YESTERDAY the South Australian government yet again displayed its contempt for science and history by claiming yet again that Lake Alexandria is, and always has been, a freshwater lake.[1]
I’m hopeful that the local tabloid, the Adelaide Advertiser, will publish my reply. So far this News Ltd publication has refused to let me respond to various articles about me.
My Letter to The Editor:
Paul Caica, South Australian Minister for Water and the River Murray, claims that in wishing to restoring the Murray River estuary, I show disrespect for scientific work and the culture of the region’s traditional owners, the Ngarrindjeri (Lakes flood plan defiles the existing evidence, Adelaide Advertiser, March 31, 2009).
In fact, all the science published in peer-reviewed journals is on my side. Minister Caica’s claim is consistent with the Book of Genesis in the Bible inferring the estuary came ready-formed with a sand barrier and central lagoon. But such an interpretation denies geological and environmental reality. The scientific literature clearly shows that Lake Alexandrina has a marine origin that dates back to a period of late Pleistocene and early Holocene sea level rise. Since this time the coastal sand barrier and related landward estuarine environments have evolved and changed naturally, including manifold changes in salinity.
The Murray Mouth barrages were built to stop saltwater intrusions that were a problem from the time of European settlement. Indeed, long before the development of upstream irrigation, the Southern Ocean would push in each autumn and for longer periods during drought.
The seawater poured in through the Murray’s mouth and sometimes worked its way across the lake and then into the River Murray proper as far north as Mannum. This is recorded in the patangi – a song category of the Ngarrindjeri. In one of these stories, the River Murray drags trees along as sea water flows upstream as far as Mypolonga. The river water was too salty to drink and the Ngarrindjeri were forced to dig wells about two feet deep to get drinkable water.
Minister Caica really should read more and/or consult more widely to avoid making foolish statements.
Jennifer Marohasy
Biologist, Noosa, Queensland
**********
[1] Article by Minister Caica
Lakes flood plan defies the existing evidence
Queensland biologist Jeniffer Marohasy would have Australians believe that removing the Barrages at Goolwa, near the mouth of the River Murray and letting seawater flood into Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert should be at the heart of the draft Murray Darling Basin plan.
Dr. Marohasy recently released a report called Plugging the Murray River’s Mouth, which was commissioned by the Australian Environmental Foundation (AEF) of which she is a member.
To support her recommendations Dr. Marohasy asserted that the Lower Lakes were not a freshwater environment before European settlement.
This defies the respected scientific work on this matter. Science based on the study of diatoms (microscopic single-celled algae) in sediment deposited in the LL tells us that they have been predominantly freshwater environment for the past 7000-years.
Dr. Marohasy claims also contradict the culture and wellbeing of the region’s traditional owners, the Ngarrindjeri, which for thousands of years have been directly tied to the water in the Lower Lake’s system being fresh.
Dr. Marohasy’s report also ignores the devastating consequences of flooding the Lower Lake with sea water.
The SA Government investigated this during the recent drought and found that acidity would mobilise, and heavy metals would be released, if sea water was allowed to flow into the Lower Lakes.
Hypersalinity would occur threatening the security of water supplied to Adelaide and country towns.
The ecology and economy of the Coorong and the Lower Lake’s region would be decimated, with native fish, plant and bird species becoming extinct.
While the scant regard for downstream communities and the environment is worrying, what is more alarming is the apparent attempt to distort the public debate on the crucial debate of our nation’s iconic system.
Other respected scientists have discredited the work, with one stating that “science should not be twisted to support a poorly supported and dangerous policy option.”
Even the scientist claiming to have peer-reviewed the report by Dr. Marohasy has admitted on ABC’s Media Watch on Monday that he was a friend and was “happy to accept” he may not have seen all the flaws in her argument.
The SA Government has been advocating for a Murray Darling Basin Plan that is based on science.
Our own scientific work analysing the plan is being independently reviewed by the Goyder Institute for Water Research. The State Government will continue to advocate that it is essential to treat the science that helps inform policy decisions with respect. [end of article]
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I’m afraid your letter will be ignored by Minister Caica as he clearly has his own agenda.
May I suggest you direct your complaints to these guys.
http://goyderinstitute.org/index.php?id=22
http://goyderinstitute.org/news.php?type=news&nid=13
Except that the same Minister is probably responsible for handing over a $14m research budget to the same Goyder Institute.
It therefore begs the question as to who provided the advice to Caica in the first place and whether the same people highlighted in the web site would not have a conflict of interest, either via this Institute or via their day jobs.?
I am sure that they are very capable and well versed in their fields and men of the highest integrity ..but isnt it all a bit ridiculous and rather circular?
Hi Jennifer,
I think a clarifying public statement from the gentleman who peer reviewed your paper would not hurt anyone. Especially concerning in what way he was approached by the ABC and what he was actually asked and what they may have inferred.
I also think that the newspaper concerned is sailing very close to the wind ,by publishing such a one sided and uninformed story. They are, after all, attacking your professional integrity.
Where now are the great team from Media Watch ?
Someone needs to watch Media Watch .
Ah come on guys professional integrity is attacked all the time. You’re now at an “us and them” position and they’ll be primed to repel boarders. Minister is not listening. Jen’s just seen as an annoying campaigner and known dissenter against their agenda/status quo.
The Minister will be surrounded by a bunch of minders simply defending their position – why? coz – it’s there position. He probably didn’t even write the response. They hardly ever do. And South Australia won’t gain as much as Victoria and NSW on the water. And think of the insult of some Queenslander from Noosa (Noosa – WTF – what happened to Rocky and how did you swing that) wandering into their patch. So what’s in it for them?
You have to simulate their position if you want to get anywhere. Will hurling bricks assist or strengthen the battle lines. You need to get more sophisticated (somehow).
Meanwhile getting headlines on another planet http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/experts-say-river-murray-plan-illegal/story-e6freonf-1226316088035
The Minister should definitely ask the Ngarrindjeri. They are the only people who were there that long ago. They will know the truth; people do not have time to make up silly tales. If it is there in the ‘patangi’, it is almost certainly true. It takes an effort to compose songs and with limited time people are not going to waste their lives with nonsense.
Alternatively the Minister could look at the Science, but this will be much more difficult for him as he seems to understand absolutely nothing about it and relies on the trusted gang of myopics by which he is surrounded. Checking the song and talking to the Ngarrindjeri would save time.
John S.
The Goydner Institute was established with South Australian government money to provide justification for government policy. Its headed by a guy originally from South Australia (so that cultural baggage) brought back from a job in Holland where he was involved in management of the world’s most famous sea dykes. Do you think he cares about the estuary or restoration of the same?
A stupid as ever Mr Luke.. hang around long enough and the AAS will give you as gong as well…. the standards are that low.
Of course the contracted minions involved would have written Caicas response, that was the whole point about conflict of interest.
The Institute is funded by the SAG and their day jobs are, in the main within the PS..and tell me any PS in Australia that are still rendering impartial advice.
That went out the window years ago….along with highly paid contracts for the senior Executives ….so we pay more to get less.
Yes – I aware of his background, Jen, but he’s not alone in the organisation so perhaps you and Dr Ridd could lobby the rest of the team. Obviously they are the minions Luke refers to.
Goyder himself was remarkable. He must have had the whole package: stamina, intuition, observation, patience. He seems to have had no mindset, so he might be cautious or bold, depending on circumstances and his observations.
He was one of a few, like Elizabeth Macarthur and Kidman, who seemed to have understanding where everything was novel, vast and topsy-turvy. If it’s not something denied to most of us, namely genius, what is it?
Anyway, it would be nice to ask George for an opinion on the MDB. He certainly knew very early that the rain comes big time and goes away big time, when the dogmatists insisted that it follows the plough.
Is the environment the real agenda?
This is from a CPA paper but sounds plausible.
“The Guardian” Murray-Darling water for nuclear plants
http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian-pdf/2007/Guardian1310_07-03-2007_screen.pdf
If as Paul Caica claims the Lower lakes were always fresh.
Then why were the barrages built?
Caica’s claim is rubbish and does not even deserve comment.
Pikey.
Pikey said:
“Then why were the barrages built?”
Someone else mentioned this fact a few weeks ago and for some reason this question is ignored and sidestepped all the time
Why?
This one question should be the most relevant one, at least in proving the lakes original state and condition.
It’s almost like A Bolt’s question, “by how much will the temperature come down?” if we pay the carbon tax.
It’s actually more serious than that Pikey – how come all Caica’s scientific advisers don’t understand your simple statement of fact?
That’s why I suggested Jen go after them.
Hi Pikey,
Paul Caica HAS NEVER CLAIMED there was no seawater incursions and the Murray Darling Basin Authority also admit of, during recorded history, a17% seawater history.
Hi Johnathon,
Why were the Barrages constructed? Firstly there was to be 26 Locks along the River Murray the original plans for Locks the farthest downstream was to be near Wellington. To construct a Lock near Wellington was deemed to difficult because of the nature of the bottom of the River so as a trade-off for the construct of Lake Mulwala it was decided to construct the Barrages. One of the reasons was to protect SA’s potable water supply others include as a source of irrigation for the properties surrounding Lakes Alexandrina and Albert, the irrigation swamps downstream of Murray Bridge in the late 1890’s and early 1990’s and the irrigators downstream of Lock 1 and to protect the potable water supply for all communities between Lock 1 and the Southern Ocean.
Peter, I have no beef with the system as is.
My point was that in order to maintain the status quo, the spin is that the lakes were always fresh.
If that is so then why the barrages?
Still, I can only hear spin.
“To construct a Lock near Wellington was deemed to difficult because of the nature of the bottom of the River so as a trade-off for the construct of Lake Mulwala it was decided to construct the Barrages”
No – you decided to grab the lot for your potable water supply. You hogged a perfectly formed estuarine water system and claimed it yours! yours for your water supply. What if the others up stream claimed theirs as their water supply?
New Comparison of Ocean Temperatures Reveals Rise over the Last Century
Ocean robots used in Scripps-led study that traces ocean warming to late 19th century
Apparently some groups use “old” data and consider it useful enough to help schlepp CAGW.
Hi Johnathan,
Re, “I have no beef with the system as is” neither have I but I being the independent spokesperson for Lock Zero believe that if changes need to be made then a full investigation should be undertaken into the possibility and viability of a Torrumbarry type weir/lock near Wellington is a must.
I agree the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert were not always fresh though the major portion of recordable history (some 80% of the time) the history is fresh and I am tired of the spin, especially from politicians!
Hi John,
Which planet are you living on? Yes – SA wanted more potable water as did NSW and Vic (hence Lake Mulwala) as critical human needs, riparian rights and irrigation are important to all States and all Australians wasn’t Lake Mulwala created for the same reason?
SA alone did not make the decision to construct the Barrages and SA alone do not pay for the running costs of the Barrages, the major percentage more than any other State or the Federal Government is contributed by NSW!
OK, “You hogged a perfectly formed estuarine water system and claimed it yours! Yours for your water supply.” whilst I disagree with ‘hogged’ and if the Barrages were not constructed FROMWHERE do you believe over 80% of SA’s potable water should be sourced?
Also re, “What if the others up stream claimed theirs as their water supply?” which of their estuaries do you wish to claim?
All you are doing is perpetuating the ‘them and us’ agument!
“FROMWHERE do you believe over 80% of SA’s potable water should be sourced?”
from where it is currently sourced – upstream from Wellington. You could have simply built a lock at Wellington, there would have been no reason the disrupt the natural state of the Lower lakes. If you can build a lock at Goolwa I don’t see how building one below Wellington would be any different.
BTW Peter – Lake Mulwala is 4450 hectares (118 gigalitres) whereas Lake Alexandrina is 64,900 hectares (1,610 gigalitres ). Lake Mulwala doesn’t have a sea water option.
Peter,
Are you putting in a submission for Lock Zero ? I have noticed a submission from the LRMIA is calling for a pool level 0.75M AHD if their is another drought but doesn’t mention a new lock between d/s Lock 1 all the way down to the barrages. The last drought has proved that is impossible as Goolwa fell to -1.034 M AHD and David Dreverman according to the information you have forwarded has no intention of using sea water in the Lower Lakes and no suggestion of building a lock. LRMIA bad luck you miss out again collapsed river banks etc. etc. Goolwa will probably be okay as the dirt is sitting close by, rebuild Clayton Regulator pump 27 GL into the channel from Lake Alexandrina and bring the pool level back up to 0.75M AHD. Clayton to below Lock 1 ???????????????
John,
The reason that a lock did not go in at or near Wellington way back in the 1930’s is that there were some very wealthy pastoralists located just on the Lake side of Wellington. Some of their descendants are still there today. If they had allowed the lock/weir to go in at Wellington or Pomand Point, their private estates would have been on the wrong side of most of the fresh water. Instead the pastoralists lobbied to build the barrages where they currently are now.
Hi John,
As I said before which planet are you living on? “You could have simply built a lock at Wellington” if it were only that simple firstly a proper investigation needs to be undertaken and secondly who pays for it as the Barrages where a Commonwealth Government project as were the Locks! It is obvious that you have no understanding of the complexities!
It is not about the size of Lake Mulwala but why it was built?
Hi Sean,
Yes it has been submitted and I am not responsible for any other organisation. I spoke to David Dreverman last week and you are correct ‘no seawater’ and though David is aware of the Lock Zero proposal the Authority do not support the idea.
Thank you Susan. Surely now that kilometres of pipes have been laid to these farms they should be satisfied with that as a permanent fresh water source. Obviously they need to get it a price that is equivalent to what it cost to pump directly from the lakes and that would mean subsidies, I have no problem with that. In fact surely that would be a better option for them as they would always get water even in times of drought.
Peter, Lake Mulwala was built as an irrigation storage and a recreational lake for the district. Lake Alexandrina was also built as an irrigation source and a recreational lake using the barrages The difference is the size of each project and each lake!
So if the Commonwealth pays for lock zero so what?
Here’s what Wiki has to say about it.
How would it be if the Victorians, and others, spent some time and effort to cover and seal the miles of open channels in their irrigation areas.
As the Premier Wetherall, and others, have said, the Victorians waste more water from losses in the channels than the SA people use.
Whilst they are about that, why dont the upper states do more to help mitigate the salt levels..and not leave it to the down stream people….such as had to be done years ago in the Riverland area ..at Berri I think it was.
If all that was done then SA may not have a leg to stand on, re opening of the barrages, and NSW and Victoria wouldnt look to be so hypocritical.
There may then be enough to keep more people and the environment happy, more often.
Hi Susan,
That is the only reason, what a load of bull***t read the official documents and the bottom of the River was not (in those days) capable of supporting the structures.
Hi John,
Re your comments to Susan even if the properties supplied from the pipelines could get the water at the same price as pumping they DO NOT want the Barrages removed. Also removing the Barrages without another regulator being installed will render the Lower River a non-potable stinking mess.
I understand about Lake Mulwala and about size I couldn’t give a damn but if the Barrages go Lake Mulwala and the bridge must go also!
What Wiki say also has no effect on my thinking as the proposed weir at Pomanda Island was sheer lunacy.
Re, “So if the Commonwealth pays for Lock Zero so what?” it’s about the Federal and State Governments agreeing to firstly fund a full investigation into Lock Zero!
Hi MM,
Re, “How would it be if the Victorians, and others, spent some time and effort to cover and seal the miles of open channels in their irrigation areas” that would be fantastic as the evaporation is calculated at about 740-Gigalitres per year.
The rest of your post has a great deal of merit but re, “re opening of the barrages” or removing the Barrages is still not an option but if Lock Zero we believe Lakes Alexandrina and Albert could be managed successfully for the properties surrounding the Lakes and the environment.
There may then be enough to keep more people and the environment happy, more often.
Good grief Peter,
Are you never going to get out of your parochial, bi polar box?
“To construct a Lock near Wellington was deemed to difficult because of the nature of the bottom of the River so as a trade-off for the construct of Lake Mulwala it was decided to construct the Barrages.”
This is patently false. The nature of the bottom of the barrages is no more or no less difficult than the bottom of the river near Wellington. Even Mike Taylor has publicly stated this statement is false! The truth is that SA preferred to have the barrages rather than the weir. The difficulty was access to funds….trade off was related to FUNDS….not difficulties on the bottom of the river!!!!
and here:
“How would it be if the Victorians, and others, spent some time and effort to cover and seal the miles of open channels in their irrigation areas” that would be fantastic as the evaporation is calculated at about 740-Gigalitres per year….
BTW Peter, that evaporation calculation is also false….especially if you’re claiming it comes from Victorian channels only….it then becomes completely false rather than a dubious ‘modelling’ false.
But you then said in your previous post:
even if the properties supplied from the pipelines could get the water at the same price as pumping ….
Can’t you see the fatal parochial flaw in that position?
It basically says it’s perfectly OK for SA to lose water from evaporation in the Lakes but that the Victorians have to do something about their evaporation losses in their PURPOSE BUILT, GRAVITY FED, PRODUCTION BASED CHANNELS which they ALREADY PAY DEARLY FOR at their own cost????
That way SA shouldn’t have to do anything at all other than a bit of water pulsing????? Furthermore you’re arguing that the whole of Australia must pay for whatever SA decides to do…(which they can’t seem to decide because of all those insurmountable complexities).
And Also….I can see why Sean is so frustrated with you.
You prefer to defend the position of the barrages and NO SEAWATER intrusions and attack eastern states when you make public comment rather than yanking open your mind and campaigning for win/win practical options that include lock zero and sensible re engineering of the whole Lower Lake & Coorong system.
There have been some poor decisions made in SA (as there have in other states)….we now have a golden opportunity to work on fixing them ….but people like you just want to keep putting up the same old, same old arguments…even some of your own SA federal members and senators are getting completely sick of the unproductive political rhetoric coming out of SA.
I am also appalled at your duplicity when you failed to correct Muggins Mal’s false and completely outdated assumptions about salt incursions and only went for his argument re the barrages.
And finally, re a question you asked me at a previous post.
I have double checked the figures and also checked the MDBA figures.
The 2 different sets are not remarkably different. The NFF figures say that only 2% of the total average rainfall accrloss the entire MDB ends up being stored, the MDBA figures claim it is 4% because their averaging models are different.
Don’t you think it’s completely ludicrous that is the water that everyone is arguing over?
Especially when we consider that those storages were built as human resources and production resources….NOT environmental resources and NOT to trash out to sea.
And finally Peter,
This is public property so I’m sure Ian will not mind me posting it.
I am aware that Ian and Jen have differences of opinions about the lower lakes and the barrages but it is clear from this article that he doesn’t agree with you.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/12/has-it-worked
I never said, “To construct a Lock near Wellington was deemed to difficult because of the nature of the bottom of the River so as a trade-off for the construct of Lake Mulwala it was decided to construct the Barrages” that was one of the reasons for not constructing the Lock near Wellington and part of the trade-off was Lake Mulwala.
Re, “The nature of the bottom of the barrages is no more or no less difficult than the bottom of the river near Wellington” that is total crap but you should understand or would if you knew the area!
The Barrages were NOT an SA ONLY decision!
The 740-Gigalitres is from open channel irrigation channel’s.
Irrigators want River water not water filtered for consumption with chlorine added.
Yes there is evaporation from the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert what I am seeking is where possible evaporation should be minimised.
Re, Sean I don’t really care if he is, “frustrated with you” I sometimes can’t fathom him either.
Once again Debbie, I have an open mind re Lake Alexandrina and Albert and what we believe should happen to reinstate Lake Albert and maintain Lake Alexandrina and I am campaigning for Lock Zero but no Government or Government agency with entertain the study required and re, “sensible re engineering of the whole Lower Lake & Coorong system” Lock Zero and a new management structure is all that is required after the total upgrading of the Barrages.
Re, “There have been some poor decisions made in SA (as there have in other states)….we now have a golden opportunity to work on fixing them ….but people like you just want to keep putting up the same old, same old arguments…even some of your own SA federal members and senators are getting completely sick of the unproductive political rhetoric coming out of SA” could I please have their names so I can contact them?
Regarding, “environmental resources and NOT to trash out to sea” I totally disagree!
Regarding information from Ian if you want it posted ask Ian and yes he and J.M. have differences but when speaking to Ian about the Southern Ocean tides I am, after speaking to residents from the area, convinced he is correct!
Peter,
I have been looking for the Lock Zero group submission, can only find Peter Smith “Campaign Submission”
Thank you for the link, http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/12/has-it-worked
Ian explains the Southern Ocean tides near the mouth of the River Murray and why, if the Barrages were removed,
The River’s mouth would be closed by the tides.
“But few people understand that it is not silt from upstream farms that normally restricts the river flow. Rather, it is sand from the beach, deposited by the inbound tides and storm surges that can undo all the corrective work of a million ML of river outflow in a single storm event.”
I have spoken to Ian about the Southern Coorong and whilst I do not disagree with the construction of a pipeline, “Just one large, unidirectional, 1km pipe under the dunes” this option is totally opposed by the Ngarrindjeri hence our suggestion that a pipe be constructed over the top, which is acceptable to the Ngarrindjeri.
Peter,
go to your comment April2nd 8.08 am.
I cut and pasted it and it is exactly what you said.
Just saying something is total crap and/or you completely disagree does not make sense and proves nothing.
You seem to be the one who doesn’t understand the technical aspects and difficulties of the bottom of the river. What do you think the barrages are built on? What is so especially difficult about the Wellington area that hasn’t been dealt with elsewhere?
Re Ian Mott, I notice you completely avoided his points about using sea water and his point about SA claiming more fresh water to ‘slosh’is the answer. You have also ignored his point about the costs to society.
Instead you throw up another seemingly insurmountable complexity re the pipe to the Coorong and claim you are now speaking for the indegenous people?
I note also that Sean is questioning your submission.
It is more about political than it is about practical.
Why is that the case Peter?
Also, what do you disagree with re my comment about % of storages and also the purpose of storages? Why do you think they were built?
Peter,
I see The Adelaide Uni. has put forward an engineering solution for the Murray Mouth with a second submission to the MDBA, Mundoo Barrage. I see it takes two days to open and close the barrage and that it is rarely opened, which has caused sand buildup. I have forwarded a copy of the submission to you.
Firstly hi Sean,
The Lock Zero submission was submitted but this morning I submitted it again so hope it is up on the site!
Ho Debbie,
The difference between Wellington and the River’s mouth where the Barrages is different come down and have a look!
I have taken into consideration what Ian has posted but to me the most important is the tidal movement which shows without the Barrages (and then dredges will be required) the mouth will be closed!
Re, “Instead you throw up another seemingly insurmountable complexity re the pipe to the Coorong and claim you are now speaking for the indigenous people?” NO I DO NOT speak for the ‘Ngarrindjeri’ and I have NEVER claimed to do so but as many are close friends and I respect them I am pleased to be able to convey their message and I will be attending their meetings with the MDB Authority at their request!
Hi Sea,
I shall look at the Adelaide University submission later today, thanks.
John S,
From the Trove website, an interesting article from a landowner who was opposing the location of Wellington for the barrages; E. H Bakewell of Yalkuri Station in Narrung.
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article59855487
“WELLINGTON SITE OPPOSED
‘Any move to place a barrage across the River Murray at Wellington merits the strongest opposition. Riparian rights of settlers south of the proposed site will be infringed, and stretches of fertile land ruined by salt. Skilled engineers have shown that the barrages should be near the mouth of the Murray.’— Mr. E. H. Bakewell. ”
Of course he was going to be more concerned about making sure his property was on the right side of the barrages for cattle and sheep operation.
Just like today, nothing has changed.
Peter,
I have had a look and I have also researched, you apparently have just repeated unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Susan’s post has much more to do with this issue than anything to do with perceived difficulties at Wellington or anywhere else.
The argument about the bottom of the river being unstable is ridiculous when we consider what the barrages were built on. That is one of the most unstable areas in the whole system yet those barrages were successfully constructed. Go figure?
Re Ian’s comments, did you notice he also pointed out that dredging is a far more cost effective option than current proposals and also less damaging to all and sundry?
He offers a workable cost effective solution that allows some decent compromise between the 2 extremes in this issue.
Put it on the table Peter.
Open your mind and put all the options on the table. Despite your loud claims otherwise, the majority of them actually have SA’s future interests at heart.
Your plan may not necessarily be the best plan for either the socio – economic fabric in the MDB or the natural environment in the MDB.
Parochial politics and a refusal of all States to accept responsibility for their obvious mistakes is what got us in this mess in the first place.
In general, SA’s behaviour has been appalling, but that doesn’t mean that other states are guiltless. My state probably comes in at a very close second with Vic not very far behind!
Unfortunately, SA has the most to lose by behaving in this manner, it neither has the numbers nor the robust empirical data to back up its claims.
Hi Susan,
Thank you for that link and as then riparian rights are under risk if you get your way and the Barrages are either opened or removed. Re, “Of course he was going to be more concerned about making sure his property was on the right side of the barrages for cattle and sheep operation. Just like today, nothing has changed” and if you had riparian rights would you not be concerned? Susan stop being so selfish!
Hi Debbie,
I am pleased you have done the research and as for Susan’s point, as I have said come and have a look at the situation, you may learn something and don’t forget your diving gear!
I did not introduce, “The argument about the bottom of the river being unstable is ridiculous when we consider what the barrages were built on” though the argument is ridiculous in today’s world a point I have made at numerous meetings and in presentations to many including politicians.
Re Ian, “I am happy to see his suggestions put on the table and I am sure his submission to the MDB Authority will contain his views.
Re, “Open your mind and put all the options on the table. Despite your loud claims otherwise, the majority of them actually have SA’s future interests at heart” that’s fine but removing the Barrages options DO NOT HAVE SA’s INTERESTS AT HEART!
No, “Your plan may not necessarily be the best plan for either the socio – economic fabric in the MDB or the natural environment in the MDB” but at last we are being listened to after numerous radio interviews and numerous correspondence with sources throughout the Basin, even some politicians.
I cannot accept that, “In general, SA’s behaviour has been appalling, but that doesn’t mean that other states are guiltless. My state probably comes in at a very close second with Vic not very far behind!” all States in the Basin are equally to blame but then I am not about blame accepting for politicians.
Regarding losing we all could finish up losing and losing plenty.
What happens now as Bourke has said, “if the Plan’s a dud I will change it” as I have said on the radio this week whose plan is it?
Also we all know for over a century Federal Governments have failed to resolve the Basin’s problems but one this is for sure the Federal Government will have spent the most and go down in history in infamy as having spent the most money and time etc and TOTALLY FAILED!
Peter?
Why would I need diving gear?
Is that how you have looked and apparently attained a superior understanding of the base of the river at Wellington and the base for the barrages?
Also, your today’s world argument does not make sense. The barrages were constructed and operational by the 1940s.
The Wellington construction was technically possible too.
I agree about the monumental wastage for a non solution. Very, very frustrating.
Debbie,
Don’t laugh but Lock 1 has just recenlty been upgraded so they don’t have to use divers to guide the concrete sleepers back into their chambers. They now use a special frame to guide and a smaller crane ( just like Goolwa) to remove and replace the sleepers.
Hi Debbie,
It is really deep.
What I meant by, “though the argument is ridiculous in today’s world a point I have made at numerous meetings and in presentations to many including politicians and the State NRM Committee, we now have the required engineering knowledge to construct a Lock where the bottom is deep with silt, so now it is relatively easy but expensive.
Hi Sean,
Why would Debbie laugh at the modernisation of Lock 1 all Locks should be up-graded to operate like Torrumbarry?
I’m laughing because we should be focusing on spending our time and money on improving/upgrading the things that we know will improve our regulatory systems rather than pretending that our problem is something else.
SA is definitely one of those places.
Yes it’s deep. Yes its silty. Neither of those issues have prevented anyone from doing what was done even in the 1930’s.
We also desperately need to fix up areas and structures and management regimes that have proved to be unsustainable.
Our problems with water resources are not essentially ‘environmental’ and SA’s pretense that it is an environmental issue is not solving anything and is coming back to bite SA.
The added arguments about who is the most efficient and etc are also ignoring the real issue and are not substantiated. They only fuel the parochial nonsense.
Peter,
You’re the one that mentioned diving gear. I was only letting Debbie know what great advice such a knowledgable person as yourself had given her. As you know I am Irish but why don’t you just chase up Sarah from LEMIA and let her know of your Lock Zero idea and explain how it will help with a stable pool level of 0.75 M AHD from below Lock 1 to the new Lock Zero ( your area )that she is looking for.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “I’m laughing because…….” we believe Lock Zero is, “on spending our time and money on improving/upgrading the things that we know will improve our regulatory systems rather than pretending that our problem is something else” and re SA, “SA is definitely one of those places” keep it up just critised SA again/still.
I am regret having to inform you that in the 1930’s they deemed it was too difficult to construct a Lock near Wellington.
Re, “We also desperately need to fix up areas and structures and management regimes that have proved to be unsustainable” we agree 100% totally upgrade the Barrages, reinstate the Narrung Narrows, upgrade all the Locks along the River Murray to operate like Torrumbarry and investigate the viability of Lock Zero!
Many of the problems in Lakes Alexandrina and Albert and the Coorong are environmental and maintaining them as fresh has a great deal to do with that.
If we allow that area to become saline with the mouth regularly closed the salinity level increase rapidly and it will become an environmental disaster. And then it will REALLY BITE SA minimal cost, hard to put a figure on.
Why are you reopening the, “The added arguments about who is the most efficient and etc are also ignoring the real issue and are not substantiated” I am not in the BLAME game!
Hi Sean,
We don’t need to be constantly reminded of your heritage!
I am not familiar with LEMIA.
Because I have recently heard them loudly claimed AGAIN in the political agenda.
Not hard to go back through this site and find you stating the same on numerous ocaisions.
The truth is AUSTRALIAN irrigation farmers are amongst the best and most efficient in the world. That accolade DOES NOT belong exclusively to one region or one state. It is something that AUSTRALIANS are very good at and remain competetive on the world market DESPITE the competition from overseas subsides.
But what do we hear as recently as last week?
SA is the best and we should force the other states to fix up their game and remove a key input from them and increase their carbon footprint and their operating costs.
And it is said as if it is a foregone substantiated conclusion.
How stupidly parochial can you possibly get?
Peter,
I will send you a copy of Sarah’s submission. I had a typist error LRMIA.
We don’t need to be constantly reminded of your heritage!
The feeling is mutual, I thought someone with a title would speak to people with a bit more respect when they had a difference of opinion.
Hi Sean,
Thanks I saw it as LEMIA now you have corrected that to LRMIA I am familiar with it.
If I upset some people by the way I say things so be it, it has nothing to do with my title, and one of the reasons I received it was because of community and being the way I am. I speak the same or similarly to all people, as we are all the same, that’s just me! Sorry!
Peter,
I do realise why you received it but unfortunately I still believe respect to other people views should be shown in a better way.
By the way what does your mate Ian think of the Adel. Uni. Mundoo Barrage idea I frowarded to you.
Wot is the reality of that utter nonsense about it being too hard to build a lower lock back then?
Look-up *The Brooklyn Bridge* (New York) completed in 1883.
(eighteen eighty three)
Hi Bob,
It wasn’t me who decided it was too difficult and those that made the decision then are no longer with us. It is not about building the Lock at this time but having the feasibility studies done ASAP so if the studies are positive and when the opportunity arrives the construction can begin.
Peter,
they may no longer be with us but the records are.
It was about funding and preferences and even though it was partnered by the Fed Govt, it was SA’s choice. The ‘difficulty’ argument was mostly an excuse by both govts to justify not spending to complete what we all know should have been done.
It’s OK to admit there have been mistakes you know..
What are you going to do if the feasability study rejects Lock zero?
What is your plan B or C?
We all know something needs to be done. The staus quo is not sustainable.
Hi Debbie,
It was not just SA’s decision that is probably why all Basin States plus the Commonwealth contribute to the running costs of the Barrages.
Yes there have been mistakes made and if we can get a proper study undertaken we are confident of the outcome but if alas the findings are against us we will have to accept the umpire’s decision.
If a regulator is not constructed this battle will rage on for many years as the Barrages CANNOT be opened or REMOVED without some form of protection for SA’s potable water supply.
Other options will be discussed and I hope I will be part of those discussions.
Just in case you are interested, Page 7, right hand side paragraph of, “Myth & the Murray,” “Morgan is the key indicator locality for water quality in the Murray-Darling Basin. Morgan is just upstream of the pipeline off-takes for Adelaide’s water supply.” WRONG!
Morgan is upstream of Lock 1and 320-Kilometres from the Barrages Adelaide’s main off take is at Mannum 150-Kilometres from the Barrages and all other off takes are downstream of Mannum and Wellington is 76-Kilometres for the Barrages.
Without a regulator at Wellington if seawater were allowed into Lake Alexandrina some other method of protecting some 220-Kilometres from becoming non-potable.
I want to see a plan but if, “The status quo is not sustainable” were maintained SA would be far better off but we need a change, a plan, certainty.
Peter,
For once you’re right, I am selfish.
I want the estuary back, and my property is on what would/should be the ‘salty’ side. I want to always have water be it fresh, brackish or marine in front of my shack. I want to cast a line out in autumn and catch mulloway.
I harvest rainwater, I don’t need the Lakes to be artificially fresh. I want the water to come and go by the seasons and not be manipulated by some political group.
Instead I have farmers around the Lower Lakes overriding my riparian right to an estuary which would naturally ALWAYS have water in it.
We, Australia, should not be using water from the Lakes for agriculture. Let the lakes be what they’re supposed to be, estuaries.
Hi Susan,
Thank you for admitting it is about you (that’s un-Australian) and if, “I want the estuary back, and my property is on what would/should be the ‘salty’ side” what about other persons/businesses that need the riparian right to freshwater aren’t their rights important?
What riparian rights do you want to catch Mulloway? The Lakes and Coorong fishery is healthy and proving for those who ply that trade!
And again re, “I want the estuary back” AT WHAT COST?
Good grief Peter!
It seems Sean is right and you are far more interested in being adversarial and picking holes and throwing up imaginary obstacles and inserting your own personality and your own personal opinions than you are in coming to a workable sensible resolution.
You are continually making sweeping unsubstantiated comments and when you spot someone else do the same…no matter how small the infraction….you get highly offended and make accusations like ‘un Australian’ and ‘I didn’t say that’ and “WRONG!!!!!’ and ‘you obviously don’t understand’ and so on.
That is not productive behaviour….you need to change it.
In particular, people here are definitely making the effort to understand and definitely wishing to make genuine comments. Just because they don’t align with your personal opinion does not make them less important.
Please listen to Sean.
Hi Debbie,
I regret you don’t like my point of view and YOU DO NOT understand the Lower River Murray our Lakes Alexandrina and Albert, the Coorong, the importance of them remaining fresh, the views of our Ngarrindjeri, the rights of the 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th generation land holders and fishing license holders, the views of the LRM Councils, the irrigation associations and companies, the views of the greater majority of persons residing in the LRM communities and relying on the LRM region to earn a living and provide for their families, the regions tourism industry and all the others associated and reliant on the Region not to mention SA’s economy.
Re Sean, I hear I consider and then I make my own decision many times after talking to my colleagues.
Of course I understand Peter,
most of what you say applies to my community as well.
Those problems and social issues (apart from simple geography) are not unique to SA.
The problem is that the ‘politics’ has been dishonest.
As you point out here, the real problem is not essentially an environmental problem yet that is how your State has tried to argue its case.
What’s even more counter productive is SA’s argument that everyone else has to change so that SA can maintain what has proved to be unsustainable.
Hi Debbie,
No I know the problems are not unique but as we are at the bottom of the system so have to continue to fight for our regions survival.
All areas/regions must accept change and I am more than prepared to accept but not if it will result in the ruin of my region and the loss of plus$50-million in income for SA!
We have lost over 100 dairies and countless other businesses how many more do you wish us to lose?
But Debbie as I have said so many times, you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LOWER RIVER MURRAY AND OUR LAKES ALEXANDRINA AND ALBERT OR THE COORONG!
Peter,
Saying it many times and putting it in capitals is not proving anything.
I may/may not have a better understanding of the LRM than you.
My objection is that your arguments very often indicate that you lack an understanding of the ‘whole’ water management system and that you make sweeping unsubstantiated comments about ‘the environment’.
You also seem to argue that the Murray is some type of pressurised hose that you can switch on and off at the bottom.
Further to that, you seem to think ‘the eastern states’ stole water from SA in the drought and that SA was the only State that truly suffered.
I am not arguing that there were not hardships in SA, I am however pointing out that it was not unique to SA and the problem was purely and simply that we barely survived a crippling drought.
We all suffered and we all lost valuable productive businesses.
Some of those losses are not redeemable, in your area and in mine and also in many,many others.
We now need to learn from this experience.
The politics doesn’t seem to want to learn the lesson.
It’s more interested in apportioning blame and producing copious statistical models that are next to useless because they are based on a false assumption that our system will conform to statstically produced ‘long term averages’.
Not only that, we have people trying to prove that the lower lakes and Coorong should not be affected by its geographical location and that the water was always fresh.
That stance makes it extra ordinarily easy for genuine researchers and historians to mock SA.
The problems there are man made Peter and the sensible solutions will also be man made.
I DO NOT, “you make sweeping unsubstantiated comments about ‘the environment’” this debate is not (in my opinion) about the environment!
How stupid, “You also seem to argue that the Murray is some type of pressurised hose that you can switch on and off at the bottom” if the bottom does not get sufficient water the River will die as a River below Lock 1!
When did I accuse, “Further to that, you seem to think ‘the eastern states’ stole water from SA in the drought and that SA was the only State that truly suffered” we all suffered and we both agree but do you wish our problems to continue into infinitum?
I am glad you, “barely survived a crippling drought” I know many who didn’t!
I have never said that our Lakes Alexandrina and Albert were, “always fresh” but the Lakes have a longer, far longer, freshwater history than seawater history.
I say again, “YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LOWER RIVER MURRAY AND OUR LAKES ALEXANDRINA AND ALBERT OR THE COORONG!
Hi Peter R S.
The first thing we need is a moratorium on buy backs,don’t you think ?
With a billion malnourished people in the world the priority should be to keep water in production, shouldn’t it ?
I used the ubiquitous ‘we’ Peter,
I too know many individuals who did not survive the drought. There are also many, many others who are still struggling with the debts they incurred in that period.
I was referring to areas/regions.
The point remains that it was the drought that caused the majority of the problem.
The problem now is an inappropriate and completely unproductive ‘knee jerk’ reaction to a crippling millenium drought.
Dave makes an excellent point.
As a nation, what should our priorities for water resources be? What exactly are we trying to achieve?
I’m at a loss why anyone would think that an extra layer of bureaucracy and even more ‘cross purpose’ rules and regulations is going to ‘fix’ anything.
Particularly since the MDBA seems to be to be tasked with ‘fixing’ the wrong problem.
You do realise they’re not even fixing the stated ‘over allocation’ problem don’t you?
Those entitlements will still exist, they will just be owned by a different entity, the Commonwealth Government.
If recent behaviour is anything to go by, they are highly likely to be the biggest water wasters and biggest money wasters in the whole system.
Hi Dave,
I am not sure we need a total moratorium but it is a subject we must look at more seriously.
Re, “With a billion malnourished people in the world the priority should be to keep water in production, shouldn’t it?” I am not seeking to have water removed from production and I am sorry but in this case we must first ensure the food production in our own country can be totally sustainable. I would like to see the Lower River Murray swamps rehabilitated (estimated cost from the SA Government $50-Million) as they are some if not the best most productive fertile low lying irrigated land in the MDB. The irrigators spent $millions laser leveling the swamps in the early 2000’s only to have all that ruined by the drought,
Bringing that land back into full production again would be a win/win situation!
Hi Debbie,
Re, “The point remains that it was the drought that caused the majority of the problem” yes I agree but as I have explained (to Dave) much of that is repairable, it will just take time.
Re, “As a nation, what should our priorities for water resources be? What exactly are we trying to achieve?” well what I am trying to achieve is equality and the reinstatement of our irrigation industry but as I have continued to stress let’s get it right in the Basin before we worry about overseas!
Regrettably I don’t believe that as it has been set up the MDBA will fix anything!
Peter,
I noticed you have gone out of your way again to mention Lock Zero on the The Adelaide Now web site.
I look forward to hearing you bring it up at the meeting in Adelaide tomorrow night.
Hi Sean,
I have had a conversation with Minister Bourke and he has all relevant information as do all of the others who were on Tuesday night’s panels. As for Thursday night I have the opportunity to ask one question of the Minister and as you must have either been in attendance or have Sky you will by now know what I asked the Minister.
I am the spokesperson and I am not the only decision maker we decide what is to be done.