evaporation from the Lower Lakes is an exaggeration. I spent a weekend calculating likely rates of evaporation and my findings are here: http://www.mythandthemurray.org/calculating-evaporation-from-the-lower-lakes/ . With a final value considerably less than 1,300 Gl – which is what Flannery was suggesting.
Hi Jennifer,
Thank you for that I will take what you have written into my future calculations but that is close to what my information tells me and that is about 850-Gl’s per annum.
If we use 900-Gl’s as the figure and if Medindee Lakes evaporates 43% (figure quoted) more than Lakes Alexandrina and Albert that puts the evaporation from Menindee at about 1287-Gl’s per annum.
Peter,
Other than the fact that there is also wastage occuring at Menindee….but let’s not also forget the fact that Menindee has not had a history connected to tides and estuarine ecologies… what on earth has it got to do with solving the problems we are discussing?
If you mean we should reconfigure and manage Menindee more efficiently, I think you will find that most sensible, practical people will agree with that. I also know that the MDBA are pushing the NSW State Govt on that one…very hard.
If you are implying that it means we can’t do anything about the problems at the Murray Mouth…I am rather nonplussed???
It looks like you’re implying that because water is wasted via evaporation at Menindee it is therefore perfectly OK to do the same at the Lower Lakes??????
Also…there are no barrages constructed at Menindee designed to keep out the ocean…the issues are not the same.
The natural ephemeral environment at Menindee is having an absolute cracker of a time at the moment.
Strangely that is occuring at EXACTLY the same time as the upstream and downstream irigators having a cracker of a season 🙂
Peter,
I did not say shift the barrages back to Wellington.
A copy of what I said above.
Maybe there are other reports floating around in the same drawer e.g. Shifting the barrages back to Wellington, Soil tests carried out on the River Murray between Murray Bridge and Wellington when they were considering the temporary weir.
I HAVE PUT IT INTO LARGER LETTERS HOPE YOU CAN READ IT PROPERLY THIS TIME.
MAYBE THERE ARE OTHER REPORTS ( other than Donna Ferretti’s ) FLOATING AROUND IN THE SAME DRAWER E.G. SHIFTING THE BARRAGES BACK TO WELLINGTON ( Jim Marsh’s interview 27th. September, 1999 ), SOIL TESTS CARRIED OUT ON THE RIVER MURRAY BETWEEN MURRAY BRIDGE AND WELLINGTON WHEN THEY WERE CONSIDERING THE TEMPORARY WEIR.
GO BACK THROUGH ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS WEB SITE AND SHOW ME WHERE I SAY SHIFT THE BARRAGES OR GET RID OF THE BARRAGES.
THE BARRAGES STAY WHERE THEY ARE AND THEY HAVE TO BE AOTMATED.
The evaporation we worked on was ( EL ) @ 1.3 m/a :-
Lake Albert 185 sq. km 240GL/a
Lake Alexandrina 523 sq. km 680GL/a
( Upper Zone )
Lake Alexandrina 100 sq. km 130GL/a
( Lower Zone )
Goolwa 40 sq. km 52GL/a
Totals 848 sq. km 1,102GL/a
Hi Sean,
I know they are not listening but does that mean we stop telling them and Senator Xenophon did not extract any money from anyone that was old promised money which still has not been spent.
Peter,
My apologies Peter I used the wrong words it should have been “the program was brought forward”
All I know that it was used to build the potable pipelines aroun the Lower Lakes.
Hi Debbie,
Are we on the same planet or ie there something special in the Murrumbidgee water? I am merely pointing out the evaporation from Menindee and it those lakes should be re-engineered and when that plan was on the table the NSW Government shelved it!
It seems upstream of Lock 1 just want to converse about the waste of water from Lakes Alexandrina and Albert.
Really Debbie, “If you are implying that it means we can’t do anything about the problems at the Murray Mouth…I am rather nonplussed?” stop talking BS also like, “It looks like you’re implying that because water is wasted via evaporation at Menindee it is therefore perfectly OK to do the same at the Lower Lakes?”
We know what can be done we just want the talks to begin and if the right outcome eventuates we believe we can manage the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert from Lock Zero keep them fresh and not want any more (than we are entitled to) water!
You may remember I asked you a hypothetical question some time ago, would if the opportunity was available you have allowed seawater to invade Macquarie Marshes I ask the same hypothetical question again, given the opportunity would you take the option of seawater for Menindee Lakes?
And also it has nothing to do with, “Strangely that is occuring at EXACTLY the same time as the upstream and downstream irrigators having a cracker of a season.”
Hi Sean,
I know you didn’t say, “I did not say shift the barrages back to Wellington” but by saying that those dopes in the Eastern States will believe it’s an option, please accept my apology but I am sure you know what I mean!
Peter,
from one “un-Australian” BS artist to another,either I’m not getting your point or you are not getting mine.
Would it hot be possible to channel (not pipe) fresh water to users downstream of the proposed lock zero ?If that were done and seawater allowed into the lower lakes wouldn’t that save 850 or more gigalitres of fresh water from evaporating needlessly? Wouldn’t it be better to use those 850 gigs to produce stuff that feeds,clothes, houses and furnishes peoples needs ?
Peter,
You may also remember that I answered that question.
It is actually a pointless redundant question because it isn’t an option….The only place in the whole MDB where that is an option is at the Murray Mouth.
By all means don’t take that option….but remember the issue needs to be solved without taking productive water from traditional users in perfectly sustainable areas or seriously interfering in their ability to access their water entitlements in a reasonable time frame in Spring when there is no demonstrable need to do so (except in a computer model in a bureaucratic department)
The solution on the table at the moment is doing just that. SA wants to use the upstream storages to store water just in case they might need it in Summer/Autumn. They also want to use the Murray River to deliver that water in a time frame which will actually do more damage to the natural ecology of the lower Murray as it is traditionally quiet and peaceful and experiencing low inflows in that timeframe.
The solution needs to be technical and it needs to be where the problem is occuring.
I’m glad you apologised to Sean…it did indeed appear as if you were claiming he has been advocating the removal of the barrages. I can confirm that he has most certainly not done that.
It would also help if you actually paid closer attention to what he is saying…it is not the same thing you are saying. He also doesn’t call us ‘those dopes in the eastern states’ 🙂
He is focusing on sensible solutions.
And this is just another way to explain what I said:
I am merely pointing out the evaporation from Menindee and it those lakes should be re-engineered and when that plan was on the table the NSW Government shelved it!
It seems upstream of Lock 1 just want to converse about the waste of water from Lakes Alexandrina and Albert.
That is SOOOO not correct….are you not aware of the enormous pressure that the NSW State govt is under over that very issue? It is just as silly as what is going on in SA. You have no argument from me there.
And Peter….it has everything to do with what’s happening at the moment.
We have not learnt the lesson the drought has taught us.
If we believed the current popular, political, parochial arguments and the assumptions in that woefully inadequate Water Act….it shouldn’t be possible for the river wetland environments to be having a cracker of a season right alongside irrigators having 100% of all that over allocation 🙂
According to the Water Act and the political rhetoric emanating from SA, the river is in toxic, hazardous, terminal ill health and it has all been caused by over extraction by irrigation.
Apparently it is also all caused by ‘over allocation’.
And strangely, despite all that flood water…as Sean has repeatedly highlighted, the BIG problem, which is the Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth are still having the same problems with salt invasion….not it seems caused by those dopes in the eastern states…but because of the management of those barrages?
Rather ironic actually.
Hi Dave,
Yes it would be possible to pipe water (preferably directly from the River) un filtered to be used by irrigators and many industries but the point that needs to be made is, it is/would be at an increased cost of about 60% and that makes using it for dairies totally un viable!
As I have said many times, “We know what can be done we just want the talks to begin and if the right outcome eventuates we believe we can manage the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert from Lock Zero keep them fresh and not want/need any more (than we are entitled to) water” is that so hard to believe!
I know nobody other than, thelakesneedwater crowd, who resides, works etc in the regions around Lakes Alexandrina and Albert that want the region to allow seawater in invade their Lakes!
I am all for, “furnishing people’s needs” and I resent being called un-Australian I’ve served my country overseas and paid my dues!
Look on my web site my Motto, “Service is the price you pay for the space you occupy on this earth.”
Dave,
They have already spent $120 million building new potable the pipelines ( 170 kilometres ) around the Lower Lakes from Tailem Bend. The irrigation pipelines from Jervois to Currency Creek has also been completed $94 million from the Governments and around $13 million from the irrigators,
not all farmers are connected to this system. It appears they weren’t included in the $94 million
Government deal. Both Tailem Bend and Jervois pump stations will be above Lock Zero.
Peter,
Well please don’t say I did. I think I have convinced at least some of “those dopes in the Eastern States ” YOUR WORDS NOT MINE to help get Lock Zero and the automated barrage gates that our own State Government refuses to even consider.
The evaporation figures I posted above do you think they are in the ball park ?
Hi Sean,
What I meant was don’t even mention it as there are persons etc upstream of Lock 1 who will start pushing for it to happen, I know it was not your idea.
Re the pipeline from – Jervois to Currency Creek – everyone along or near its route were invited to participate not all took up the option. There had to be a certain number I believe who signed before it was constructed I don’t know what that number was I was told how many but can’t remember. I did see the prospectus at one stage.
Re the evaporation from Lakes Alexandrina and Albert I believe, “Totals 848 sq. km 1,102GL/a” is a little Graham gates from Coorong Council says he believes it is more like about 850-900-Gl’s.
Dave,
Piped water has been available to all the communities below Lock 1 for a couple of years now, ones that used to rely on the Lakes for freshwater. However that water is a lot more expensive than just pumping from the Lakes with the riparian rights that has come with the land surrounding the Lakes.
You’ll notice that the ‘environmentalists’ fighting this the most are dairy and ‘dryland’ farmers from around the Lower Lakes.
For example, I chose not to pay for ‘connection to mains’ water supplied by SA Water. I don’t have anything to irrigate, and rainwater supplies my household needs and the vegie garden.
What some people here don’t seem to get is the fact that a properly functioning estuary, with enough fresh water coming down the river (in the right season) and tidal flows from the sea, will be a much more sustainable environment than trying to keep these mammoth sized likes full of freshwater and ‘healthy’.
The barrages, especially when they are closed all the time, reduce the tidal prism, they disrupt the ‘salt wedge’ between fresh and salt waters, they keep the lakes at an elevated level causing erosion and salinity problems on land. The list goes on.
So far they have not even managed to release water over the barrages to suit the fisherman association since the water is not timed with normal fish reproduction patterns.
Our barrages are not a unique problem. ALL tidal barrages have these effects on the water body they occupy. In other countries like Korea, Japan, England, environmental groups have stopped the building of tidal barrages for environmental consequences, just like those Australia is experiencing now.
Google about ‘estuaries’. There’s a lot of information that makes sense towards the Lower Lakes.
Sean,
Does the $120 million include the pipeline from Jervois pump station to Currency Creek or is that $94 million additional to the $120 million?
Susan,
Can you confirm there is no charge or limit associated with pumping from the lake if you have a riparian right?
How much does it cost for water from the new pipeline?
Jennifer,
$120 million is for the potable pipeline that supplies everyone around the Lower Lakes. Jervois to Currency Creek is $94 million Government plus the irrigators own $13 million.
Jennifer,
A collection of SA Water links; the responsible SA authority, is on this new page, a work in progress. A few links to media articles and some SA water pages.
http://www.lakesneedwater.org/facts/pipelines
Regarding riparian rights, the water pumped from the Lakes IS measured against a water licence attached to the property. A certain volume is allowed to be pumped from the Lake. No extra fee is attached to this water, unlike the SA piped water.
Hi Susan,
Re, “Piped water has been available all the communities below Lock 1 for a couple of years now, ones that used to rely on the Lakes for freshwater” the reason they stopped was not only because the EC rose to over 5000 but even though they still had allocation the water available was crap!
Some years ago when the them premier visited Meningie to announce how he had secured an entitlement for them they mainly answered, “what’s the good of an entitlement if the water is no good, go back to the city you clown.”
Re, “that water is a lot more expensive” you bet it is as I have said people who used to pump from Lake Albert at a total cost per year of about $100K are now paying as much as $160K
Re, “You’ll notice that the ‘environmentalists’ fighting this, the most are dairy and ‘dryland’ farmers from around the Lower Lakes” those who are fighting are not ‘environmentalists’ they are people who make their living in different forms of primary industry and are fighting for their futures.
And Susan, “For example, I chose not to pay for ‘connection to mains’ water supplied by SA Water. I don’t have anything to irrigate, and rainwater supplies my household needs and the vegie garden” THIS ISN’T ABOUT YOU!
Re, “functioning estuary” what is a functioning estuary if not non-potable water if not more BS?
Re, “So far they have not even managed to release water over the barrages to suit the fisherman association since the water is not timed with normal fish reproduction patterns” can you please tell me who these fisherman are as they are not the professional licensed fishermen. Do mean the amateur fishers who follow the BS on http://www.lakesneedwater.org who want seawater, well tell them to fish in the sea.
I am sorry I really don’t care what happens elsewhere.
And yes, “There’s a lot of information that makes sense towards the Lower Lakes” especially from your group!
Hi Jennifer,
Re, “Does the $120 million include the pipeline from Jervois pump station to Currency Creek or is that $94 million additional to the $120 million?” additional!
Re, “How much does it cost for water from the new pipeline?’ around Lake Albert about 60% more than if they pump from the Lake and I will have to check the price from the Jervois pump station.
Re Susan’s comment, “A certain volume is allowed to be pumped from the Lake” but if your access is to Lake Albert the water is no bloody good it is at about 4800EC!
Peter,
Now you’re being rude and dismissive to Susan?
She lives in SA on Lake frontage. Of course she has a right to comment and of course she cares.
You would perhaps do better if you ceased ‘shooting the messenger’ ?
Has it occured to you that your way and your approach may not be the ONLY way?
Also Peter?
You also seem to have forgotten that everything being discussed was caused by a crippling drought.
We need to plan better before the next one hits.
Trying to blame or punish upstream for the drought will not solve the problem.
Peter,
Here is a link to the Southern Fisherman’s Association report from 2010 titled, “Lakes and Coorong Fishery Barrage Operating Strategy – The Commercial Fishing Industry preferred Barrage Operating Strategy to gain optimal ecological benefits of freshwater released into the Coorong Estuary “.
http://www.coorongfishery.com/media/documents/lcf-barrage-operating-strategy.pdf
Hi Debbie,
Yes I am being rude and dismissive of Susan and I will continue to be that way to anyone/group that like http://www.lakesneedwater.org solely focussed on removing the Barrages and allowing seawater to invade Lake Alexandrina!
The lock Zero Group have and I will say it again believe that if Lock Zero were constructed without any more than our (SA’s) share of the Basin’s water we can have the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert managed and remain fresh!
Of course Susan has the right to her view, the view of the minority who work, reside etc in that region so if that is shooting the messenger so be it.
And Debbie how many times must I SAY I am NOT in the blame game re, “Trying to blame or punish upstream for the drought will not solve the problem”.
Hi Susan,
When the President of the, “Lakes and Coorong Fishery” agrees with you that seawater needs to be allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina I MAY change my mind but last time I heard him speak at the public meeting at Murray Bridge he stated that, “If the Barrages are removed the Lakes will become HYPER-SALINE”
Peter,
The S.A. and Commonwealth Governments are the ones that have segregated the farmers from the irrigators as they did when Karlene Mayweld wouldn’t connect a couple of the smaller communities to the original potable pipelines around the Lower Lakes. I e mailed her on the 26th. August,2009 that segregating the community was a disgrace, thank god she changed her mind.
I also e mailed her on the 17th. September,2009 in regards how they were I believe waisting Fresh Water pumping 27 GL out of Lake Alexandrina into the Goolwa Channel and then allowing the Goolwa Barrage to operate from October through to April, 2010. The cost on the Clayton Regulator was supposed to have been around $26 million they could have used that money.
The farmers around the Lakes should have received some assistance towards a dual pipeline being laid at the same time as the potable one. The money could have been provided out of the ten year $610 million Murray Futures Program. e.g. $200M Lower Lakes and Coorong Recovery or The $110M River Industry Renewal or even from the $80 MILLION WATER BUY BACK program.
://www.waterforgood.sa.gov.au/rivers-reservoirs-aquifers/murray-futures/lower-lakes-pipelines/
Peter I say once again it is the two Governments that have segregated the community by providing duel systems for one group and single for the other.
Peter the meetings you attand do you know if they have spent all this money yet ?
Hi Sean,
The provision of the pipelines whilst discussed at many meetings I attended was not subject to our decision for or against it was really just bringing us up to date on what was happening though we did pressure the State Government to construct the pipelines.
If the pipeline to the Meningie area there would have been a necessary to supply bottled water for many critical human needs, this was discussed at length and plans put in place if this was needed.
Re any of that money that was put on the table as far as I know very little or none has been spent and when they talk about funding for projects it is that money it comes from and is not new money.
Is there a problem with the money if it’s old or not new?
Is it because it’s already earmarked for something else?
And Peter,
you have declared on many occasions accross several different blogs that the eastern states and upstream practices are the cause of SA’s problems including the 2 million tonnes of salt.
Also you do not seem to understand the importance of timing of access. If the upstream storages are jammed up with SA water to be released no earlier than December, that effectively excludes upstream irrigators, who are the tradtional owners of that dam space, from being able to irrigate their winter cereal crops and also plan and start watering their summer crops. That actually includes your upstream SA irrigators.
To then claim this is for ‘environmental waterings’ just pushes them further out of access because of the way the WSP works.
It is also nonsensical because Summer/Autumn is not the traditional time for the lower Murray to run strong or to be ‘pulsed’. That will potentially create more harm to the native wetland species and to the river ecology.
The saddest part is that irrigators get locked out even in a season like this one because of those nonsensical, counter productive rules.
If traditional owners of those entitlements can’t gain decent access when there is no demonstrable environmental needs then there is obviously something very wrong with this process.
The ‘environment’ is not in trouble from lack of water, yet the storages are supposedly full of environmental water destined for flood pulses and ‘end of system flows’ which is of course SA lower lakes and the Murray Mouth.
So timing of releases is just as important.
Hi Debbie,
The problem with our elected representatives they make it sound like its new money being made available but it is really money that was promised for one thing and not yet used so there just rebadged it as new money.
Re, “you have declared on many occasions accross several different blogs that the eastern states and upstream practices are the cause of SA’s problems including the 2 million tonnes of salt” that’s BS I have especially in recent months realised and stated many times there must be a no blame scenario but re the 2-millions of salt it does not just appear this side of the border!
I really don’t care, “who are the traditional owners of that dam space” an agreement is now in place between the Basin States re storage and your Government signed it so you will have to live with it or have it repealed, realising it is made up of the water required for as well as other uses critical human use, stock water and permanent plantings water.
I am not one of the people pushing ‘environmental waterings’ though I do understand ‘cultural water’ a little bit more after this morning’s meeting with the Ngarrindjeri. It is water that is required for animals, birds, fish, frogs, crustations during there breeding season and after today’s discussions realise it is nearly impossible to deliver but have a meeting with the Ngarrindjeri again after their meeting with their legal people.
And I have always realised about, “timing of releases.”
Hi Debbie,
Also Debbie I have began getting more support from the Ngarrindjeri for the studies into Lock Zero as their support is very important.
Re the Coorong and Lakes fishery I have just spoken to the Chairman/President and he says NONE of his 36 licensed fisherpersons want the Barrages removed he also tells me the catches have been good and this has been his best Mulloway catch for 15 years.
He also reiterated his previous statement that if the Barrages were removed and we had low inflows the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert would become HYPER-SALINE within two years like the Southern Lagoon of the Coorong.
Another one of your groups’ furphies Peter, ‘hyper-saline in two years’ refers to a very limited anaylsis done where by the scientific assumptions made were only to let in enough water to have a thin layer of seawater then let it sit in the Lakes for two years behind closed barrages gates. There has been no publicly published analysis of what would happen if the barrages were opened and a tidal estuary allowed to re-establish itself.
Secondly, here is the report for the 2009/2010 economic catch of the Lakes and Coorong Fishery
http://www.econsearch.com.au/media/Documents/Fishing/200910%20Preliminary%20Economic%20Indicators/Lakes%20and%20Coorong_Preliminary%20Indicators_10.pdf
I’m glad the fishers are getting mulloway, everybody knows they are more plentiful after a big flood of fresh water.
But this report listed above, it shows $646,000 in carp harvested in 09/10. An easy cash cow if ever I saw one. Apparently the carp are so thick that windsurfers are reportedly bumping into them.
Hi Susan,
I now have to make my decision as to who I take my information from and whose point I follow and I regret I will always oppose the Barrages being anything other than completely upgraded and never removed.
I really don’t think professional fisherpersons really care what they catch as long as they make a living and during the winter Redfin were plentiful as well as Callop and the Coorong fishery is or was catching good catches of Coorong Mullet so I believe the fishery is healthy so whilst we will still pushing for studies into Lock Zero, upgrading the Barrages and remedial work in Lake Albert we will oppose the invasion of seawater!
Peter
Rather than choosing who to take information from you would be best to read everything from everyone without prejudice… at least in the first instance.
Be sceptical of everything you read always on the lookout for evidence as opposed to an invented narrative.
And avoid having a predetermined idea of what your final position will be… keep an open mind, be prepared to be surprised.
Peter,
Go to :-
http://www.lakesneedwater.org/facts/pipelines
Click on
1. “Dairy Farmers Welcome Pipeline 2008
2. “Farmers Struggle Under Rising Water Cost 2011”
3. “Jervois To Langhorne Creek”
It definitely shows that if you live on the Eastern side of Lake Alexandrina and around Lake Albert you chosen the wrong side to live. I call it segregation by Governments and that should not happen and it should be rectified just as it was done with the potable piplines. Let’s call it
“The $190 Million River Industry Renewal and Water Buy Back Program” and use the $110M River Industry Renewal and the $80 MILLION WATER BUY BACK programs to fund it.
The Industry Renewal are the Farmers and Dairy Farmers and buy back the water they use to get from Lake Alexandrina and Albert.
Peter,
Jen’s picked that rather well,
You have a predetermined idea and you will use invented narrative to support it.
It doesn’t seem to matter at all to you whether you argue from an ‘environmental’ standpoint and use unsubstantiated evidence up or a ‘parochial’ standpoint and use unsubstantiated evidence. The only consistency to all of it is that you keep ‘your patch’ safe from the invasion of new rules and the horrid thought that it may be a good idea to use sea water instead of exposing people to an acidic dustbowl next time we are faced with critical low inflows.
Also…From your own words in several posts….this is very UN Australian of you….
“I really don’t care, “who are the traditional owners of that dam space” an agreement is now in place between the Basin States re storage and your Government signed it so you will have to live with it or have it repealed, realising it is made up of the water required for as well as other uses critical human use, stock water and permanent plantings water.”
So as long as you get what you want you don’t care that the rules are working at cross purposes to each other and people are being unnecessarily disenfranchised?
You don’t care that upstream irrigators (including SA upstream irrigators) end up being denied access to their allocations even in seasons like the ones we are having now?
You think that is perfectly acceptable even though at present there is no shortage of water for the lower Murray?
It is also a very strange thing to say when you next then talk about ‘cultural water’ and the Ngarrindjeri.
That argument is definitely bi polar….aren’t you claiming that they are ‘traditional owners’ of a classification of ‘cultural water’?
Which … ironically… will be stored in ‘dam space’ which for our first Australians was not traditional or part of their culture at all 🙂
Once again…as Jen points out…invented narrative designed to achieve a predetermined idea.
Hi Jennifer,
You are of course right and I do read widely and I am sceptical of much I read as much comes from sources with their own (like me) own point of view and even different academics have different slants often it seems because of the source of the information or the source of their financing.
I also agree I have predetermined/preconceived ideas and should keep an open mind.
If it is possible to have an open (without Government slanted questions with answers prior to the questions being asked) inquiry/study/impact study undertaken into the Barrages and there total upgrade and Lock Zero I WILL accept the decision/outcome.
Hi Debbie,
Yes Debbie JM was right I do, “You have a predetermined idea” that is correct the same as you about what should happen in the Lower River Murray and as I wrote to JM, after, “an open (without Government slanted questions with answers prior to the questions being asked) inquiry/study/impact study undertaken into the Barrages and there total upgrade and Lock Zero I WILL accept the decision/outcome” but I completely refute, “and you will use invented narrative to support it” where was the invented narrative?
ONCE AGAIN for the umpteenth time, “It doesn’t seem to matter at all to you whether you argue from an ‘environmental’ standpoint and use unsubstantiated evidence up or a ‘parochial’ standpoint and use unsubstantiated evidence” whilst the environment is important the health of the Basin is number 1!
And of course, “The only consistency to all of it is that you keep ‘your patch’ safe from the invasion of new rules and the horrid thought that it may be a good idea to use sea water instead of exposing people to an acidic dustbowl next time we are faced with critical low inflows” more BS from the Eastern States give us a proper study with an outcome and we will when shown the results abide by the rules!
More BS from Debbie, “Also…From your own words in several posts….this is very UN Australian of you….” Why un-Australian when ALL I want is the right study not one that those upstream of Lock 1 know will suit them it is about finding out scientifically/economically is the best for the BASIN the entire BASIN not this crap about the Northern and Southern Basin a terminology invented in the last decade.
Oh Debbie, “So as long as you get what you want you don’t care that the rules are working at cross purposes to each other and people are being unnecessarily disenfranchised” I had nothing to do with the agreement but obviously it was seen as a more fair way of ensuring equal water availability.
I am always interested in allocations and believe that they should not be subject to political interference for political gain. Lakes Alexandrina and Albert have always since the Barrages were constructed one of SA’s storages.
As I previously stated the Ngarrindjeri are stakeholders as yes, ‘traditional owners’ and as the MDBA Plan mentions them they must be considered.
As for, “Which … ironically… will be stored in ‘dam space’ which for our first Australians was not traditional or part of their culture at all” no it won’t because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to supply, ‘cultural water’ during drought and it is such a small amount in certain places that unless the level below Lock 1 was at, at least, +0.5AHD would as I just said would be IMPOSSIBLE to supply.
And again I use what information I can glean from whatever source it is not, “invented narrative!”
I’m sorry Peter???
When did anyone say there shouldn’t be some studies done?
We all agree with that.
Also….point of order….you are projecting.
I have not noticed anyone else completely holding to a predetermined idea about the lower lakes.
Every single person here recognises there are problems and we all also know that the drought completely highlighted what those problems were.
It appears you are ‘projecting’ with your accusation here:
Yes Debbie JM was right I do, “You have a predetermined idea” that is correct the same as you about what should happen in the Lower River Murray
Most people here are asking for the seawater option to be looked at and why they think it should be looked at.
Most people here also recognise those barrages have survived way beyond their ‘use by’ date. They need some serious attention and some proper attention needs to be paid to how that area can avoid being exposed to those acid sulphate soils next time we’re in critical low inflows….WITHOUT endangering SA’s critical fresh water supplies and WITHOUT unnecessarily impacting upstream storages when there is no demonstrable need to do so….such as in a season like this one.
Most people here do not like the bi polar ‘environmental arguments’ emanating from the ACF and the SA government. They are just muddying up the waters and not solving the real issues you are facing at the bottom of the system.
Just because people care and wish to offer their ideas does not mean they are completely set in their positions or even completely opposed to your position.
This is a forum to discuss ideas.
They should not be treated as ‘dopes’ or accused of being ‘un Australian’ or accused of not caring about the basin’s health or numerous other fanciful invented narratives that are being used by the political agenda….and apparently by you????
Peter and others,
I have just found and read the prospectus on the Jervois to Currency Creek pipline. Clem Mason, Thursday, 23rd. March, 2008 was sold a puppy.
Refer to :-
http://www.lakesneedwater.org/facts/pipelines
Click on
1. “Dairy Farmers Welcome Pipeline 2008
It would be interesting to see what the varios proposals were.
The Eastern side of Lake Alexandrina and around Lake Albert have definitely been segregated from the others of the Lower Lakes by the Governments.
Peter maybe we can get some help from the people in the Eastern States as I have been trying to get help with Lock Zero and the automation of the Goolwa Barrages.
Hi Debbie,
The Lock Zero certainly do have a ‘predetermined’ opinion we believe that if Lock Zero were to go ahead and the Barrages were completely upgraded and automated and with the correct management and no more water than SA is entitled to there will be no need to allow seawater into Lake Alexandrina!
I like, “Every single person here recognises there are problems and we all also know that the drought completely highlighted what those problems were” agree we just differ in how the problem can be solved, but unlike the, “Every single person here” this is my patch give us some local knowledge credit, as I have said many times anyone who wishes to visit the area will be afforded the courtesy of a guided tour and the right people to speak to.
Re, “Most people here are asking for the seawater option to be looked at and why they think it should be looked at” and the, “most people” should ensure they have the knowledge to seek that!
You like to refer to, “most people” you know what I feel about most of the most people!
The ACF do not rate a place at the table in my opinion and as for the SA Government they are well aware of my thoughts.
This about the ‘BASIN’ and any beliefs that do not only consider the ENTIRE BASIN are in my opinionun-Australia!
Peter, Of course you will need to let the Southern Ocean into Lake Alexandrina when there is drought. Otherwise it will dried up. Also, after all these years the mulloway fishery should be resurrected.
Di Dennis,
What a load of crap we believe that if Lock Zero were constructed and with the proper management and without MORE WATER THAN OUR ENTITLEMENT after the Barrages are totally upgraded and computerised there will be no need to allow seawater to invade Lake Alexandrina.
And you obviously have not been ready my contributions, “Re the Coorong and Lakes fishery I have just spoken to the Chairman/President and he says NONE of his 33 licensed fisherpersons who hold 36 licenses want the Barrages removed he also tells me the catches have been good and this has been his best Mulloway catch for 15 years.
He also reiterated his previous statement that if the Barrages were removed and we had low inflows the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert would become HYPER-SALINE within two years like the Southern Lagoon of the Coorong.
This isn’t about fishing, “after all these years the mulloway fishery should be resurrected” who says so or who do you know who says so?
Peter,
You can’t say you care about the health of the ENTIRE BASIN in one post and then claim you don’t care about those who are being unnecessarily disenfranchised in good seasons in the next post…or vice versa.
Well I suppose you can….but it does not add up.
Of course your local knowledge needs to be given credit…but so does Susan’s and Sean’s doesn’t it? They are locals and personally invested as well are they not?
Also…despite your claims otherwise, the health of the ENTIRE BASIN does not depend solely on your patch. That does not mean your patch is unimportant.
If it did, the ENTIRE BASIN would be in the same pickle that you are in.
I would agree that the ENTIRE BASIN suffered from water shortages and economic hardships during the drought. I would also agree that all state governments have encouraged development and failed to correctly back it up with sufficient water storage and conservation. I would also add that SA is probably the guiltiest party in that regard because SA relied way too heavily on long term average excess inflows….which of course disappear when we are in drought cycles.
You’re claiming here:
Lakes Alexandrina and Albert have always since the Barrages were constructed one of SA’s storages.
that those lakes are being used as storage facilities but you have loudly claimed so many times that SA is the most efficient user of water..?????? You must of course be kidding?
You have also conceded that the evaporation losses are in the vicinity of at least 800 to 900 GL…even though there are many other cedible reports putting that figure over 1000GL…and yes I know, Menindee’s figures are in the same ball park….so that’s incredibly inefficient as well. It doesn’t make your figures look any better or worse….what’s been going on at Menindee is almost as bi polar as what’s been going on down there….almost….because there was not another option at Menindee once supplies went critical.
Your definition of the health of the ENTIRE BASIN is also starting to look like a continually moving target.
What do you actually mean by that?
I agree it isn’t just about fishing, I agree it shouldn’t be just about the environment….but to capitalise the comment so many times….it might help if you supply your definition of what the health of the ENTIRE BASIN actually is???
Every time someone tries to comment on that one (myself included) you’re very quick to tell them it is crap or BS.
Peter
Some times it doesn’t matter who did or didn’t say something… some things are true despite everyone saying the opposite. What Denis wrote about the mulloway is just true even if you haven’t heard it said by a commercial fisherman in South Australia.
Hi Debbie,
Oh Debbie, why oh why don’t you listen or understand what I am saying and of course, “the health of the ENTIRE BASIN does not depend solely on your patch” but I can assure you if one’s patch or region is not healthy then the entire Basin is not healthy.
And, “If it did, the ENTIRE BASIN would be in the same pickle that you are in” I’m not in a pickle we are just trying to sort out what has to be done in what order!
I can’t agree that, “I would also add that SA is probably the guiltiest party in that regard because SA relied way too heavily on long term average excess inflows….which of course disappear when we are in drought cycles” and without blaming, accept Governments of all persuasions, WE are using to much of the natural resource, water, and need an entirely new management regime.
Re, “You’re claiming here: Lakes Alexandrina and Albert have always since the Barrages were constructed one of SA’s storages.
From State Parliament 17th August 1983, “The Government has not come to grips or realised the importance of those Lakes to the security of the water supply to metropolitan Adelaide”.
And yes, “That those lakes are being used as storage facilities but you have loudly claimed so many times that SA is the most efficient user of water..?????? You must of course be kidding?” no I’m not kidding and they are very inefficient as are many storages within the Basin.
Alright I try to no longer mention fishing as long as the rest of persons contributing do the same, that’s fine and the health of the entire Basin is exactly that the health of the entire Basin, not this rubbish about North and South it’s one BASIN.
Hi Jennifer,
I just promised not to mention fishing again but what the professional fishermen are saying is true they do not want the commercial fishery re-established ie, they do not want seawater to invade the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert they agree the Barrages have to be totally upgraded but no seawater and I regret I agree with them because I believe they are right!
Let me help you with my definition:
A healthy basin is a basin where all communities and their surrounding environment can thrive and prosper.
Our governments need to recognise that our water storage and conservation systems have not coped with the recent drought and stop pretending that the problem was caused by something else.
The natural ephemeral environment has just proved in a spectacular fashion that it was not in trouble. It is in fact the human environment and the human water dependant assets that need help from government.
To create a healthy basin for future generations we need to upgrade our water storage and water conservation and infrastructure as well as fix up some of the mistakes that have been made.
Redefining the community water storages as environmental resources is not going to create a healthy basin for anyone or anything. It will just waste water.
Hi Debbie,
Thanks Debbie I really love mother-hood statements sound good don’t really say much but usually give the person a warm fuzzy feeling!
I especially like, “A healthy basin is a basin where all communities and their surrounding environment can thrive and prosper” the optimum word being all.
For the Lower River Murray, “communities and their surrounding environment can thrive and prosper” we, the Lower River Murray communities need to be listened to have our investigations and if the Lock Zero investigation is done successfully we will get a reliable outcome, one of two outcomes.
Scenario 1) Build Lock Zero upgrade the Barrages and with proper management we should be able to manage the
Lower River Murray and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert maintained with fresh water.
Scenario 2) Don’t build Lock Zero but upgrade the Barrages and watch the Lower River Murray suffer as it did
during drought.
Scenario 3) Don’t Build Lock Zero let the seawater into Lakes Alexandrina, Albert and the Lower River Murray
and the State can slowly become a basket case.
Re, “To create a healthy basin for future generations we need to upgrade our water storage and water conservation and infrastructure as well as fix up some of the mistakes that have been made” OK you win can you please exert enough pressure on the Federal Government and the Basin State Governments especially the South Australian Government to get the appropriate storages constructed in SA?
Re, “Redefining the community water storages as environmental resources is not going to create a healthy basin for anyone or anything. It will just waste water” OK we don’t need environmental storages as long as we can produce what needs to be produced with the Basin’s water we should be right at least until this and maybe the next generation are all dead!
Debbie, you have helped me come to the conclusion I have come to I must just be selfish thinking about this country’s future!
Good grief Peter,
This and maybe the next generation are dead? What on earth are you talking about? Dead from what exactly?
Peter,
why is build Lock Zero AND let seawater into the lower lakes not in your list of scenarios ?That could allow 800 or so gigalitres of fresh water to be used to produce things people eat,drink or wear instead of evaporating needlessly.If what Jennifer and others have said is right it could also lead to a healthier environment.
Surely it would be better to use the money earmarked for buybacks to build Lock Zero and get fresh water to the downstream users at a reasonable cost,wouldn’t it ?
Hi Debbie,
I was making a comment, tongue in cheek as we need the Lower River Murray to remain fresh water for SA’s potable water supply. Without that unless SA spends billions of dollars and I mean billions, on what you tell us we need, massive storages, upgrading the Barrages and then if sea water was to be allowed to invade the Lower River Murray, Lock Zero. The time frame would be decades to carry out the infrastructure construction and as I reiterate billions of dollars and the costs would be high for AS to manage!
Hi Dave,
You have not been understanding what I have said re, “Why is build Lock Zero AND let seawater into the lower lakes not in your list of scenarios” because we are of the belief we can, if Lock Zero was constructed and the Barrages upgraded, the Lower Murray and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert can be managed without the need for sea water invasion.
Re, “That could allow 800 or so gigalitres of fresh water to be used to produce things people eat, drink or wear instead of evaporating needlessly” yes we could use that x-mount of gigalitres below Lock 1 for the same reason.
Re, (sorry Jennifer) “If what Jennifer and others have said is right it could also lead to a healthier environment”
JM is not always right and in this case we believe she is wrong and Debbie keeps telling us the environment id healthy and I agree with her.
If YOU can convince the Federal Government to spend some of its money promised for the Basin for the Impact Statements/Studies to find out what is best that would be great.
And re, “Surely it would be better to use the money earmarked for buybacks to build Lock Zero and get fresh water to the downstream users at a reasonable cost, wouldn’t it” maybe but we still believe what we want can be achieved.
Peter,
Why 3 senarios ?
Are you starting too see the big picture ?
Dave what do think ?
1. Build Lock Zero
This creates a new pool of 0.75 M between Lock Zero and D/S Lock 1. The new pool level
will eliminate the damage the Lower River Murray suffered during the drought.
2. Re-Engineer the barrage gates
The Barrage gates to be a automated system and with proper management be able to control the water levels of Lakes Alexandrina and Albert.
3. Drought Lake Level a minimum of 0.15 M AHD
The Lower Lakes when they reach 0.15 M AHD the gates to be opened and allow sea water in. Gates during this period to control the tidal and water conditions in Lakes Alexandrina and Albert.
The only other thing we have to correct now is the segregation shown by the both Governments to the people who live on the Eastern side of Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert it appears they have not been entitled to a share of the $94 million for the irrigation pipeline. The media release appears to be a Clayton One :-
Minister Mayweld “delivering secure potable and irrigation water supplies to the local communities that previously needed to draw water directly from the Lower Lakes”.
Penny Wong says the new irrigation pipeline ( refer to the attachment ) irrigation industries and communities around the Lower Lakes. Minister Caica adds his little bit “This is a very important agricultural region for the economy of this state, including the dairy and wine industries”.
Hi Sean,
Re, “Why 3 senarios” and “Are you starting too see the big picture” why three scenarios because they are the three that at this time are being put forward and re seeing the big picture I have always seen what you call the ‘big picture’ if very one did the same we would all be looking at what should be done and not just talking about it.
Why do we need to keep the pool level at 0.75 AHD when +0.5-AHD will be sufficient and that is because of using Lock Zero to pulse water into Lake Alexandrina.
Yes, upgrade/re-engineer the Barrages but why not keep Lake Alexandrina at +0.6-AHD at all times by using Lock Zero to pulse water into Alexandrina.
Why let seawater into Lake Alexandrina if seawater is going to be allowed to invade Lakes Alexandrian and Albert why do we need the Barrages because the seawater is in the Lake it will be neigh impossible to get rid of it or at least all of it?
What’s this crap about segregation people had the choice if they wanted to be connected to the pipelines they made their decisions’ about their water supply.
WHY DO WE NEED TO ALLOW SEAWATER INTO THE LAKES?
Sean,
But what about the estuary? What about the return of the mulloway? What about providing conditions for seagrass to grow within Lake Alexandrina?
Do you not care about the natural environment?
Peter?
You agree with me? Methinks you are being a little duplicitous here.
What I keep telling you is that the natural Australian Ephemeral wetland environment was not in trouble as the recent breaking of the drought has dramatically proved throughout the entire basin (except it seems in SA, especially the Coorong).
The ‘environment’ that needs asisstance is in fact the human environment and human water dependent assets. That one is extremely unhealthy and in desperate need of assisstance and upgrading.
The basic assumptions in The Water Act and therefore the MDBP have proved to be demonstrably incorrect yet we still have our Federal and State Govts whining about a non problem and wasting time and water resources and $millions of tax payer money pretending to fix a non problem.
There are in fact $billions available for the MDB but we are seeing some incredible short term thinking and some woeful parochial political agendas all vieing for that money with the view that it can all be fixed by flushing water out to sea from the upstream storages. That is NOT a good plan and it will also not rescue those Lakes when we next go into a run of low inflows.
There are plenty of designs and plans to fix this problem but there is NO POLITICAL WILL to do so. The pollies are pretending it is all too hard and too expensive and too complicated.
It isn’t actually rocket science you know.
Also….despite your strange questions and your view of sea water as some type of dangerous conaminant….it is actually an option that SA has that no other place in the basin has.
As long as potable fresh water supplies are protected and as long as people are not strangely excluded as Sean has highlighted….maybe that is a smart solution? After all, the very bottom of the system is naturally a tidal/estaurine environment. It has been seriously interfered with and maybe in hindsight it has not delivered on its promises? And yes I know…the whole system has been changed…..but most of it is far more sustainable, even in a drought, than what happened in SA. That’s because MOST OF IT does not try and pretend that the River is an irrigation delivery channel.
There are plenty of places for fresh water flora and fauna to flourish, many upstream areas have created whole new opportunities for them to flourish. Especially the birds….which much of the underpinning legislation is tied to…such as Ramsar.
I also have to take issue with this one:
yes we could use that x-mount of gigalitres below Lock 1 for the same reason.
I would have to say extremely strongly that you DO NOT have the efficient delivery system or storage system to do that at the present time. You can only do that by taking water through the incredibly innefficient Murray River via the upstream storages. It would also require confiscating water from efficient upstream irrigation diversion systems. If SA would like to do that below Lock 1 then SA needs to be honest about that and request the building of the necessary infrastructure and storage that would be required to do it. Trying to do it by filling up those lakes with fresh water when there are NO EXCESS INFLOWS AVAILABLE is NOT efficient and NOT sustainable.
Also Peter….most of what has been argued is based on meaningless long term averages and your own upstream SA irrigators are also being unnecessarily impacted even in seasons of plenty…it is just plain ridiculous! As the petition states clearly, despite dire predictions, most of the MDB is in fact in reasonable shape….even though we have just been through a crippling drought.
It’s because the assumptions and the modelling are not based in reality. The supposed independent MDBA is hamstrung by the legislation and therefore not able to deliver what all of us really need.
BTW…except for being sarcastic about my definition of a healthy ENTIRE BASIN I did specifically notice you did not supply one….yours was still specifically about ‘your patch’.
So do you still agree with me?
Hi Jennifer,
May I answer your questions to Sean, thank you? The estuary IS NOT important in the scheme of things. This is not about the Mulloway fishery, ask the fishermen who work the Coorong and Lakes fishery. If you are worried about a fishery start worrying about one close to your home, Gladstone Harbour. As for the environment I care about it especially in the Lower River Murray but most of the population upstream of Lock 1 neither care about it or understand below Lock 1 – the Lower River Murray.
Hi Debbie,
Firstly I know the wetland environment was not in trouble and is not in trouble.
The environment that needs assistance, the human environment, does yes need, “assistance and upgrading” but the process must be done correctly.
The 2007 Water Act is a mess and it MUST be changed to provide what it is supposed to not put restrictions in our path.
One day you may stop accusing us of having, “the view that it can all be fixed by flushing water out to sea from the upstream storages” I mean let’s face it you are the one pushing that barrow!
IF and it is a big IF Lock Zero were constructed and the Barrages receive a total upgrade as I HAVE SAID SO MANY TIMES we believe we can manage the Lower Rover Murray and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert successfully.
Debbie re, “It isn’t actually rocket science you know” but before trying to fix the problems in the Lower River Murray you have to understand the Lower River Murray and I am sorry that lets you out and also probably 95% of all Australians.
And one day you may be able to work out, “sea water as some type of dangerous contaminant” it certainly is to freshwater and of course, “it is actually an option that SA has that no other place in the basin has” as I have already just stated, “probably 95% of Australians” don’t understand the Lower River Murray!
Re what Sean and I have said of course you understand probably don’t you?
By, “That’s because MOST OF IT does not try and pretend that the River is an irrigation delivery channel” do you mean you don’t in any way use a River to deliver your water before transferring the irrigation water to your inefficient channel system? Also if you can supply us a more efficient method of moving water down the River Murray I sure would be interested as I am sure millions of others would be interested.
Yes, the Lower River Murray, “has been seriously interfered with and maybe in hindsight it has not delivered on its promises” no the River did not make any promises man did that!
I think I already covered, “That’s because MOST OF IT does not try and pretend that the River is an irrigation delivery channel”.
You take issue with, “yes we could use that x-mount of gigalitres below Lock 1 for the same reason” are not our irrigators entitled to their water on their licenses now whose being selfish are your licenses better than theirs? .
Hell it certainly is easy to blame the River Murray for the way it delivers our water, our water for no matter what reason even keeping people and stock alive etc.
Re your other diatribe and that petition which is an attack on SA by people who don’t understand or know the Lower River Murray.
Of the over 220 that have signed the petition only THREE (3) live in the region the petition is about, that’s less than 1.5%.
Re the MDBA I partly agree, “The supposed independent MDBA is hamstrung by the legislation and therefore not able to deliver what all of us really need” but if the MDBA is a political appointment it will never be INDEPENDENT!
I know what a healthy Basin means, thank you and its DOES NOT FOCUS ON MY PATCH.
Peter,
Those 800 or so gigalitres can’t be used to grow anything at all if they are evaporated from the surface of the Lower Lakes,can they ?
Peter,
Why do we need to keep the pool level at 0.75 AHD ?
Because that is level the S.A. Govt. has the barrage operating at and the DNA raised it to that level on the completion of the Clayton Regulator and the Alexandrina Council had been given permission by the Govt.to use the Goolwa barrage Lock. Water now flows over Lock Zero into the Lakes ( not Lock 1 ).Yes, upgrade/re-engineer the Barrages but why not keep Lake Alexandrina at +0.6-AHD at all times ? You can keep it at 0.75 M like it is now if you want even open the gates and drop it to 0.5 M as you suggest for the Lower River Murray.
Why let seawater into Lake Alexandrina ?
When DROUGHT CONDITIONS effect the Lakes they must stay above sea level. The Lower Lakes when they reach 0.15 M AHD the gates to be opened and allow sea water in. Gates during this period to control the tidal and water conditions in Lakes Alexandrina and Albert.
The River Murray flows again as it has after the current flood conditions it now flows over Lock Zero ( not Lock 1 ) into Lakes Alexandrina and Albert down the Goolwa Channel and out the Murray Mouth.
The Murray Mouth and the Lower Lakes are now setup for fresh,drought, or estuary conditions no matter the Murray Darling decision is.
What’s this crap about segregation people had the choice if they wanted to be connected to the pipelines they made their decisions’ about their water supply.
Karlene Mayweld was forced to change her mind on a couple places that didn’t originally get potable water. I asked you a civil question originally by e mail as you tell all of us the amount of meetings that you attend. I thought you would be able tell us the proposals that Clem Mason and the Dairy Farmers were given.
Jennifer,
But what about the estuary?
1. Build Lock Zero
2. Re-Engineer the barrage gates
The Barrage gates to be a automated system and with proper management be able to control the water levels of Lakes Alexandrina and Albert.
This is the new estuary.
These two important items are part of the petition, build them first.
What about the return of the mulloway? What about providing conditions for seagrass to grow within Lake Alexandrina?
Not much worrying about THE two until we get 1 & 2 built.
Do you not care about the natural environment?
Not really. I have been running around since late 2008, first meeting at Langhorne Creek and all the others at Goolwa, Clayton, DNR Head office and even attended a meeting at Milang when Donna Ferretti S.A. Principal Planner Seawater EIS “Will the Lakes Remain a Fresh Water system”.
It is now four years and many photos since it all started. NO NOT INTERESTED AT ALL. I THOUGHT YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER THAN TO ASK A QUESTION LIKE THAT.
Hi Dave,
No they can’t but evaporation water is not wasted and that which evaporates from the Lower River Murray falls as rain to the East the same as the evaporation from Lake Eyre falls as rain to the East of Lake Eyre!
Hi Sean,
Re, “Why do we need to keep the pool level at 0.75 AHD” I never said that, the River at +0.5-AHD and raise it to a higher level to put water in the floodplains and no need for Lake Alexandrina to be above +0.6-AHD!
Re, “Why let seawater into Lake Alexandrina” I NEVER WANT TO SEE SEAWATER AKKOWED TO INVADE THE LOWER RIVER MURRAY IE LAKE ALEXANDRINA OR LAKE ALBERT!
Yes the Lakes must always be above sea level, let’s say a minimum of +0.25-AHD and even due to worst case scenario that can be managed by Lock Zero.
I have just seen your email and answered it!
Re the dairy farmers do mean those on the Lower River Murray irrigated swamps and if that is yes no proposals so most sold out and SA Water bought about $30-million worth of water.
Re your reply to JM, “The Barrage gates to be an automated system and with proper management be able to control the water levels of Lakes Alexandrina and Albert. This is the new estuary” NO ESTUARY NO SEAWATER IN LAKES ALEXANDRINA and ALBERT – no chance of problems in the Lower River Murray!
Peter,
Re, “Why do we need to keep the pool level at 0.75 AHD” I never said that
Comment from: Peter R. Smith OAM January 12th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Why do we need to keep the pool level at 0.75 AHD when +0.5-AHD will be sufficient and that is because of using Lock Zero to pulse water into Lake Alexandrina.
Re, “Why let seawater into Lake Alexandrina” I NEVER WANT TO SEE SEAWATER AKKOWED TO INVADE THE LOWER RIVER MURRAY IE LAKE ALEXANDRINA OR LAKE ALBERT!
DROUGHT, DROUGHT, DROUGHT GOOLWA CHANNEL MARCH & APRIL -1.034 M AHD ALONG WITH LAKES ALEXANDRINA AND ALBERT.
Peter,
Wouldn’t it be better to evaporate seawater from the lakes and produce useful and essential things with the fresh water ?
Hi Dave,
Re, “Wouldn’t it be better to evaporate seawater from the lakes and produce useful and essential things with the fresh water” it depends on a lot of things, but in my opinion NO.
As I have said I do not want seawater in the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert but if there were to be seawater in Lake Alexandrina and the mouth closed and tidal movement was not strong enough to change the water the evaporation would evaporate the water leaving the salt therefore the Lake would over a period of time Hyper-Saline!
Peter,
As Sean is trying to patiently explain, your arguments are contradictory and always end up back in the same place. We all understand that the lower Murray has unique problems that were dramatically highlighted during the recent drought.
The disagreement stems from your govt, groups such as ACF and the Wentworth group, loudly claiming those problems are terrible environmental disasters caused by over extraction. You perpetuate tbese lies by claiming things like 80% of MDB water is consumed. That is completely incorrect if we are going to use long term averages. The correct figure is under 25%. You have either deliberately or ignorantly mislead people by mixing up the figures with what occured in the depth of the drought.
Also, upstream irrigation systems use storages and they DIVERT water from the rivers into well controlled and extremely ecficient irrigation ndtworks, independent of the river. In a few places they do use parts of the rivers and those areas cause consistent problems and cost us all dearly in conveyance and losses. More work needs to be done there too.
What you’re proposing for SA below lock 1 is far removed from that as you need EXCESS INFLOWS to supply your idea.
SA also wants tbose Excess inflows supplied at no cost because they’re pretending they are environmental flows.
Face it Peter, your govt encouraged expansion and development without backing it up with secure storage. They now want everyone else to pay for the mistake and are perfectly willing to sacrifice sustainable upstream irrigation networks by using bi polar environmental arguments.
Sean is right you know. The eastern states could and should help. However, they can’t help if SA refuses to accept rssponsibility for some very obvious mistakes. And yes, other States have also been duplicitous.
Hi Debbie,
What the SA Government, the ACF or even the Wentworth Group say is of little concern to me as I am my own person as I have told you so many times and am not influenced by what most others think and when did I say, “You perpetuate these lies by claiming things like 80% of MDB water is consumed”?
And as far as the drought is concerned I am NOT MISLEADING ANYONE I realise that you think know all about the drought and its effects on the Lower River Murray.
I know it is also hard for you to understand but below Lock 1 the only way we can access our water is via the River otherwise we wouldn’t get any and I have so many times asked you what is our alternative but alas no answer.
Once again you are not listening, “What you’re proposing for SA below lock 1 is far removed from that as you need EXCESS INFLOWS to supply your idea” we the Lock Zero Group believe we can manage the Lower River Murray and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert will what water we are entitled to.
More of your BS, “SA also wants those Excess inflows supplied at no cost because they’re pretending they are environmental flows.”
Oh I am really sorry re, “Face it Peter, your Govt encouraged expansion and development without backing it up with secure storage” and of course no other Basin States of for that matter Australian States encouraged expansion without doing the proper studies about the effects on the regions and the figure of expanded diversions from the Basin since 1950 are only BS, get real Debbie take of the rose coloured glasses.
We don’t, “They now want everyone else to pay for the mistake and are perfectly willing to sacrifice sustainable upstream irrigation networks by using bi polar environmental arguments” we all pay for our mistakes and every day we learn, oh I am sorry that is of course if you’re not already perfect!
Sorry, “Sean is right you know. The eastern states could and should help. However, they can’t help if SA refuses to accept responsibility for some very obvious mistakes” Sean is right about much he says but as far as saying that seawater should be allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina HE IS WRONG!
Debbie, I know it is hard to be humble when your perfect in every way but could you try?
Hi Dave,
Re, “Wouldn’t it be better to evaporate seawater from the lakes and produce useful and essential things with the fresh water” it depends on a lot of things, but in my opinion NO.
As I have said I do not want seawater in the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert but if there were to be seawater in Lake Alexandrina and the mouth closed and tidal movement was not strong enough to change the water the evaporation would evaporate the water leaving the salt therefore the Lake would over a period of time Hyper-Saline!
Peter,
I can’t be bothered going through old posts and comments but you have most certainly claimed on many occasions that SA is in trouble because of over allocation upstream and that SA is the most efficient user of water and quoted highly suspicious figs from highly suspicious sources that regularly and deliberately muddle water use figs between long term averages and what happened in the depth of the drought. That includes being linked to that 80% figure.
You have also repeatedly claimed that the river must be flushed because of salt and because of gums. You have also repeatedly claimed that the health of the ENTIRE BASIN is dependent on the Lower Murray.
I remember 2 amusing analogies, 1 to do with how often we flush toilets and one to do with the human anatomy and the anus.
I’m pleased that you now say that flushing is maybe not the answer.
Maybe Sean is correct and you’re starting to see a bigger picture which needs to include more than just the fact that no one listens to the locals on the lower Murray.
They are not listening to the locals anywhere Peter. That is not your unique problem either. We all copped it during tbe drought and we’re all tired of the political rhetoric from all levels of govt.
Your State govt is one of the guiltiest but certainly not the only one.
Peter,
Sean is right about much he says but as far as saying that seawater should be allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina HE IS WRONG!
Sean says in the TIME OF DROUGHT. That magic word DROUGHT
the dairy farmers do mean those on the Lower River Murray irrigated swamps and if that is yes no proposals so most sold out and SA Water bought about $30-million worth of water.
Yes and thanks for that answer.
What’s this crap about segregation people had the choice if they wanted to be connected to the pipelines they made their decisions’ about their water supply.
The others were the farmers on the Eastern side of Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert.
You say that they had the choice if they wanted to be connected to the pipelines they made their decision’s.
Well in that case when the next drought situation comes along do when spend another $610 million to keep the Lakes Fresh I hope not. Lake Alexandrina irrigators have their new pipelines and Lake Albert has potable water and now are dry farmers, the Lower River Murray and Adelaide’s water supply is protected LOCK ZERO. Open the barrages let in the sea water and keep the lower lakes above sea level.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “You have also repeatedly claimed that the river must be flushed because of salt and because of gums” yes and I will continue to press that the River must be flushed but what on earth do you mean, “and because of gums?”
More of your BS, “You have also repeatedly claimed that the health of the ENTIRE BASIN is dependent on the Lower Murray” but if the Lower River Murray is not healthy so therefore neither is the ENTIRE Basin because in case you didn’t know the LRM is part of the Basin!
It (the LRM) must be flushed not daily but it MUST be flushed out!
With reference, “Maybe Sean is correct and you’re starting to see a bigger picture which needs to include more than just the fact that no one listens to the locals on the lower Murray’ we don’t care if the Federal Government, the MDBA, the Basin State Governments and our own Governments don’t listen but we care when so many of the Basins’ population and those who rely on the Basins’ water or products or the Basin for their livelihood don’t listen.
It will be the Australian population who in the end will put things right!
Apportioning guilt/blame re, “Your State Govt is one of the guiltiest but certainly not the only one” we are all are equally to blame so don’t push it you the State with the biggest increase in diversions since 1950.
Peter,
there you go quoting those misleading figures again.
You also need to match that up with the State/s who have since relinquished the largest amounts.
Please listen to Sean. He is speaking common sense.
I will also add that although all States are guilty, your state and mine are most definitely the guiltiest.
They have both encouraged development and relied way too heavily on long term averages and excess infows. Guess what’s missing in low inflow sequences? Guess which are the 2 states doing the most whinging? Guess which are the 2 states telling the most convoluted illogical stories? Guess which 2 states are deliberately sacrificing their irrigators?
Guess which 2 states are consistently blaming each other or criticising the other 2 basin states for not sharing?
Hi Sean,
Re, “You say that they had the choice if they wanted to be connected to the pipelines they made their decision’s.
Well in that case when the next drought situation comes along do when spend another $610 million to keep the Lakes Fresh I hope not” I hope not also and I will continue to say we believe there is no need to allow seawater to invade Lake Alexandrina with the Barrages upgraded and Lock Zero and proper management.
Re, “Lake Alexandrina irrigators have their new pipelines and Lake Albert has potable water and now are dry farmers, the Lower River Murray and Adelaide’s water supply is protected LOCK ZERO. Open the barrages let in the sea water and keep the lower lakes above sea level” if the irrigators have potable water why COMPLETELY STUFF up the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert by introducing seawater.
If you believe that is the best option we may as well build Lock Zero (which we cannot even get the MDBA, the Federal Government and our own State Government to discuss) and pull out the Barrages because once the seawater is allowed in the Lakes will remain saline as we will NEVER have enough freshwater to completely flush the seawater out!
NO ONE IS LISTENING OR HEARING IT IS THE BELIEF OF THE LOCK ZERO GROUP THAT THE LRM AND THE LAKES ALEXANDRINA AND ALBERT CAN BE MANAGED SUCCESSFULLY FROM LOCK ZERO SO AS SEAWATER IS NEVER REQUIRED TO TOP UP LAKE ALEXANDRINA!
Peter,
It is DROUGHT CONDITIONS we are talking about when Goolwa Channel, Lakes Albert and Alexandrina were below – 1.0 M AHD.
Salt levels peaked at :-
Goolwa 32,720 EC 18/2/2009
Lake Albert 11,680 EC 8/4/2009
Lake Alexandrina 5,930 EC 22/4/2009
The floods that opened the channel in the Clayton Regulator in September, 2010 have reduced the EC
Today we see the readings :-
Goolwa 1,425 EC we have had it lower (500)than that but strong winds and high tides
had jumped the barrage again ( 18,000 EC ).
Lake Albert is still strugglng 1. 4,962 EC 2. 5,419 EC and 3. 4,997 EC.
Lake Alexandrina 553 EC
The S.A. Government’s effort on Lake Albert was poor and that is one of the reasons why it is struggling.
Peter,
What if the mouth were kept open using seawater.Would it then be okay by you to to use the freshwater for production instead of evaporating it ?
Hi Sean,
What we are trying to explain is that we believe that if Lock Zero were built and the Barrages upgraded and the necessary work was done to facilitate changes in Lake Albert that with the proper management regime put in place the LRM and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert CAN BE managed without having to resort to a seawater invasion. It is our opinion that the (During a drought) the Lower River Murray – Lock 1 to Lock Zero – can be maintained at +0.5-AHD and Lake Alexandrina including Goolwa Channel can be maintained at a level no less than + 0.2-AHD this would mean acid sulphate soils WERE NOT exposed.
I repeat, “NO ONE IS LISTENING OR HEARING IT IS THE BELIEF OF THE LOCK ZERO GROUP THAT THE LRM AND THE LAKES ALEXANDRINA AND ALBERT CAN BE MANAGED SUCCESSFULLY FROM LOCK ZERO SO AS SEAWATER IS NEVER REQUIRED TO TOP UP LAKE ALEXANDRINA!”
Hi Dave,
I’m sorry this is not about the mouth it’s about Lakes Alexandrina and Albert and if seawater were allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina and Albert they would remain saline from that point on. Lake Albert is still at close 5000EC and it seems the SA Government is content to allow that situation to remain and that is not good enough!
What I am saying is once seawater is allowed to invade especially Lake Alexandrina and then make Lake Albert worse it will be impossible to get rid of the salinity so the EC level in the Lakes will continue to rise.
As we are saying as I am reiterating, “NO ONE IS LISTENING OR HEARING IT IS THE BELIEF OF THE LOCK ZERO GROUP THAT THE LRM AND THE LAKES ALEXANDRINA AND ALBERT CAN BE MANAGED SUCCESSFULLY FROM LOCK ZERO SO AS SEAWATER IS NEVER REQUIRED TO TOP UP LAKE ALEXANDRINA!”
Regarding production what about the production that with suitable water can be achieved in the region of Lakes Alexandrina and Albert, SA’s economy also needs to prosper!
Peter,
Insisting the lower lakes remain fresh at all times means that the 800 or so gigalitres that evaporate are not available for production anywhere.If Lock Zero were built,fresh water supplied to downstream users at a resonable cost and the mouth kept open with seawater and the barrage removed would that be okay with you ?That would make the 800 gigs saved from evaporation available for production in South Australia,wouldn’t it ?
Demanding that 800 gigalitres of fresh water per year evaporate from the Lower Lakes reminds me of Aesop’s Dog in the Manger.
Of course SA’S economy needs to prosper but as everyone keeps saying, it must be done sustainably.
When we are in low inflow sequences, or drought, there are no excess inflows available. Therefore Peter, what you’re proposing is not sustainable as your entitlement is stored too far away and you dont have the conveyance water to get it there unless you deny water to other more sustainable areas. That is what occured in the drought. Lock zero will certainly help but it doesn’t address the real problem which is SA needs storage near SA.
Hi Debbie,
One day you and others will read, listen and understand and until the Federal Government, the MDBA and the Basin State Governments agree to an Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Statement/Economic Impact Statement (and maybe investigate if it is possible to construct more storages in SA) and first repairing Lake Albert, upgrading the Barrages and the construction of Lock Zero to find out if it is possible with those tasks carried out to manage the Lower River Murray and the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert at lesser pool levels and without seawater we will NEVER know irrespective of what you believe.
Peter,
Re : -What we are trying to explain is that we believe that if Lock Zero were built and the Barrages upgraded and the necessary work was done to facilitate changes in Lake Albert that with the proper management regime put in place the LRM and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert CAN BE managed without having to resort to a seawater invasion. It is our opinion that the (During a drought) the Lower River Murray – Lock 1 to Lock Zero – can be maintained at +0.5-AHD and Lake Alexandrina including Goolwa Channel can be maintained at a level no less than + 0.2-AHD this would mean acid sulphate soils WERE NOT exposed.
Please how is Lock Zero going to supply more water to the Lower Lakes than what Lock 1 did during the drought. Lock Zero is providing the River Murray with a new pool level of 0.75 M between it and D/S Lock 1.
Then D/S
Sorry Peter must have pushed the wrong button.
Peter,
Re : -What we are trying to explain is that we believe that if Lock Zero were built and the Barrages upgraded and the necessary work was done to facilitate changes in Lake Albert that with the proper management regime put in place the LRM and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert CAN BE managed without having to resort to a seawater invasion. It is our opinion that the (During a drought) the Lower River Murray – Lock 1 to Lock Zero – can be maintained at +0.5-AHD and Lake Alexandrina including Goolwa Channel can be maintained at a level no less than + 0.2-AHD this would mean acid sulphate soils WERE NOT exposed.
Please how is Lock Zero going to supply more water to the Lower Lakes than what Lock 1 did during the drought. Lock Zero is providing the River Murray with a new pool level of 0.75 M AHD between it and D/S Lock 1 which helps to eliminate the problems you had during the drought. As you say yourself you can operate at 0.50 M AHD this gives you a 0.25 M AHD a buffer.
The drought is only going to have the same amount of water over Lock Zero as did Lock 1 therefore we will see Lakes Alexandrina and Albert along with the Goolwa Channel once again go – 1.034 M AHD below sea level.
e.g. River flows from January 2009 to December 2009 1122.3 GL which was – 727.7 GL of the RAMSAR agreement of 1850 GL.
January to June 2009 568.5 GL ( entl. 915 GL ) July to December 2009 553.8 GL ( entl. 935 GL )
The average monthly flow for 2009 was 93.5 GL couldn’t stop the Lakes and Goolwa going below sea level. Building Lock Zero is going to help your end of town back to below Lock 1 and Adelaide’s water supply . Lock Zero D/S replaces the Clayton Regulator and the Lower Lakes and Goolwa Channel will become the basket case. This time I hope they show better judgement and open the automated gates at the barrage and allow this section to become tidal.
Peter,
I understand perfectly.
There is no political will.
You seem to have forgotten that most of the plans and their impacts have been done. Did you make a genuine effort to find them? Pikey certainly offered.
You wont be offered them by the present establishment.
You also are still not listening to Sean.
Lock 0 will help but next time we hit low inflows those Lakes will once again be in big trouble. SA does not have enough back up storage close enough to negate conveyance and losses. There are NO EXCESS INFLOWS available to use as conveyance when we go into low inflow sequences.
Your govt along with mine have issued entitlements based on long term averages which see them allocating excess inflows as conveyance. What you’re proposing can’t be done in times of low inflow UNLESS others are denied access to their entitlements to make up the losses to get water from the storages to your area.
So according to your definition of a healthy basin, it can’t work because SOMEONE has to be disadvantaged.
Hi Sean,
You also are not listening or understanding we believe that it is about management.
Lock Zero is about providing a POOL LEVEL, a pool level that is managed at a level to stop the non essential back water and flood plains with or without water (a huge saving of water) and pulsing water into Lake Alexandrina to ensure the level doesn’t drop below +0.2-AHD.
Why would the Lakes and the Goolwa channel drop to below +0.2-AHD if the pool levels in SA above Lock 1 were better regulated during a drought and Lock Zero maintained a workable pool level and pulsed water into Lake Alexandrina under a better management regime?
Re, “Building Lock Zero is going to help your end of town back to below Lock 1 and Adelaide’s water supply” if Lock Zero was only about as you put it, “end of town back to below Lock 1” why would I be pushing it, that would be plain selfish!
And about, “Lock Zero D/S replaces the Clayton Regulator and the Lower Lakes and Goolwa Channel will become the basket case. This time I hope they show better judgement and open the automated gates at the barrage and allow this section to become tidal” we don’t believe seawater will be required and if you want seawater then you have better push to have regulators at the mouths of the Bremer and Currency Creek as if salinity is allowed into Lake Alexandrina then those tributaries will have to be protected!
Hi Debbie,
Re, “You seem to have forgotten that most of the plans and their impacts have been done” there has never been any work done re a Lock on the LRM, a total upgrade of the Barrages and into what is needed in Lake Albert.
Don’t understand, “You won’t be offered them by the present establishment.”
Oh I’m listening to Sean but please understand what we a trying to say (albeit that’s why we need these studies) it is about managing the resource, it’s about using the available water to its maximum.
Why fill non essential flood plains and back waters?
Water in times of low flows is liquid gold and it is about proper MANAGEMENT and one of the basic requirements is to protect SA’s water and the pump stations and that’s exactly what we want to do!
It’s not about, “denied access to their entitlements to make up the losses to get water from the storages to your area” it is about maximising!
And what BS, “So according to your definition of a healthy basin, it can’t work because SOMEONE has to be disadvantaged” any decisions about the allocation of the resource is about co-operation and MANAGEMENT.
Each State in the Basin is has an entitlement and those entitlement’s are governed by what is available and that applies to unregulated flow.
If nothing flows down the Murrumbidgee you are in real trouble and if nothing flows out of what they want to call the ‘Northern Basin’ well so be it but if we don’t manage what can be allowed into the River Murray we might as well give up!
Peter,
You are totally missing the point.
It is not just about management, it also needs to be about some vision and some clear goals about what needs to be done to ensure the viability of the legacy we leave the next generation.
If we refuse to learn the lesson that the drought taught us, those lakes will be in just as much trouble next time.
The drought taught us that what SA wants to happen is not sustainable in a run of low inflow years.
Lock 0 will mitigate the impacts for your patch to some extent. That’s good. But if the circumstances repeat (or something similar) those Lakes will be exposed again. You don’t seem to understand that your government and mine actually confiscated water retrospectively and turned it into conveyance water so that SA had critical supplies.
The management decisions were critical because the supplies were critical. They did keep the river functioning for critical supplies.
A share of nothing is nothing. There were NO INFLOWS AVAILABLE to manage the conveyance problem. NONE! That conveyance water was mined from other entitlements.
Building Lock 0 will not stop that happening.
As Sean has clearly highlighted, lock 0 may help a little in your area, but those below will still be in strife.
Wanting a minimum of 800GL to evaporate in the lakes under those conditions is not sustainable.
That is when the extra option needs to be considered.
Hi Debbie,
Debbie I AM NOT missing the point but you are if a proper study into what we believe is needed and that study finds it impossible then we may concede.
We know at what low levels both the River (below Lock 1) and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert can function successfully at and we also know that if seawater is allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina we will never be able to flush it out!
AND FOR THE UPTEENTH TIME THIS IS NOT ABOUT MY PATCH IT IS ABOUT THE BASIN!
You obviously DO NOT UNDERSTAND the LRM and also YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND what we are saying.
If the intention is to let seawater invade Lake Alexandrina then there is only ONE OPTION (which we totally oppose) that is to build Lock Zero, build regulators across the Bremer River and Currency Creek and any other inflows in to Lakes Alexandrina and Albert and remove the Barrages as they will be just useless infrastructure and will certainly ensure the Rivers’ mouth closes and that the Lakes Albert first and then Alexandrina become hyper-saline!
Re, “As Sean has clearly highlighted, lock 0 may help a little in your area, but those below will still be in strife” well we believe he is wrong!
And as for, “Wanting a minimum of 800GL to evaporate in the lakes under those conditions is not sustainable.
That is when the extra option needs to be considered” and it is not about WANTING 800-Gl’s to evaporate it’s about lessening the area size to an absolute minimum during bad times.
There is one blessing, for some, as if the above happened I will for the first time in my life say good bye to MYRIVER and go and live up near JM.
Peter,
We know at what low levels both the River (below Lock 1) and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert can function successfully at.
Well it couldn’t stop things going below sea level with a river flow average of 93.5 GL per month, plus why didn’t they try pulsating during the drought and what river flow is required ? It appears 93.5 GL is. Why did they allow Goolwa and the Lower Lakes +2.0 AHD ?
we also know that if seawater is allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina we will never be able to flush it out!
Well how come the current flood has been able to reduce Milang down to the reading 553 EC and Goolwa is gradually coming back after having another salt intrusion of 18,000 EC now back to 1425 EC
THIS IS NOT ABOUT MY PATCH
I know it isn’t it was the easiest way of decribing the new pool level that is being created.
Comment from: Sean January 14th, 2012 at 12:46 pm.
Part two
With the change to water flows the system will become predominantly an estuarine system with patches of fresh water depending on the inflow of fresh water from the Murray River. Marine life will take advantage of this new extended range with the opportunities for the natural environment as well as mankind through fishing for pleasure and commerce. By having waterways that have a regular interchange between marine and riverine environments the full spectrum of fresh and salt water fish can make this their home. Fish that need to spend part of their lives in both environments will once more be able to thrive. The range of feral European Carp will be significantly reduced in this area, a fish that currently dominates this area with its destructive behaviour.
Fresh water inflows over and above the River Murray is estimated to be 40 Gigalitres per annum, the fresh water inflows from the Finniss River and Currency Creek system may result in small zone of fresh water resident high in the arms but the bulk the inlets will be dominated by estuarine conditions. The Bremer has flowed into Lake Alexandrina for the first time over the last couple of years for quite a while. The Angas River I don’t know when it last flowed into Lake Alexandrina. This will create a vibrant transitional environment between estuarine and fresh water with a full spectrum of life finding this to be a viable home. If European carp can be displaced from these arms, having an intervening body of water will keep these arms isolated from this feral influence.
Wetland & Rivers Group Conference 17th. September, 2009 Goolwa S.A.
It seems that RAMSAR isn’t fussed on whether a RAMSAR listed wetland was freshwater, seawater, estuarine water or brackish. So long as it is a wetland is what counts. Prof Finlayson talked about how he had seen other rivers around the world run dry leading to changes at the end of river wetland. In trying to provide an example, he then talked about a huge estuary in WA that had been brought back to life by cutting a huge channel to sea and allowing large volumes of seawater from the ocean into its confines. He was talking about the Dawesville Channel at Mandurah.
Finlayson said that it was a matter of “what do we want from this part of the river with no river flow.” “They can be marine, sea or fresh,” he said. “They certainly can be marine estuarine,” he said. “There is no reason why we cannot change wetlands. “This is a National Parks concept of not changing values. The Convention allows us to do it,” he said. “What do we want? We need to be innovative – use wisdom as we manage – close the gap,” Prof Finlayson said.
You still missed it Peter,
A share of nothing is nothing.
The conveyance water has to come from somwhere if there are no inflows.
Sean understands the LRM. He has spotted the problem and is looking for solutions that make sense.
Why would you have to move? What is so scary about a functioning estuary if the fresh water supplies are protected?
Look at Sean’s figs. Of course the EC levels change with the circumstances. Look how high they got at one point even though there was significant flooding/flushing occuring.
Hi Sean,
Re, “Well it couldn’t stop things going below sea level with a river flow average of 93.5 GL per month, plus why didn’t they try pulsating during the drought and what river flow is required?” it would be impossible to pulse water from as far up River as Lock 1!
Re, “Why did they allow Goolwa and the Lower Lakes +2.0 AHD?” we Are of the opinion that the pool levels in SA above Lock 1 should have been lowered to assist the Lower River Murray.
You say, “We also know that if seawater is allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina we will never be able to flush it out!” so why would you allow it to happen?
The EC level on Lake Alexandrina well improve but if the level were to drop then more would leak in through the Barrages which are still leaking.
This argument/discussion IS NOT ABOUT FISH OR PERSONS WISHING TO FISH and as I have said when talking to the professional fisherpersons they DO NOT WANT seawater in the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert!!
No matter when the Bremer, Angus or Currency ran into Lake Alexandrina if seawater fills Lake Alexandrina that water will have to be prevented from travelling up those Rivers/Creeks!
The European Carp, if seawater filled Lake Alexandrina would where possible travel up those Rivers/Creeks to find freshwater!
I really don’t care about what RAMSAR say and also I don’t believe if a, “huge channel to sea” was cut it could be kept open without dredging!
Re, “what do we want from this part of the river with no river flow” it’s not about what we want it’s about what will happen – salinity which may become hyper-salinity.
Sean, it is becoming obvious to me you have now decided that the Lower River Murray should be estuarine after Lock Zero is, if ever, constructed so at the same time you may as well push to have the Barrages removed as why leave then there and just waste money upgrading them?
Hi Debbie,
Thanks for that Debbie but we still believe Sean like you and the rest are wrong as I have just said that thinking can save millions and millions of dollars, just remove the Barrages of course first we have to convince the powers to be that Lock Zero must be built!
I have seen Sean’s figures but without a proper scientific/economic impact statement there is no way you will change our view about the LRM especially below Wellington.
The one thing I am not missing is no one is listening, “NO ONE IS LISTENING OR HEARING IT IS THE BELIEF OF THE LOCK ZERO GROUP THAT THE LRM AND THE LAKES ALEXANDRINA AND ALBERT CAN BE MANAGED SUCCESSFULLY FROM LOCK ZERO SO AS SEAWATER IS NEVER REQUIRED TO TOP UP LAKE ALEXANDRINA!”
Without a proper study that as yet has not been disproved!
Peter,
Please look at Sean’s figures again.
With average flows of 93.5GL per month it was not possible to mitigate the LRM problem.
You have partly conceded that there are issues with conveyance. To get that 93.5 GL per month in the depth of the drought, approx 175GL needed to be released from upstream storages.
That is 175,000ML to deliver 93,500ML. We are very average broad acre irrigators in the MIA. Our YEARLY (not monthly) entitlement is 3,000 ML. If we are able to access that full entitlement (which during the drought we couldn’t), we produce approx 2,000 tonnes of winter cereals (wheat, canola, oats, barley), 2,000 tonnes of summer cereals (rice & corn) 600 fat lambs and approx 150 tonnes of hay or haylage. We were denied any acces to our entitlement in the depth of the drought because SA needed critical supplies and our entitlements/ meagre allocations were used to convey that 93,500ML to SA.
I am not claiming that was wrong, it was the best option in a very bad situation.
The point remains that it was not possible to alleviate what happened in the LRM.
The plan you’re offering ignores the fact that there was no conveyance water available and the only option next time will be the same one.
Your govt and mine have not backed up development aspirations with secure storage and they simply cannot deliver
entitlements under those circumstances. It is not bad management. They did the best they could. It is in fact bad planning and short term thinking and parochial politics. It sees people like you making value judgements and allowinv our politicians to blame the wrong culprits.
Your plans and ideas for Lock zero are important and they will assist in a small way. But we seriously need to get some perspective here and decide what those community storages were actually built for and whether they can do what they’re being asked to deliver.
You need access to more water if we go into another drought sequence. That is what the drought has taught us. It does not magically appear at Lock 1 from the upstream storages. The water has to come from somewhere to convey it there. The plan is to take it from upstream broad acre irrigation because apparently it is their fault your lakes got abused. Do the maths on a mere 3,000ML entitlement and extrapolate that out to cover the almost ML fo ML needed to get your entitlement there when the inflows are not available and explain why that’s a sustainable idea for people either upstream or downstream from you.
Remember, we are discussing periods of low inflows and how we can keep those lakes fresh and not expose people to that acidic dustbowl as well as allow the production of food and fibre in areas which do not need so much conveyance water ( which is essentially lost to everyone) to produce.
eentitlements
Peter,
They are MDBA weekly figures that I have kept on a spread sheet showing river flows into S.A. and the salt levels for Murray Bridge, Milang, Meningie and Goolwa. I also kept figures on rainfall and storages throughtout the MDBasin.
Lock Zero is built and the Barrages are automated. If drought comes back again the barrage gates are opened and salt water is allowed into Lakes Alexandrina and Albert. When the floods return the gates are closed and the pool level returns to 0.75 M AHD.is opened and when the floods come back the gates are closed until drought re-appears and the cycle continues. This will give the Govrnments and their Departments until 2029 when the current barrages would have just about seen their working days.
You still haven’t mentioned how much water that you require to pulsate the river.
I say once again Lock Zero to be built and the automated barrages to stay.
Hi Debbie,
How many times do you want me to read those bloody figures?
Until the proper investigation is carried out we can get nowhere you keep rattling on about figures, averages etc but without the investigation/study on where, why, how much, for how long, alternatives and many more questions we will get nowhere.
Go ahead and sign the petition be like the rest, fools with no real idea please help us get the investigation, please let us get the answers and be real what Government would commit to spending as much or maybe more than $1Billion without the paper work. I know our Governments are stupid but not that stupid!
Re, “Your plans and ideas for Lock zero are important and they will assist in a small way” you condescending ….., I am lost for words, storages are part of any investigations.
Hi Sean,
Thank you Sean I also get the figure but don’t tell Debbie you put them on a spread sheet that’s keeping averages is it not and averages are crap, Debbie says so?
Sean be serious no matter what happens after seawater is allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina the Barrages may as well be removed the damage will be done, just welcome hyper-salinity!
Re, “You still haven’t mentioned how much water that you require to pulsate the river” of course I haven’t all we know it would have to be enough to ensure the level in Lakes Alexandrina did not drop below +0.2-AHD.
Re, “I say once again Lock Zero to be built and the automated barrages to stay” if seawater is allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina the Barrages might as well be removed.
Peter,
You’re ranting again.
There is a massive difference between ‘long term averages’ and what Sean is doing.
We are discussing what needs to be done if we return to low inflow sequences to AVOID the damage that occured between 2000 & 2010.
If SA’s potable fresh water supplies are protected, and the tides plus some smart engineering solutions are used to keep that mouth open and stable, what is so devastating about a functionig estuarine environment? There are plenty of them around.
Insisting on keeping it all fresh water and using sea water as ONLY A LAST DESPERATE RESORT will result in trashing a precious resource in conveyance when it should be conserved and used in places that don’t waste so much in conveyance and therefore unproductive use.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “You’re ranting again” when are you clowns going to realise what i am trying to get across is that it is not as easy as you believe to just let the sea invade Lake Alexandrina.
Also don’t continue to tell me about the damage that occurred during that period from 2000 to 2010 especially what occurred in the Lower River Murray and our Lakes.
Instead of continually knocking SA may be getting off your backsides and having a look at what we are trying to protect would be a good idea.
We MUST protect the Lower River Murray between Lock 1 and just downstream of Wellington from the ravages of those years of low River level when we dropped over two metres below pool.
It is not quite as easy as, “If SA’s potable fresh water supplies are protected” to achieve that is a $1Billion plus undertaking and ONCE AGAIN that cannot be undertaken without the proper/correct investigation!
And ONCE AGAIN it is not just about, “some smart engineering solutions are used to keep that mouth open and stable, what is so devastating about a functioning estuarine environment? There are plenty of them around” and there may be but this area of Ocean is in some ways unique but unless you come and have a look and talk to those who know you will remain none the wiser!
I get tired as many of my group do listening to crap like, “Insisting on keeping it all fresh water and using sea water as ONLY A LAST DESPERATE RESORT will result in trashing a precious resource in conveyance when it should be conserved and used in places that don’t waste so much in conveyance and therefore unproductive use” as we believe you mean by, “used in places that don’t waste so much in conveyance and therefore unproductive use” in your area and other areas upstream of Lock 1.
We get tired of being told how useless or irrigators are indicating that of course “WE” can use that water far better than you and we know about conveyance but we still believe it is our right to irrigate just as much as it is your right.
Of course you have a right to irrigate.
That is not the issue.
We are discussing best options when inflows get low to critical.
Despite what you have claimed on many occasions, it takes far more of the precious storages to get productive water to the lower Murray and those Lakes and it has proved to not be sustainable.
Those are the facts.
I support the building of Lock zero and I also support the sensible use of the seawater option to mitigate those low inflow times.
I do not support using stored water to convey water to SA because recent history has proved that will be done at the expense of others.
You irrigators. . . As you call us are just ordinary hard working people who were also severely impacted by the recent drought and would dearly love to see some sensible planning put in place by our rather short sighted politicians.
We should properly investigate ALL OPTIONS and properly recognise the real lessons that the recent drought taught us. The sea water option is one of those Peter. That does not mean it is the only one or the best one. It does mean that it should be looked at objectively.
Calling us dopes and clowns will not change those simple facts.
Peter,
Thank you Sean I also get the figure but don’t tell Debbie you put them on a spread sheet that’s keeping averages is it not and averages are crap.
Glad to see you are doing your homework.
Peter I am Irish that is why I don’t know the massive difference between ‘long term averages’ and what needs to be done to AVOID the damage that occured between 2000 & 2010.
Debbie,
You maybe interested in these figures as they are short term they only go back to 2009. The lowest monthly flow in 2009 was June, 47.5 GL. It then increased in December, 2009 140.0 GL. The message I have trying hilite is the difference to the river flows e.g. December, 2010 the flow was 1772.6 GL for the month which is 650.3 GL more than what the total river flow of 1122.3 GL for the full year of 2009. The other actual river flow figures for January to June 2010 was 1178.5 GL and July to December was 4807.5 GL total 2010 5986.0 GL
If Lock Zero had been in place ( using the S.A. inflow figure ) the river flow 14th. October, 2010 was 207.4 GL start thinking of closing the automated gates on the barrage.
141.7 GL.
Hi Debbie,
Thank you Debbie, “We should properly investigate ALL OPTIONS and properly recognise the real lessons that the recent drought taught us” but probably investigate should be we MUST investigate ALL OPTIONS!
And while, “The sea water option is one of those Peter. That does not mean it is the only one or the best one. It does mean that it should be looked at objectively” right again, give us ALL of the options, we are happy to go down that path.
Hi Sean,
Until it is proven otherwise NO SEAWATER!
Debbie,
Talking about 2000 to 2011 I have dived into my actual figures again did you realise that 2011 storage holdings 8114 ( 88% ) since 2000 which was 8570 GL ( 92% ), I take the figures in November to give time for the snow melt.
2000
Dartmouth 3071GL (79%), Hume 2969 GL (98%) LVic 648 GL (95%), Menindee 1883 GL (112%)
2011
Dartmouth 2889 GL (75%), HUme 2737 GL (91%) LVic 654 GL (97%), Menindee 1834 GL(106%)
I have just back from bike ride along the river I am sure if the Governments had Lock Zero in place 14th. October, 2010 I am sure the water would be fresh just like it is today in Lake Alexandrina and the Goolwa Channel. The money spent on the Lower Lakes with exception of the potable and irrigation pipelines could have gone towards building Lock Zero.
Peter,
So if it’s NO SEAWATER until it is proven otherwise, what is your group’s criteria for ‘proven otherwise?’
How does your group plan to mitigate that conveyance issue when there are no inflows to provide the conveyance water?
If it includes using upstream allocations, then it will be at someone else’s expense. The drought also taught us that is not a sustainable option.
Sean’s actual figures, rather than the meaningless long term averages that we’re all being force fed, clearly show what causes the problem.
As the petition clearly also states, the upstream storages are not capable of rescuing those lakes when we are faced with drought or critical low inflows.
If SA truly wants a fresh water ONLY option then it’s high time to start thinking outside the box. Lock zero would be part of the answer, but it won’t be enough if SA wants fresh water ONLY in the lakes.
Hi Sean,
Re, “The money spent on the Lower Lakes with exception of the potable and irrigation pipelines could have gone towards building Lock Zero” when are you and others going to realise that no commitment into Lock Zero will happen until an investigation is not ONLY completed but STARTED. We cannot get a commitment into any investigations from the Federal, Sates or the MDB Authority so sadly the status quo will remain, regrettable but true.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “So if it’s NO SEAWATER until it is proven otherwise, what is your group’s criteria for ‘proven otherwise?” I am sure you are not that stupid but how many more times must we say a full investigation/ study into Lake Albert, the Barrages and the construction of Lock Zero.
Re, “How does your group plan to mitigate that conveyance issue when there are no inflows to provide the conveyance water?” I am sure you are not that stupid but how many more times must we say a full investigation/ study into Lake Albert, the Barrages and the construction of Lock Zero.
Re the rest of your ongoing thoughts, “how many more times must we say a full investigation/ study into Lake Albert, the Barrages and the construction of Lock Zero?”
Peter,
Your way isn’t working. A few of us in S.A. have been ignored by Federal and State politicians and their Deparments especially the DNR. So we have changed tack and seeking help from others both locally and interstate by spreading the word of Lock Zero and automated barrage gates.
I think we have been successful at doing that.
Pia Akerman July 12, 2008 article “Heroic action” sought for lakes by Professor Tim Flannery and again January 06, 2009 article ” Sea a natural for Murray’s lower lakes” by Professor Peter Gell. It appears that Pia Akerman is about the only journalist that writes about sea water in the lower lakes.
I will e mail you a copy.
Peter at the first meeting at Langhorne Creek I put two questions to Dean Brown 1. Why can’t the Lower Lakes be connected to Myponga Reservoir by building a pipeline and connectting to Goolwa. No real answer given. They decided a short time later to connect to Tailem Bend and continue to use River Murray water. 2. Finniss Reservoir is still on the Govt. web site why not develop that. Answer it is too small. Supplementry question Well why don’t you still build it and if it needs topping up you do exactly what you do with Myponga and Happy Valley wasn’t that the way they did it with Victor Harbor plus we aren’t using River Murray water. No reply next question.
Goolwa meeting in June put the same question to him again as we knew the desalination plant was being built therefore Happy Valley wouldn’t require Myponga topping it up why keep drawing water from the Murray. They had changed tack when the forum goups had finished you placed your question in a box the speakers filtered through the questions and asked the ones they wanted. Dean had got away with it again and they continued to take water from the River Murray.
Peter,
Sean is right.
If no one is listening to you, then ‘your way’ is not working.
Making personal comments about people’s intelligence or lack thereof does absolutely nothing to solve the challenge you are dealing with.
It is time to ‘think outside the box’.
We are all aware that the feds and the states are not focusing in the right areas.
As Sean is trying to patiently explain to you, maybe the eastern states do care and maybe they can help?
Maybe even Jennifer cares?
Your state govt keeps pretending that the rest of the country doesn’t understand and doesn’t care. Sound familiar?
What is clear is that the solution on the table at the moment is not a solution.
What I meant by the current establishment is that they actually do have the plans with impact statements to complete the SHL scheme and there are also others that have been costed.
They don’t have the political will to go there and therefore throw up non sensical environmental arguments to block that avenue down. Sound familiar?
Instead of being so closed minded about the sea water option you may find that if you allow it to be on the table and part of the discussion that we might actually get somewhere and you may find you have an amazing number of allies.
Debbie,
Maybe this may work for Peter.
A speaker at the National Press Club recently advocated that one should adopt a “sweet reason” approach-never be rude- and simply keep hammering away at it.
Hi Seam,
Yes I realise we are not getting the support we would like but one of the reasons is politicians have not got the guts to do proper investigations scared of the back lash, scared of the outcome, and also in SA it is seen as an attack on SA when people mention seawater in the Lakes. Maybe if the call was only for a proper study it would get more support.
Hi Debbie,
Whilst Sean continues to advocate for (even as a last resort) the allowing of seawater into Lake Alexandrina I cannot support him.
It is not about having a, “ closed minded about the sea water option you may find that if you allow it to be on the table and part of the discussion that we might actually get somewhere and you may find you have an amazing number of allies” it is on the table as part of any study/investigation.
Without a commitment to the investigations we will be going nowhere!
Re, “What I meant by the current establishment is that they actually do have the plans with impact statements to complete the SHL scheme and there are also others that have been costed” I repeat there has been no study’s carried out into Lake Albert, the Barrages or Lock Zero.
Gee whiz Peter,
If we all had extra storage to back up all the development aspirations and in particular extra storage close to SA so that SA doesn’t create a conveyance nightmare in times of low inflows, then SA can manage those lakes to their hearts content. You could even keep your fresh only agenda if you wanted to because you would not be impacting upstream production.
At present SA wants to use the upstream storages as their conveyance. Despite your claims otherwise, that will be at the expense of others.
Also, if you won’t negotiate with someone as reasonable and committed as Sean, you are allowing your govt to use the age old manouvre of ‘divide and conquer’. They can legitimately argue that they don’t have to listen to you.
The sea water option is not as scary or disastrous as you claim. It is also only an option.
Personally I believe we should complete the SH scheme and also create extra storage for SA near SA. There are plans for those.
However, if that can’t happen then we need to go to plan B or C or D. Using the sea water option sensibly would have to be one of those. So would your plan.
Peter,
Go to Jen’s latest post and check out Pikey’s comment. He mentions the work that has already been done and has some good suggestions about what else could be done.
Hi Debbie,
I have heard all your talk about extra storages and at this stage I can’t find any information about investigations re any extra storage’s.
Can you please send me the link to what you are talking about, “Go to Jen’s latest post and check out Pikey’s comment. He mentions the work that has already been done and has some good suggestions about what else could be done”.
Re any extra Locks on the River Murray in South Australia other than the Temporary Weir talked about some years ago NO studies have been undertaken and re Lock Zero IT HAS BEEN REJECTED OUT OF HAND!
Re, “Also, if you won’t negotiate with someone as reasonable and committed as Sean, you are allowing your Govt to use the age old maneuver of ‘divide and conquer’. They can legitimately argue that they don’t have to listen to you” that’s BS I have met with senior members of this Government, senior public servants and so many others but NOT ONE will discuss any options.
And this is yours and others opinion, “The sea water option is not as scary or disastrous as you claim. It is also only an option” as i have been saying if seawater is an option then the Barrages MIGHT AS WELL BE REMOVED.
But the bottom line of this is, how do YOU KNOW that, “sea water option is not as scary or disastrous” when did you become an expert on our Lake Alexandrina?
Hi Debbie,
Found what you are talking about will have a good read.
Peter,
that’s good.
I would also suggest that you get in touch with Pikey and Ian Mott.
They do actually care what happens in the LRM as do I.