It’s a Barrier Estuary: Duh!
Posted by jennifer, February 11th, 2012 - under Information.
Tags: Murray River
IN South Australia the Coorong fishermen say that before irrigation, before the weirs, locks, levees and barrages (sea dykes), the Murray River would flog down from September until maybe Christmas, filling the lagoon, then out the mouth. By Christmas, flow had usually slowed and water levels dropped right down. Then when the South Westerly wind picked up the sea would pour in through the mouth and work its way across the lake.
So Lake Alexandrina was fresh in spring and summer, but salty by autumn.
What the old fishermen describe is an estuary: a transition zone. The Murray River had a barrier estuary with a central lagoon, Lake Alexandrina, and a sand barrier, the Younghusband Peninsula. A single, narrow and shallow inlet that often closes over is also a characteristic of barrier estuaries.
There are many barrier estuaries along the southern Australian coastline including Lake Illawarra just south of Wollongong. According to the Lake Illawarra Authority’s management guide, freshwater flows into the lake from the escarpment and salty water from the ocean tides and therefore it is an estuary. There are 70, of these Intermittently Closed and Open Lakes and Lagoons, known by the acronym ICOLL, from Sydney to the Victorian border. A significant issue is management of the risk of flooding when their ‘mouths’ close over. NSW State government policy doesn’t support the artificial opening of ICOLLs.
The South Australian government insists the Murray mouth, which is the inlet to Lake Alexandrina, be kept open. In fact since European settlement there have been many schemes devised to change the Murray’s mouth to make it deeper and wider, including through blasting and dredging and more recently through water reform.
There is this invented narrative that the Murray’s mouth closes over because greedy upstream irrigators have stolen all the water, but the reality is Barrier Estuary’s close over naturally. The long-term solution is to remove the Murray Mouth barrages – the sea dykes – that have interrupted the evolution of this system and so let it develop to a fully mature state. Mature barrier estuaries tend to be fully tidal.
The sea dykes dammed the estuary making it totally dependent on river flows. Stopped the tide. Limiting natural scouring of the sea mouth in spring by the river flow and in autumn by the Southern Ocean. Not surprisingly the hydrology and geomorphology of the Murray’s mouth has changed with sand that used to shoal behind the mouth consolidating into Bird Island that continues to grow and may one day permanently plug the Murray’s mouth.
Indeed Federal Water Minister Tony Burke can buy back all the water from all the irrigators across the entire Murray Darling, but this will have very little real impact on the Murray’s mouth.
*************
To learn more about barrier estuaries and why Lake Alexandrina was once part of a wave-dominated barrier estuary and which sea dyke should be removed first read my latest technical paper ‘Plugging the Murray River’s Mouth: The Interrupted Evolution of a Barrier Estuary’
at http://jennifermarohasy.com/publications/
Peter, I’ll stand by my evaporation figures because they are true. Hard for you to accept maybe, but true. Happy to read any evidence otherwise, but I’m afraid I won’t take your word for it.
As to Albert being 5000EC, with the lakes at full level and a years worth of fresh flow through Alexandrina, at what point will you realise the problem may not be rectified by Murray flows alone.
Hi rojo,
I will stick by my figures also!
Regarding Lake Albert it is not lack of water causing the high 5,000EC it is the stupidity of the SA government who refuse to clear the Narrung narrows after putting in the stupid bung during the drought but you would understand that if you understood the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert!
And there you have it Peter.
Because your govt is attempting to keep it all as “business as usual” and protecting their own little precious pieces of bi polar policy, they are doing monumentally stupid things.
The upshot however is that even though SA has had a ginormous flush, the salt problems are actually worse in a lot of instances.
It doesn’t actually matter why….that is the result.
So….unless they actually wake up to their own stupidity, extra water for SA will solve absolutely nothing at all.
And you keep complaining that everyone picks on SA?
Why would we send extra water to SA when your govt is behaving so very badly and wasting water?
It’s called parochial water politics. It won’t solve a single thing!
And it really is not that complicated!
Comment from: John Sayers February 14th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
“I’m basically a greenie. I believe the natural state should triumph.
Here’s an example of how the natural state should exist, and to our benefit. ”
Hi John, I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly.
I wouldn’t call myself a “greeny” not only because of the connotations currently attached to the word but because I’m a conservative at heart, in the true sense of the word.
That is, I embrace any new idea or development with gusto if it’s useful and needed but not just for the sake of change.
That also means that if an idea proved to be wrong I don’t mind at all going back to the drawing board and start again. Someone posted a link to a couple of hydro dams in the US that are being decommissioned, go for it I say, if they are no longer needed why not?
Same as pulling down an old building that had outlived its usefulness.
Sean said he doesn’t want to see the riverbanks collapsing, what’s the difference of keeping the banks wet by sweet or salt water?
As to Peter’s gripe about lake Albert going “hyper-saline!”, Please!
I read every available report by the early surveyors, there are not many I admit, but what all say is that part of both lake was fresh and part of it was saline.
No mention of either being HYPER-saline.
And I ask again, what has happened to lake Albert that would make it suddenly that way?
If it was man made, then going back to the natural state would be only beneficial.
Sorry Peter but you come across as a recalcitrant child stomping his foot and shouting “I want it … because!”
Put the lock gates in at Wellington , open the barrages and let’s see the river return to it’s natural state.
Pete you would be amazed at the difference downstream from you. A fully functioning saline environment, as it was for 7000 years.
Now what have you against that?
Hi Debbie,
Re, “The upshot however is that even though SA has had a gynormous flush, the salt problems are actually worse in a lot of instances” yes because the entrance between Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina MUST be remediated, you HAVE NOT understood what i have been saying for the last two years.
The worst part of all of the problems in our Lakes ARE NOT understood by so many upstream of Lock 1.
It, “really is not that complicated!” but how could I expect you to understand.
Hi Mark A,
Come off it how can the, “natural state” exist? I think what you mean is the, “natural state’ in reference the Lakes Albert and Alexandrina and leave everything as is upstream of Lock 1 and stuff the Lower River Murray and let it turn non-potable.
You also don’t understand the Lower River Murray you selfish bastard!
Re, “I embrace any new idea or development with gusto if it’s useful and needed but not just for the sake of change” that’s great but development must not be at others loss, it must be managed!
Re, “Sean said he doesn’t want to see the riverbanks collapsing, what’s the difference of keeping the banks wet by sweet or salt water?”
He also said the Lower River Murray must not be allowed to turn saline!
Re, “As to Peter’s gripe about lake Albert going “hyper-saline!” Please!
I read every available report by the early surveyors, there are not many I admit, but what all say is that part of both lake was fresh and part of it was saline. No mention of either being HYPER-saline”.
Just in case you would like to rethink that statement, “early surveyors” that was prior to Dartmouth, Hume, Lake Victoria and the weirs and Barrages, maybe you have not noticed the River Murray is completely regulated.
And what would you care if the Lakes became hyper-saline it won’t affect you!
You are welcome to visit the area and speak to those who understand the area!
I will probably regret this (no I won’t) but you are acting like an arrogant fool!
Hi John,
Re, “Put the lock gates in at Wellington, open the barrages and let’s see the river return to its natural state.
Pete you would be amazed at the difference downstream from you. A fully functioning saline environment, as it was for 7000 years. Now what have you against that?”
It is not as simple as, “Put the lock gates in at Wellington” we need proper feasibility studies to examine where, how, affect on the region and cost – estimation $Billion+.
I ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION, HOW CAN THE RIVER MURRAY BE RETURNED TO NATURAL?
Pete – Jennifer and the members of this forum are offering you and your organisation an alternative solution to the Lower Lakes.
It’s a return to the natural state.
So why are they not remediated Peter?
Your argument re the rest of the system is completely missing the point and once again attempting to blame everything else for SAs problem.
Its called parochial politics.
Jen’s point still remains valid.
SA has attempted to work against the overwhelming influence of the ocean.
SA could learn something from other communities that live in similar environments. (note I said similar).
Peter,
With Lock Zero you have to split your old LRM into two new sections. Section 1. begins upstream of Lock Zero and goes all the way back to D/S of Lock 1. In this section is Adelaide’s new potable water pool looking after pump stations at Tailem Bend, Jervois, Murray Bridge, Mannum and Swan Reach. This replaces the old pool that ran from the barrages all the way back to D/S Lock 1 at 0.75 M AHD. Section 2. begins D/S of Lock Zero all the way to the barrages. Section 1 can still be called the LOWER RIVER MURRAY and section 2. The LOWER LAKES. As mentioned earlier the Lower Lakes section can be lowered to 0.5 M AHD and save 694 GL. Lower River Murray with the Lock Zero in place protects Adelaide’s potable water supply.
Mark A
Sean said he doesn’t want to see the riverbanks collapsing what’s the difference of keeping the banks wet by sweet or sea water.
Well in this case it is sweet water as the area I was talking about is now section 1 the new Lower River Murray.
Peter,
I have said it before and I will say it again Peter you can call me a clown and a selfish bastard because I am Irish.
Mark,
Lake Albert’s Narung bun episode despite what people advised the Dept.of E&H they went ahead and did it. When it failed and costing around $10 million the chief of the department comments were ” Well at least we tried “. We then had them using crop dusters sowing rhye grass and spreading limestone into the Goolwa channel when they already knew the channel was going to have 27 GL pumped into it over the Clayton Regulator.
Hi John,
You ARE NOT LISTENING it is impossible to return the Lower Lakes to NATURAL without returning the RIVER MURRAY to its natural condition!
Hi Debbie,
Re, “So why are they not remediated Peter?” that’s a question that should be directed at the Minister for the River Murray.
Re, “Your argument re the rest of the system is completely missing the point and once again attempting to blame everything else for SAs problem” no Debbie you are missing the point and I am not into the blame game!
Why don’t you seek out the information from those who understand the tidal movement ie, Ian Mott.
Another load of crap, “SA could learn something from other communities that live in similar environments. (note I said similar)”.
Hi Sean,
Re, “I have said it before and I will say it again Peter you can call me a clown and a selfish bastard because I am Irish” I AM NOT CALLING YOU a clown, I appreciate your posts and our phone and emails we are both fighting for the same aim but I don’t accept seawater in the Lower Lakes.
Yes the State Government made huge mistakes, knee jerk reactions, that are still causing massive problems.
Hi Peter,
Which ‘natural’ river do you want ? The totally empty one ,or the one which includes most of the irrigation country and its towns in the riverbed ? They used to alternate.
Regulating the Murray seems to be a big problem to SA. So how about next drought we just let SA run dry ,as it would have pre-regulation ? In its ‘natural ‘ state.
- That is dry on fresh water, the Ocean is a no no.
You talk of remedial work which YOUR State Govt hasn’t done and obviously isn’t going to do.
( They are going to spend their money on High Court challenges to MDBP )
So nothing happens there in the toilet bowl and the Supreme Court orders us to flush it with bad naughty regulated water.
This will have little effect on salinity levels ,( with or without your list of improvements. )
The Greens will the complain that it is your fault ,that in spite of all the wonderful work being
done, bad naughty farmers like you are SUCKING AND SUCKING the beautiful water and polluting the inflows.
It is called divide an conquer ,oldest political game in the book and you guys are doing the dividing yourselves. Look at the MDBA colour map of water to be taken- State borders are dividers between amounts needed.
Stupid, blind, short sighted parochialism , where nobody wins but the politicians.
Hi Ian,
Ian be sensible, the River Murray is one of the most regulated Rivers in the world and that cannot really be changed, and of course I do NOT want to see an empty river but I DO NOT want to see the Lower River Murray NON-POTABLE!
Re, “So how about next drought we just let SA run dry, as it would have pre-regulation? In its ‘natural’ state” another ridiculous statement, though I sometimes feel that be preferable for those upstream of Lock 1.
Re, “You talk of remedial work which YOUR State Govt hasn’t done and obviously isn’t going to do.
(They are going to spend their money on High Court challenges to MDBP)” I will do everything I can to not allow this stupid Government from instigating any Supreme Court approaches and continue to lobby for the required remedial work.
Re, “So nothing happens there in the toilet bowl” that is certainly an Eastern state comment.
This whole process must be a NO BLAME process!
Peter,
We all understand the problem, it appears that YOU are the one who is missing the whole point.
Let’s try it from this perspective and then just MAYBE, you might understand.
You claim you understand that the damage was caused by lack of inflows (ie a millenium drought) but still then claim that somehow the LRM should have had more water in it.
In actual fact, as you have admitted yourself, the LRM was extra ordinarily lucky to have any water in it at all.
The incessant bleating about ‘bad management’ and poor SA is not helping your cause.
SA needs to take some responsibilty here and stop pretending that it is everybody else’s responsibility and that apart from pure physics and position that somehow SA suffered more than anyone else and that it’s not fair that people keep talking about the barrages and the ocean.
SA is vulnerable because of its position.
SA also wants its Lake environment to be like others further upstream when SA’s Lake environment is DIFFERENT to other upstream MDB environments because SA’s LAKE ENVIRONMENT IS INFLUENCED BY THE OCEAN AND COASTAL WEATHER PATTERNS!!!!!
The further anomoly is that the environment movement is pretending that a fresh water solution is necessary because that’s ‘natural’.
Of course the river is regulated….but it is bi polar to believe that it can regulate the influence of the ocean and coastal weather…ESPECIALLY WHEN INFLOWS ARE LOW!!!!
Your environment bears more similarities to other COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS, NOT upstream MDB environments.
UPSTREAM ARE INLAND ENVIRONMENTS…..YOURS IS NOT!!!!
Jennifer’s post clearly explains this.
Seriously Peter, if you want to live in an area that is not influenced by the ocean, then you may have to move. There are plenty of places in the MDB that do not have to deal with coastal influences, in actual fact that is everywhere else in the MDB except the LRM.
Even though SA is indeed in the MDB….IT IS NOT THE SAME and can’t be the same because whether you like it or not, SA’s part of this complex system IS INFLUENCED BY ITS POSITION ON THE COAST!!!!
Put simply, it has proven to be a mistake to try and nullify the influence of the ocean and coastal weather patterns in the manner that was tried.
The ocean and coastal climate is too powerful an influence.
Even if we sent all stored water to SA, we could still not nullify that influence.
It is far more sensible to accept the actual environment you have to work with and then WORK WITH IT and NOT AGAINST IT!!!!!
In most instances (not all) that is what the rest of the MDB has done.
There are however some mistakes that need to be fixed there too. Would SA like to pay for those and can we demand you take responsibilty for those and maybe you could offer us more water so we don’t have to fix them after all?
But of course there would be NO BLAME involved in this whole process.
Peter,
Well I prefer you did instead of the others on the Blog as I believe that is not helping the cause. Forget about U/S of lock one and concentrate on Lock Zero the new section of the Murray. It appears you haven’t read the report I sent you the other day where Mike Geddes says that you will have to put up with brackish water with his “virtual weir” idea which relies on very suitable river flows. Go to page ten where he hadn’t considered a lock I’m not sure what you mean by a lock and not a weir. It would have lock within the system yes well certainly if we were going to have some sort barrier the Wellington weir proposal which is no longer proposed is certainly not the way to go and an operating system would be an improvement but I’d like to see the sums done on how much water you’d need to be able to maintain the complete connectivity that this virtual weir concept gives you.
Peter in the time of DROUGHT you are going to have to put up with salt water or brackish water as Mike Geddes calls it.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “In actual fact, as you have admitted yourself, the LRM was extra ordinarily lucky to have any water in it at” I have not but if we were lucky so was the rest of the Basin, lucky you can’t hold it all.
I am sorry but re, “The incessant bleating about ‘bad management’ and poor SA is not helping your cause” it is true, does the truth hurt!
You can talk as much as you like about, “the barrages and the ocean” even though don’t understand the, “the barrages and the ocean” in SA.
And we DO KNOW, “SA is vulnerable because of its position” but in case we forget I know you will keeo reminding us!
Re, “SA also wants its Lake environment to be like others further upstream when SA’s Lake environment is DIFFERENT to other upstream MDB environments because SA’s LAKE ENVIRONMENT IS INFLUENCED BY THE OCEAN AND COASTAL WEATHER PATTERNS!” NO it was until we made so many irreversible alterations to the River Murray.
I have heard, to death, Jennifer’s posts and am constantly reading information especially Ian Mott’s but of course he is wrong as far as most upstream person’s believe because he disagrees with Jennifer.
Why should I move just because some people who don’t know or understand the LRM want to stuff up my region, I will stay and fight!
I CAN/Will NEVER ACCEPT, “It is far more sensible to accept the actual environment you have to work with and then WORK WITH IT and NOT AGAINST IT” which will render the LRM non-potable!
WE DON’T WANT MORE OF YOUR WATER just take your share!
Hi Sean,
I read what Mike said then I spoke to him for about an hour and he sent me the complete presentation.
Re, “a lock and not a weir” like Torrumbarry with fish passages and a Lock.
Re, “I’d like to see the sums done on how much water you’d need to be able to maintain the complete connectivity that this virtual weir concept gives you” I would also like to see the sums done and that would be part of any study.
Re, “Peter in the time of DROUGHT you are going to have to put up with salt water or brackish water as Mike Geddes calls it” that is also part of any study.
Sean,
I absolutely agree.
It is imperative that SA protects its potable water supply.
You most definitely need Lock zero or something similar.
I also agree that some ‘crawling’ is necessary.
Good for you.
Peter,
of course we could have held it all.
Aren’t you lucky we didn’t?
You are still completely missing the point.
Pay attention to Sean.
Focus on protecting and enhancing SA’s potable water supply.
And Peter. I think Ian Mott’s submission is one of the most sensible submissions out there.
He, like Jen, recognises the influence of the ocean and coastal weather patterns on your LRM environment.
Hi Debbie,
Yes we need to protect our potable water supply but from those like Jennifer, you and many others who have no idea and if you go to Just Grounds Community [mail@justgroundsonline.com] you will find out what Ian Mott is actually saying, brace yourself.
Come off it how could you have held all of that water? Ha ha
Re, “Focus on protecting and enhancing SA’s potable water supply” that is exactly what I am and have been trying to do since those who don’t understand began making stupid suggestions.
Hi Jennifer,
Do you have any $ figures on the cost of Buy Backs and MDBA and Ministerial junkets vs a weir and a pipe with wholesale water for Peter ?
Deniliquin is currently uneconomic as an airport ( for the great unwashed,), yet it is becoming a Ministerial drop in centre any old time. Just a thought.
Hi Sean,
I read what Mike said then I spoke to him for about an hour and he sent me the complete presentation.
So there is more to Dr.Mike Geddes presentation than the one I forwarded to you? The version I received is a restricted version issued by the SPRE Group Inc..
Peter,
During the drought? Where was all that water?
If you mean now, that is completely different.
Please remember who paid dearly to secure critical supplies to SA during the drought.
I don’t believe I have misrepresented Ian Mott. He does not pretend that the LRM should be free from its coastal influences.
Re the water I must of mis understood you but during the drought you could not hold all the water as that flies in the face of the Constitution and now when you would like to you haven’t got the storage capacity.
Re, “I don’t believe I have misrepresented Ian Mott. He does not pretend that the LRM should be free from its coastal influences” please log on to http://justgroundsonline.com/ you are WRONG!
Peter,
had a look.
You seem to be confusing the issue here.
While it is clear that IM & JM may not agree about certain definitions and recommended actions.
Nowhere do either of them pretend that your LRM environment is not heavily influenced, repeat heavily influenced by the ocean and coastal weather. That would be because it clearly is.
Debbie
I read all the comments on that forum too and I can’t understand Ian’s animosity against Jennifer.
Something must have upset him terribly.
Reading the posts I could pick holes in both of their arguments, but one thing Jennifer said convinces me that it’s all political after all.
She said
“Federal Water Minister Tony Burke can buy back all the water from all the irrigators across the entire Murray Darling, but this will have very little real impact “
Indeed you have to think about this buy-back a bit more, what is the real purpose behind it?
If we no longer want agriculture to benefit from the dams and infrastructure we built up over the last half century or more, then why not just demolish all the dams canals etc and be done with it?
Or is there an other reason? I for the life of me can’t see it. Keeping the dams just to water the riverbanks and keep the lakes fresh? Quite an extravagant and expensive gesture to my mind.
Might as well go back to where it all started and then see how the protagonists will like it?
Seems to me some want their cake and it it too though!
Hi Debbie,
You always make me smile Jennifer and Ian are at odds and whilst Mark A can see that you can’t.
Yes, “Nowhere do either of them pretend that your LRM environment is not heavily influenced, repeat heavily influenced by the ocean and coastal weather. That would be because it clearly is” I agree there is tidal influence and their views are poles apart and I believe the reason for this is Ian understands the region and Jennifer DOES NOT!
It is bad luck for you as you are being put in Jennifer’s group, that is the don’t know groep.
Hi Mark A,
Re, “I read all the comments on that forum too and I can’t understand Ian’s animosity against Jennifer. Something must have upset him terribly” I agree and could it be because she is wrong?
And yes Mark it is a political brawl and I feel it is because of the lack of understanding or the lack of will ro understand and there is too much crap being espoused.
I also feel the Federal Government is only interested in the money that can be made from the water and believe we can always buy our food from overseas.
Yes they are at odds Peter,
It also appears you are at odds with both of them. Unlike you, they at least both recognise that SA would do better to work with its key influence environment rather than against it.
I agree Mark A. It is defintely political. Too much ‘entitlement mentality’ operating as well.
I also think water resources are far too important to play politics with.
Trashing human/community resources. . . ie the storages and inland irrigation networks. . . in favour of naive political and parochial ideology is mindlessly stupid.
Pretending it is complicated and therefore all too hard is also nonsense.
That just suits the parochial politics. That won’t solve anything. That would be business as usual:-)
Peter,
So there is more to Dr.Mike Geddes presentation than the one I forwarded to you? The version I received is a restricted version issued by the SPRE Group Inc..
Hi Debbie,
We will always be at odds but as far as Jennifer and Ian the person I am most at odds with is Jennifer.
Ian explains the tides and what they can and can’t do and what will happen if they are removed he really speaks sense.
The whole issue is FAR TOO political and Australia’s water is certainly not a game.
The complete LRM issue is complicated and WHEN you understand it and seriously LOOK at it you may realise that.
ANYONE who believes that removal of the Barrages will solve the problem is to put it politely is an IDIOT!
Maybe it would be better if those who understood areas/regions stuck to giving advice in those areas/regions instead of talking crap about other areas/regions that they have not visited and spoken to the locals about.
Peter said:
“Something must have upset him terribly”I agree and could it be because she is wrong?”
Pardon?
Being rude and behaving in general as an uncouth belligerent boor will make her fact any more wrong or his facts any more right than they already are?
Specially coming from him, complaining that Susan didn’t supply her surname, big deal!
Unless you are a well known person it’s meaningless anyway, you’d have to provide some ID to prove who you are.
If I post rubbish, (prob. most of the time) it remains rubbish whether I post it under Mark Aurel or John Paul the 2nd.
Being civil costs nothing.
just my thoughts.
Hi Mark A,
Re, ““Something must have upset him terribly” I agree and could it be because she is wrong?” Pardon?” well Mark could she be wrong?
“well Mark could she be wrong?”
Peter In some aspect yes I think she is and in some aspect so is everyone else.
In a complex problem like this nobody has the perfect answer.
I’m sorry Peter, but you either don’t read the posts or have a comprehension problem.
My whole point was that being polite and civil to each other has nothing to do with being wrong or right.
Any argument rests on its merit not on how loudly or often you state it.
Calling someone an idiot as some here do, contributes nothing to the debate.
If you don’t mind I don’t think we have much to say to each other on this or probably any subject.
Good luck to you.
Mark A,
While I almost totally agree with you, I have to take issue with your assertation that it’s a complex problem. It isn’t really all that complex, the politics are making it so.
Water management is not particularly difficult. The basic rule is that water runs downhill. The next thing to remember is that it is a renewable resource. The final important factor is that water and gravity together are an amazing untapped power that have a zero carbon footprint.
Nearly everything else is just nonsense politics.
OH!
And I forgot to mention; if you live near the coast then you will be influenced by the ocean and coastal weather and you are therefore in a coastal environment. If you live inland then you are in an ephemeral inland environment.
Also, the storages were not built to enhance flooding, they were built as human resources. They were also not built to flush water out to the ocean.
It isn’t actually rocket science
As a total aside, I happen to be in the Illawarra district at the moment for a family function. My auntie &uncle live on Wallaga Lake.
It’s one of many tidal/estuarine environments in this area.
Despite Peter’s continuous banter about ‘understanding’ I have often visited the LRM, the Lower Lakes and also tbe winery districts in SA. I understand water use/management there as well as the result of the SE drainage works.
And Peter, Mark A is right on the money re your attitude.
I think SA is a beautiful place, but the attitude to water management and recognising environmental influences is rather behind tbe eight ball.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a false assumption, it is still a false assumption.
Comment from: Mark A February 18th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
My whole point was that being polite and civil to each other has nothing to do with being wrong or right.
Any argument rests on its merit not on how loudly or often you state it.
Calling someone an idiot as some here do, contributes nothing to the debate.
If you don’t mind I don’t think we have much to say to each other on this or probably any subject.
Mark A,
Very well put.