Talking Turkey, But Not About the Barrages
Posted by jennifer, January 14th, 2012 - under Opinion.
Tags: Murray River
ONCE upon a time there was a turkey that lived in a pen. Every morning a farmer brought food and water and talked to the turkey with soothing words.
The turkey thought it was special and would always be looked after.
Then one Christmas Eve, the farmer came with an axe instead of food.
Many organisations in rural Australia behave like turkeys. They are happily taking money from government believing they will keep getting fed. Of course government is handing out a lot of money at the moment.
In return, organisations might complain publicly just a bit about government. But mostly these organisations keep sending their representatives off to meetings and their leaders happily sit down with Ministers who feed them soothing words.
All the while, at the behest of environmental groups, Commonwealth and State governments, whether Coalition or Labour, have continued in the past decade or two to enact regulation and legislation that undermines food production.
It’s justified on the basis that environmentalists are the good guys, while farmers exploit natural resources for profit.
In the next few months there is an opportunity for some farm organisations to stop behaving as turkeys and instead bite the hand that has fed them so generously over the last year. It would involve calling the bluff of the Commonwealth Government over the Murray Darling water plan.
Instead of complaining politely about the plan on the basis industry might lose some water, what about rural leaders pointing out the obvious: that the plan will deliver no environmental benefit until something is done about the 7.6 kilometres of concrete barrage that sits across the bottom of the Lower Lakes?
Anyone vaguely familiar with this issue knows that Murray Darling Basin Authority boss Craig Knowles and Water Minister Tony Burke – and even Opposition leader Tony Abbot and Opposition water spokesman Barnaby Joyce – don’t want the issue of the barrages or the Lower Lakes raised in polite discussion.
It could cost them votes in South Australia. So industry and community leaders leave it well alone.
But with the New Year it’s time for a new approach: it’s time industry leaders took the high moral ground for once and confronted the issue of the barrages that have destroyed the River Murray’s estuary.
And while they are doing the right thing, they should sign the Rivers Need Estuaries petition of the Australian Environment Foundation www.listentous.org.au .
******
First published in The Land, page 13, Thursday, January 5, 2012
Hi Susan,
I am not hearing the complaints from the Coorong and Lakes Fishery and managing the Barrages means a complete upgrade, stopping the leaking and ensure they can be opened and closed from computer’s ie opened and closed with massive manual operations.
Oh please there is no comparison between the Torrens Lake and Lake Alexandrina.
Re, “Everyone has their own idea of what is ‘proper’. Who is going to decide what is ‘proper’ and at what level the water should be kept? And what level of salinity is allowed? Does it matter that in the middle of summer on Australia Day we all get to have a full Lake for recreation? Or, does it drop down to promote mulloway and the fishing habitat? Who decides?” a proper investigation (after an upgrade) will set the management practices and all of your questions could be put to the investigation as public meetings would be part of any investigation.
Susan I realise you don’t want to understand what I am trying to say but an investigation into Lock Zero would also answered many questions and if Lock Zero were constructed the minimum level in Lake Alexandrina could be maintain at approximately +0.5-AHD but at a minimum of +0.2-AHD maybe seawater would be allowed to raise the level to +0.5-AHD.
What the shack owners and dairy farmers would be taken into consideration per same as your views would be listened to!
The rest of your post is taken into consideration!
Hi Sean,
It would be impossible to pulse water into Lake Alexandrina from Lock 1!
I have said many times the pool levels upstream of Lock 1 (in SA) should have been lowered!
Hi Debbie,
Like the rest you are reading but not understanding!
IF Lock Zero were constructed the minimum level for Lake Alexandrina and Albert would be above what is necessary to ensure all acid sulphate soils are covered.
Are you still (if you want, “A tidal/estuarine system”) are you still of the belief that the Barrages should be removed?
Re, “The last resort is also a joke when looked at from Susan’s perspective” that is your opinion.
Peter,
I have never argued that the barrages should be removed.
What I have continually argued is that the management system is not sustainable. We know that because of what we all learned in the drought.
I have also argued that it should be SA’s decision to keep or remove or upgrade the barrages. It is your state and your area which will be the most affected by what is done or not done with those barrages.
Management of areas like that all over Australia, although all have their unique differences, are handled reasonably successfully when the locals take responsibility for the management. SA and many of your arguments are all about saying that it is everybody’s responsibility and that your problems are caused by everybody else.
However, everybody else is not allowed to point out that rather a lot of the problems actually originate in SA and are caused by decisions made in SA and that those barrages are not performing or delivering what they were supposed to deliver.
I also think that your refusal to look at what constitutes a healthy tidal/estuarine system is rather odd and causes you to introduce arguments and research that are essentially bi polar. The Murray Mouth does after all empty into the ocean and is influenced by that simple unassailable fact.
The final point and the most important one I have continuously made is that in LOW INFLOW SEQUENCES when there are NO EXCESS INFLOWS available, your plan has a fatal flaw in it.
The drought has taught us that trying to keep those lakes covered in fresh water will mean that others will have to pay dearly. Whether it is done from lock 0 or not, the actual problem is the same. Lock 0 will only delay the inevitable under similar circumstances.
Upstream allocations will be mined in order to convey water to SA and the lakes will be in a sorry state because there will not be enough water to keep them healthy.
That is a lose/lose scenario.
As Susan pointed out earlier, the Murray river is not a fully pressurised water pipe that you can switch on and off.
The water has to come from somewhere Peter. Where do you think it comes from when excess inflows or even average inflows are not available?
SA, along with my government have encouraged development and expansion on the assumption that there will always be excess inflows available.
The drought has taught us otherwise.
It has never had anything at all to do with flushing salts or over extraction in traditional irrigation areas and so on.
It is simple Peter. Lock Zero won’t work without a source of water. Pulsed or otherwise. And if you aren’t going to use seawater, then the only option is freshwater. It will be great for you in Mannum, holding onto all that water at Lock Zero below you, you’ll be able to hold your callop fishing derbies, but the Lakes will dry out behind it during a drought, unless you use water from the sea.
Just where are you going to get this giant water pulser? Star ship enterprise maybe? Better make sure it can make water out of air while you’re at it.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “I have never argued that the barrages should be removed” my apologies.
Do the investigations and remedial work necessary and if the investigations show that Lock Zero is feasible then after all of the remedial work and constructions are finalised and the management plans are put in place and when the cycle of inflows cannot supply enough water to cover the acid sulphate soils and only then so we move to ‘last resort”.
Is that hard to understand?
Hi Susan,
No it won’t be so great for me at Mannum as to ensure ENOUGH water to cover the acid sulphate soils it may mean the pool level at Mannum could be down by up to 0-AHD we will also have contribute.
I no longer and never did hold, “callop fishing derbies” I co-ordinated ‘Mannum Big River Fishing Competition’
which removed over 15-tonnes of European Carp gave away approximately $100,000 in prizes and donated over $35,000 to charities which finished 3-yeard ago because of lack of volunteers to assist the committee!!
Susan please my reply to Debbie above and TRY to understand what we are seeking.
TO ALL,
From another scientific source,
“I think the impact of tidal intrusion has been overstated because the local tidal regime makes serious intrusions the exception rather than the rule. Given that half of each monthly lunar cycle involves very minimal tidal variation, and 16 hours of each remaining daily cycle also involves either minimal variation or outflow, then high tides can only occur for 1/6th of the year (ie 1/3rd of 50%).
The historical references to continuous fresh water then become a function of pure probability. The lake, due to its shallow nature, was no place for small boats during storm events as the chop would be very dangerous. And when these events coincided with high tides they were also effectively “off the radar”. And that means that any local anecdotal observations of the composition of lake water took place during the more than 5/6th (84%) of the time when no tidal intrusion was present. If peak tidal flows were also likely to produce dangerous flow rates near the populated centres then the interval in which saline intrusions would not be detected would increase to well over 90% of the time.
The strongest conclusion is that historical references to fresh water conditions in the lake are likely to be roughly representative of actual conditions but the sequence of anecdotal observations was unlikely to have picked up the character and scale of anomalous conditions. These anomalous sea water intrusions were unlikely to have lasted longer than 8 hours at a time. And given the distances involved in each transit, could not have extended far enough, under all but 9th decile circumstances (drought and storm surges), to impact on northern lakeshore ecosystems or agriculture.
And that means that the fears of total barrage removal are overstated but the impacts on river mouth closure of a larger tidal prism are such that the barrages need to remain in place until a better solution is shown to be working.
Starship enterprise!
ROFL
Good one Susan!
In an ironic way it does require air.
Air space in the storages kept there until all other options are completely exhausted and if recent history is an indicator even after the lakes are exposed and even after the crisis has passed
Anything EXCEPT sea water!
Apparently sea water is a dangerous contaminant at that incredibly unique and different river mouth ( that empties into the ocean so is therefore an estuarine /tidal system)??????
Hi Debbie,
I know you can write but obviously when you read you have selective intelligence as you seem to only understand or get out of what you read what you want to be along what you believe or want.
Until we have the investigations/studies NO ONE KNOWS THE ANSWERS!
Peter,
“I think the impact of tidal intrusion has been overstated.
The information on tidal intrusion I have put on this blog were actual figures from a person who believes in the Barrages. Tidal intrusion is at its worst on weekends when the barrage staff aren’t working as had a couple of times this year. Jim Marsh ( ex barrage boss )even mentions it in his interview September, 1999.
He was the first person to notice the missing monitoring stations and was told by Government it was cost cutting exercise. Peter you would have they would have kept the ones from the barrage to Wellington active. Lake Albert disappeared for a while, then one came back and now they have three but there is still a few missing.
Peter!
Scientific source?
I got that email too.
I like the conclusions but you are being rather disingenious about the source.
Perhaps you should cite the source considering your claim that it is ‘another scientific source’?
I would also imagine the author of that email is perfectly capable of posting that information here if they wanted too. Remember I got the email too, the entire email.
Also please note that it clearly points out that fears of sea water intrusions are over stated.
It also points out that the barrages are not performing.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “That information” I could cite the source but unless the person who sent it had said you can put this on the site or better still if the source has put it on this site I would not name the source.
I know what is says and understand full well, “And that means that the fears of total barrage removal are overstated but the impacts on river mouth closure of a larger tidal prism are such that the barrages need to remain in place until a better solution is shown to be working” but until a better solution is shown to be working the Barrages should stay and also the point about, “but the impacts on river mouth closure of a larger tidal prism” and this is a problem (which does concern many of us in the region) with or without the Barrages being in place!
but Peter,
a) you said it was another scientific source and
b) you posted it here anyway. (apparently without permission?)
Hi Debbie,
Yes, of course you are correct but I DID NOT name the source but also of course you could do that I you wished as you also received it!
But Peter?
It was a private email not a publicly avaiable scientific source.
I would not either post or name the source unless I was first given permission.
You are correct I could also name the source and I could also point out that you have selectively cut and pasted it.
Your claim that it was ‘another scientific source’ is quite disingenious.
I do however like the conclusions because they are balanced. I am also aware of the amount of time and effort the author has put into this issue.
Thats fine Debbie, thanks for taking issue but I have no problem with Peter posting my note on this site but it should have been properly attributed as “pers comm, Ian Mott” and a quick email would have been a courtesy, but not essential. Such attributions to email conversations are routinely included as part of the scientific literature and on many occasions the incorporated analysis is far less detailed, specific and testable than mine.
What the analysis does show is that the fears of barrage removal are just as unfounded as the claimed benefits of barrage removal. The reality is that “Barrage Molestation” is a seventh order issue that is only just relevant in one year in ten. And given the current state of catchment saturation and storage capacity, we have at least another nine years, if not more, before we need to even begin to think about it. What to do in a 1 in 100 year drought was the ecological battle of 2007. We do not prepare for the next battle by training to win the last one.
I agree,
we do not prepare for the next battle by trying to win the last one.
We do need to learn the lesson however:-)
The current plan and the noise from SA is ignoring the lesson.
We certainly have time now that everything is sodden.
A political knee jerk reaction is not a good plan.
Surprisingly I even agree with the WG that. a ‘number approach’ is completely unproductive.
Hi Debbie,
Of course we need to prepare for our next cycle of low in flows throughout the Basin we must do the work that is needed now, i.e., the work to reinstate Lake Albert so the interchange of water through the Narrung narrows can happen.
The proper upgrading of the Barrages must begin now and the investigation into Lock Zero must be started so as it can be found out if it is viable.
It is about getting non committing politicians to finely get some spine and make decisions in the best interests of the Basin and Australia.
Peter,
They can start now as they have done a lot of work between Murray Bridge and Pomanda Ilsand for the temporary weir. My little friend Blind Mullet has been telling me for while that temporary one upstream from Wellington was costed at $200 million.
Hi Sean,
I am not aware of any in depth studies of a structure upstream of Wellington but whatever we are not talking about a ‘temporary’ weir it must be, in our opinion, similar to Torrumbarry.
Peter,
As I mentioned above there must be ample information e.g. soil tests, River widths and depths already available.
Alternate sites must have info on them.
Sites :- The Old Road Bridge at Murray Bridge, four sites investigated for the Swanport Road Bridge,
Tailem Bend River Crossing, Gas Pipeline crossing South of Tailem Bend, Adjacent to Wellington Marina,
Downstream of the Car Ferry Crossing at Wellington, Millowa Ppoint and several sites between Pomanda Ils. and top of Lake Alexandrina.
Peter did the Government get cold feet after they were forced to change the structure at Clayton where everything had to be natural materials. Lot of steel in the Pomanda weir.
Hi Sean,
I had a private meeting with Minister Caica early last year and I can assure you from that meeting there is NO political will to look at a permanent regulator in the Lower River Murray.
Whilst soil tests are routinely carried out in different places if Lock Zero were to be considered, even an investigation, it would need to be near Wellington in a narrow section of the River as close as possible to Lake Alexandrina.
A narrow spot would of course be best and we believe just downstream of Wellington but it must be remembered it would have to be away from the ferry unless, if possible, it was to incorporate a bridge.
Re the Temporary Weir proposed I am of the belief they found the bottom of the River was so silted up the 750,000-tonnes of rock they proposed ro dump in the River would sink too fast so sheet iron/steel would have had to be placed in the River on top of the tocks.
To be honest it was an ill conceived plan with NO credibility on which, I believe, some $22-Million was wasted