Southern Ocean Tides Could Save Lower Lakes
Posted by jennifer, January 6th, 2012 - under Information, Opinion.
Tags: Murray River
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
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.