The South Australian Government’s claim, as reported by ABC Online, that it cannot save the Lower Lakes and Coorong on its own and is reliant on support from the other Murray-Darling states is simply untrue.
As I wrote in The Land on May 15, the main problem in the lower Murray is developing acidity from the drying of the lower lakes, and the simple solution is to open the barrages at the bottom of Lake Alexandrina and let the area reflood with seawater.
Potential acid sulphate soils (ASS) are common along much of the Australian coastline. These soils formed after the last major sea level rise, which began about 10,000 years ago. The soils are harmless as long as they remain waterlogged. But, if the water table is lowered the sulphide in the soils will react with oxygen forming sulphuric acid.
In the case of the lower lakes near the mouth of the Murray River in South Australia, the barrages built 80 years ago are stopping inundation from seawater; in the same way the dykes in Holland are used to reclaim land. Indeed the Dutch have been managing associated acid sulphate soil problems for more than four centuries.
The drought continues in the Murray Darling Basin and so the barrages should be opened to flood the lower lakes. If a temporary weir was constructed at Wellington, the salt water would not go any futher upstream.
Despite the drought, South Australians have so far been receiving fully 76 percent of their annual entitlement when many NSW and Victorian irrigators have had no water allocation.
It is time the South Australians stopped blaming upstream irrigators for a drought beyond everyone’s control.
Acid Sulfate Soils have been associated with fish kills in coastal Queensland and New South Wales when land was inappropriately drained. For example, about 700 hectares of land near Cairns was drained in 1976, and since then it has been estimated that 72,000 tonnes of acid has flowed into Trinity Inlet.
Approximately 50 percent of the NSW cane land is underlain with potential ASS and inappropriate drainage of these soils caused a major fish kill in the Tweed River in 1987.
NSW farmers have since solved the problem through the implementation of less intrusive drainage and liming.
The can-do NSW farmers got on and fixed their problem, but the South Australians have instead provided money to CSIRO Land and Water to undertake a study, including to, establish the severity and spatial extent of the problem.
In the interim there will be lots of media releases and whinging, including about how they should be receiving more stored irrigation water from the Hume Dam in the Upper Murray or else their lake turns to acid.
There is in fact a simple solution to the problem in the lower Murray, open the barrages and let seawater re-flood the area.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Exactly, Jennifer. Forget these hideously costly and inappropriate bandaid solutions and RESTORE THE ORIGINAL ESTUARINE ECOSYSTEM.
By the way, what was that estuary called before it was turned into a lake? It is time we started re-using the original name. If you accept the terminology of the parasites you agree to argue on their terms.
It is not easy to pin down the exact area of this estuary that is now in the lake. One reference suggests there is 68,000 hectares while another claims the whole system covers 86,000 hectares. What we can say for certain is that national evaporation map puts this area close to the 1600mm mark or 16 megalitres per hectare.
That 16 megalitres/hectare used to be evaporated from sea water until Adelaide’s finest put their feeble minds to the issue.
Now the South Australians seem to think it is their god given right to take at least 1,088,000 megalitres of fresh water, each year, worth $468 million at the current spot price of 430/ml, to do nothing more creative than sit there like blobs of cytoplasm and watch it evaporate.
Meanwhile, the 380,000 households of Adelaide and environs, if they use the Australian average of 250kl/household, will only consume a total of 95,000 megalitres each year. It seems that about 25% (24,000ml) of this comes from domestic rainwater tanks etc. And that leaves 71,000 to be drawn from the Murray.
That makes a total of at least 1,160,000 megalitres that has been captured by Adelaide but of which only 6.12% actually gets put to some sort of use. These outrageous water gluttons waste close to a megalitre per person but only pay for 6.12% of what they demand as their divine right.
And they want even more? Who the f@#$%& do these people think they are?
Hold it right there Ian!
You are quoting facts and figures again.
How dare you!?
(just wait for the copious number of links from Luke& Co)
Ian,
I understand what you say and I must admit I have not looked at it in that light before.
Can all or some of the fresh water be retained or saved without losing it to dilution with sea water as would have happened naturally in the past?
Spangled
I was searching for the past conditions of this area, but nothing conclusive yet.
As Jennifer said.
“If a temporary weir was constructed at Wellington, the salt water would not go any further upstream.”
Would it be a proposition to build a second barrage further upstream and pump a fair proportion of this fresh water there before opening the lower barrage [it would not require much lift] and by having a deeper container much of the evaporation would be prevented?
Ian,
I felt sure that Jennifer would have looked into that aspect and that sounds logical.
Sorry, that should have been “Johnathan” not “Ian”.
Not copious JW – as I’m too busy teaching Mottsa about DSEs.
But I did dig up some maps, barrage locations, fishway info and history … I was not aware of the exact location – multiple barrages & history.
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/65/BarrageFishway_long.pdf
http://www.aussieheritage.com.au/listings/sa/Goolwa/GoolwaRiverMurrayBarrage/10095
DSE Luke, mad cow disease?
That is the most sensible article I have seen in a long time. The sooner the barrages are opened the better. I have heard the increased tidal flow in the Murray mouth which would be caused buy opening the barrages would keep the Murray mouth open as well.
SA is good at blaming others for their problems without doing anything to help themselves.
Well hang on a mo – the decision and funding to build the barrages was made and shared by NSW, VIc, SA and the Commonwealth. Even early extractions back in the late 19th century were changing these systems to salt.
These early engineers would not have foreseen the growth in water demand and the current drought. So we blow the barrages and salt water moves upstream into Adelaide’s water supply and other SA towns? Massive ecological changes in the lake systems and the lower Murray.
This is going to make a lot of people happy?
No solutions are simple. The barrage builders have not foreseen the current circumstances. Exceptional circumstances.
Reality – too many users and climate change charged drought. Welcome to the future.
http://www.rivermurray.sa.gov.au/pdfs/FreshHistory.pdf
http://www.rivermurray.sa.gov.au/pdfs/Lakes%20History.pdf
luke; I half agree with you;
“too many users and climate charged drought.”
Guess which half I agree with?
Wrong Luke. Adelaide gets its water from Morgan, just above where the original tidal influence reached. But that does not mean that sea water ever got that far upstream.
The tide data for nearby Victor Harbour shows the variations in tides from the current full moon. Compare the second and third rows to see a maximum inflow of 1.02 metres (0.37m to 1.39m) for full moon at 20 June down to only 0.19 metres for half moon on 25 June. http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/tides/tide_predications.cgi
These largest inflows are balanced by two smaller net outflows the same day.
In volume terms the 1.02 metre inflow amounts to 10.2 megalitres for each hectare of the estuary. So for the 68,000 hectares this daily flush amounts to a massive 694,000 megalitres.
Furthermore, as the average depth of the system is only three metres than it will be the lower third of the system that gets a complete change of water on each major tide. The remaining two thirds of the estuary’s volume will still rely on river flows and internal circulation for flushing.
In actual fact, the sea water is likely to be cooler than the estuary waters so the tidal inflow is likely to slide under the estuary water and penetrate further in than a third of the area. The outflow water will comprise a greater proportion of estuary/river water.
But the sea water is unlikely to penetrate all the way upstream to the limit of tidal influence.
And it seems that it is the lower third of the system, the Coorong and Lake Albert, that is in most need of flushing. In fact, the far end of the Coorong would be best served by some gated pipes under the dunes to allow direct, but controlled, flushing from the ocean.
Either way, it is clearly a locally produced problem that must have a locally produced solution. This hideous scam of demanding another farmer go out of business upstream every time the consequences of their own negligence becomes apparent, must stop.
My own brother, a very capable farmer, lost half his allocation a few years back and was forced off his land. So we are talking about real injustice here, to real people.
Sigh – Mannum actually
http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/Education/OurWaterSystems/Pipelines.htm
Then further down there’s Murray Bridge-Onkaparinga Pipeline, and Tailem Bend-Keith Pipeline. And if the salt can get 250kms upstream as some have suggested – Swan Reach-Stockwell Pipeline?
So wouldn’t want to rip into those barges without being sure eh? Any collateral damage calculations?
And here’s the locks and weirs too
http://rivermurray.com/html/about_the_murray/locks_weirs_dams.html
Your comments don’t wash – this barrage system was agreed to be NSW, Victoria, SA & Commonwealth back in 1930s. Everyone involved here is a real person. Blame game does not work.
OK so there are more pipes than just the one at Morgan. But the solution would be to take it all in at morgan and run it down another pipe to the start of the existing pipes. It is only 130km from Morgan to Murray Bridge and 100km to Mannum.
And the cost would be only a fraction of the value of the 1,088,000 megalitres of fresh water evaporation.
Loved the link to their desalination “program”, a whole 109 megalitres worth on Kangaroo Island. What? No pipeline to there, yet?
One correction. I was under the impression that Adelaide had a high proportion of water tanks but it seems they only get 2000ml a year from tanks.
Thats 1.25 million people in 480,000 households, in 500mm rainfall zone, with total roof runoff more than 60,000ml but only use 2000ml.
And they use 295 litres per person per day compared to Brisbane’s 140 litres. When I hear the words Adelaide and Water I reach for my revolver.
“And they use 295 litres per person per day compared to Brisbane’s 140 litres”
which is just so untrue, per capita is for residential and adelaide is just over brisbane in consumption, according to the *best estimates*
Five minutes of thought, or less, would find oneself concluding that opening the barrages is just plain stupid.
The barrages were installed to keep the salt from the fresh when the fresh was being diverted for human use. To restore the system to normal use would be to stop all human activity that draws down resources – and that will never happen.
breaking open the barrages will see salt water extending far inland reaching places it never went (in modern history)
Well Mottsa the Morgan pipe runs to Whyalla actually – and you’ll need another treatment plant perhaps. And you’ll need to sort out all the other water pipe out-takes and towns all the way downstream to Wellington. So you’re into major infrastructure or building a weir need Wellington to keep the salt back.
Not to mention if you read the history tabled above the turn of the century condition of the lower lakes was freshwater with occasional salt intrusion. And a whole community has also grown up around that infrastructure. The expectations and ecology enjoyed since the 1930s are about be inverted?
As for water guzzling Adeladians kicking back with a fiene weine and thumbing the nose at the rest of us – well Brissos were over 300 litres per day until they got stuck into us – and now we’re at 120 litres coz we’re so hard and virtuous – mate I shower with cup of water and toothbrush and recycle my own urine. The average yank is guzzling 380 litres, Canada 340 litres. And Brissos are not happy – the post drought target steady state is 230 litres. Car has to be washed eventually.
Not saying our Adelaide mates can’t do better and will need to, but let’s not get too up ourselves in self-righteousness.
So instead of making with the Semtex and the barrage ba-boom – how about a full cost benefit.
And if you remove them you’ll never find out how the fishway experiment works out 🙂
And while we’re on water use efficiency can you tell me that all irrigators have done their best – OK the rice growers have and some cotton boys have. But are we up to Israeli levels of meanness?
Have we got enough linear moves and centre pivots. Where’s the LEPA socks, where’s the C-probes and the telemetry systems? Have we got enough drip systems?
So you guys need to hold your end up to.
How much bloody water do you need?
(So I guess it’s best that Cubbie evapotranspires it all at maximum water use efficiency instead of some crow eater using it to hose his driveway – OK too touchy)
I disagree totaly with the coments,
“The barrages were installed to keep the salt from the fresh when the fresh was being diverted for human use. To restore the system to normal use would be to stop all human activity that draws down resources – and that will never happen.
breaking open the barrages will see salt water extending far inland reaching places it never went (in modern history)”
The barages were built at a time when the governments were trying to get irrigators to use as much water as they could. Their building danaged the natural system, where tidal flows kept the mouth open during droughts and salt water went into the lakes. The few farmers who use water from the lakes could easerly be compensated. The value of the over 1,000,000 ML lost from the lakes in evaporation would easey cover this.
With the dams we have now the salt will never go anywhere near where it used to when the river stopped flowing in droughts of the past. In the years before the dams were built the Murray stopped flowing completly and dried up to the deep holes. When this happened the salt water would have moved a long way upstream. Today the releases from dams keep it flowing at least for the town water suply which is a hell of a lot more than there was in the past.
Is that an engineering calculation Goodoo or a “feeling”
The history document says
“Before large-scale extractions of water, the Lakes and lower Murray were rarely
subjected to seawater invasions. Long time Goolwa resident Edward Leslie Goode told
an enquiry in 1933 ‘I can remember when it was a remarkable thing when saltwater
came up to the Goolwa wharf. Now we see saltwater in the lakes for months’.
Short-lived intrusions of saltwater would occur during periods of low flow down river
resulting in a lowered level of water in the lakes. Even in times of these low flows, it
would appear that only small areas of the Lakes (immediately around the Murray Mouth
and into the channels towards Point Sturt for a short distance) were affected. Winds
could blow salt water into the main body of Lake Alexandrina for short periods but when
the wind ceased to blow, the flow of water downstream pushed the saline water back out
of the Mouth.
This is illustrated by the following statement from the Mount Barker Courier, (sourced
from a 1903 report and quoted in a 1928 item regarding the barrages) and saying in part
that barrages were necessary for ‘the prevention of an inrush of salt water between the
islands, and so into the lakes, whenever the wind blows from the south’.
Saline invasions were more common after 1900 and the development of irrigation works
because reduced river flows could not hold back the sea. Irrigation schemes began at the
same time as a long lasting, widespread drought that further diminished the amount of
water in the river system.
‘Through the joint influences of long continued drought and an increasing diversion of
its waters in its upper course, the River Murray has steadily lowered its levels so that
its lower reaches and the lakes which for centuries it had supplied with a constant flow
of fresh water, have fallen to sea level, with the result that instead of the river “rushing
out to sea” the tides of the ocean have flowed in, changing the fresh water lakes to salt
ones.’ Southern Argus, 1903.”
http://www.rivermurray.sa.gov.au/pdfs/Lakes%20History.pdf
So the lakes were mainly fresh in their natural state?
“Before 1900: In their natural state, the lakes were predominantly
fresh, with River Murray water discharging from the
mouth and keeping the sea at bay more than ninetyfi
ve per cent of the time. Water from groundwater
springs, extensive wetlands and streams in the
Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges continued to fl ow
through the lower Murray, lakes and mouth, even
when the upper Murray was reduced to large pools
during drier seasons. The fresh water supported
thriving ecosystems in and around the lakes and
the Ngarrindjeri people maintained permanent
settlements in the region. Early European settlers
relied on the lakes as a supply of good quality water
and on the fringing reedbeds as stock feed.”
http://www.rivermurray.sa.gov.au/pdfs/FreshHistory.pdf
The nearest existing barrier after the barrages is the lock and weir at Blanchetown way upstream of all the water pipeline points except Morgan.
So we’d have to believe that the worst of record regulated flows would be enough to keep back the salt from the River. Where’s the engineering calculations?
So potential in agriculture for water use efficiency improvement between top and bottom users.
Difference between top and bottom users:
dairy – factor of 3, citrus 3, cotton 3, stone fruit >3, pears and maize 2 …. no scope to improve?
You just don’t get it fellas. A million megalitres of evaporated fresh water is worth $450 million and the foregone primary production from that lost water is in the order of $1.8 billion a year. And when that is capitalised at about 10 times multiple it is a massive $18 billion hole in Australia’s net worth.
The key question then becomes, can we do the same job of excluding salinity from the land for a lower capital cost? Absolutely. The things that Luke and others have put up as precluding the barrage removal option are small beer compared to the impact of a million lost megalitres.
Remember, the current set up is one that makes maximum demands on fresh water supplies at the very time that it is least available.
Note also that the historical reports are only dealing with surface water. As I mentioned above, the sea water in a tidal peak will intrude, and most certainly did intrude, much further upstream at lake bottom than at the surface. The warmer fresh river water would flow over the cooler sea water in the tidal inflow. The winds mentioned in the historical notes would only have influenced surface water, and even then only in dry years.
Note also that the reports of early river flows took place before most of the clearing took place in the MDB and that means that much of the increase in irrigation diversions were sourced by increased runoff from cleared catchments.
The mud layer data from the Murray mouth confirms that sediment loads, and therefore volume of river flow, has actually increased since the 1930s. If there is no flow then there cannot be any silt deposition. There has been plenty of silt deposition.
But when all is said and done, it is plain ludicrous to suggest that any river system can be managed sustainably when there is a major user that thinks it has a devine right to more than double their water extractions, at the expense of every other user, in a drought. As greater Adelaide clearly does. Urban water is the only part of the water market that can obtain desalinated water without major changes to cost volume relationships. And unlike Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne and other cities, Adelaide has done absolutely nothing to help itself.
According to their own web site, Adelaide Water still dumps 70,000 megalitres of treated effluent into the sea while extracting 51,000ml for “community purposes” (parks). They still allow 160,000ml of stormwater to flow into the sea while extracting 84,000ml for “primary production” and another 30,000ml for “commercial and industrial” purposes, from the Murray.
But that is only in a normal year. In a dry year the total extractions more than double.
By the way, Luke, I have seen that “top and bottom” users analysis and it is laden with pure bull$hit. Much of the difference in irrigation applications between the top and bottom users is the incidence of rainfall in the catchment. It is rarely evenly distributed so the actual volume of water needed for each crop can vary considerably due to existing moisture profiles.
There are also times when rain falls just before a pre-ordered water delivery and the whole application is wasted. My brother often got caught like this and had to actually pump water back into the chanel to prevent waterlogging. But he never got a single credit for this returned water. He just had to wear the added water cost and on those occasions appeared, to an ignorant observer, to be an inefficient water user.
Elementary stuff to a farmer but “rocket science” to a bimbopolitan.
I’m not opposed to the barrage removal option inherently – just that it isn’t simple as you make out. You may need to build new pipeline infrastructure or desalination/recycling plants which will take time. Adelaide water users need to toughen up though and start getting with the water saving program.
I’m utterly unconvinced you don’t really know how far the salt will come up the river system without the barrages. Your “feelings” are not an engineering calculation.
You’ll also have to convince the lower lake dwellers to accept the system as salt. Will be big changes for a few years.
Abusing Adelaide dwellers isn’t likely to get a good response.
People need to see an argument laid out – not “gee I’m a genius and I’m just going to give you all a serve”.
Remember like with roos, nobody give a stuff about the issue when seasons are good. But we’re now at crunch point. A 30 year decline in rainfall means that a total re-evaluation of the whole system is needed.
But you won’t be in that for 2 reasons – we’ll get (a) I’m not going to tell the bastards what to do and help them (b) I’ve got some rights and refuse to lose them – well so have Adelaide water users got some rights.
So do you think you can bulldoze everyone without a cooperative response. Not bloody likely. Both sides haven’t solved it yet.
And you are going to have to make a climate change call on what you think the new yields of the system are – a climate change call. Gotta base calculations on something. Snow depths going down now for 40 years. At some point you’re gonna have to wise up.
I don’t wish to personalise your brother’s issue as I don’t know – but corporates have worked out water delivery timing is imprecise and an issue especially with rainfall – that’s why Cubbie, Twynams, Auscotts and Colly’s of this world have substantial reserve storage (turkey nests) – yes costs money I know. But what you have to do. What else could you do after you’ve let it flow past?
Unless you can cite where the efficiency analysis is wrong you are full of it – there have been some REMARKABLE efficiency improvements with linear moves, monitoring probes and telemetry. Some of the cotton stories are jaw drops. Rice industry have vastly improved its efficiency. So don’t sit there and say nothing can de done. Yes it costs startup money that perhaps some operators don’t have – but this is business and about allocation of a scarce resource.
If it starts pissing down next week – the hydro-illogical cycle will conclude for now and everyone will go back to “business as usual” until the next whammy, when again we get that drought deja vu feeling.
So you would do better putting a positive plan than simply an abusive negative.
Some day – you’ll work it out – we’re on your side. You just haven’t worked that out yet.
Lay out a full plan with a bit of consultativeness and we’ll listen.
Gosh, a litany of homily and gratuitous advice to address issues you imagine I raised. Nowhere did I say there was no room for improvement in water use. I merely pointed out that much of the perceived scale of variation between users is circumstantial. That is, the room for improvement is nowhere near on a scale of 300% as you implied.
And as for the Murray River mouth, the issue is not that zero fresh water would, or should, ever make it into the estuary. Rather, how much of that fresh water is REALLY needed when sea water is allowed to play its natural role in a drought or dry season?
The other important issue here is the patent absurdity of the notion that such an unnatural, fundamentally modified system is capable of suffering environmental damage. This is bunk because any departure from the natural range of variation results in “harm” to some part of that natural system.
There is zero room for doubt that the barrages have limited the range of salt water estuarine species and favoured fresh water ones.
And when you have actually demonstrated a few runs on the board in changing core public perceptions then you can come and have a chat about the right time to switch focus from consolidating an awareness of the problem to working on solutions.
Throw away lines about larger off-stream storages, with the planning approval of whom, to a guy who has already been shafted, is nothing more than cheap thrills for daytrippers.
I will take the heat off Adelaide and their stupid, indulgent artificial lake system when it is clear that they actually understand that what they are doing, and what they expect, is completely on the nose.
And you call for some sort of “climate change call” is all a bit rich given that the largest landowners in the catchment, the state governments, are free to bungle their land management in such a way as to substantially alter catchment yields without any scrutiny or formal approval process.
I think it was the late Steve Biko who said of the anti-apartheid struggle, “show me what you can do with your other cheek and I’ll show you what I can do with half a brick”.
I didn’t say 300% – simply there are major differences in efficiency. No room to move – well how come the rice industry has gone for it ! How come linear moves are showing major improvements in cotton? Don’t see any rebuttal except you laying smoke.
“Throw away lines about larger off-stream storages, with the planning approval of whom, to a guy who has already been shafted, is nothing more than cheap thrills for daytrippers.” -come on – this is weak. Other major players manage to do it – so what the problemo? What would you the water resource managers to do if the water you’ve ordered, flows past because you no longer need it – give you a free credit. For heavens sake ! Are you serious. You would work this out after the first time it happened. How long has your brother been in irrigation?
Anyone who’s serious will have this problem and have some on-farm storage. Otherwise sell up.
As for the government bungling the land management I spat my coffee all over the keyboard – most of the place hasn’t changed that much recently. Could it be – what we call – ummm – how do I explain this simply … NO RAIN !!!!! And high evaporation. And multi-year drought resulting bone dry antecedent conditions.
And there’s no shortage of bricks for everyone is there?
Incoherent crap, Luke. A factor of 3 usually translates to 300%. And your ignorance of irrigation in the southern schemes is mindblowing. We are not talking about Cubby scale flood capture operations, we are talking about 40ha dairy operations served by ditches on a just in time basis. Surprise, surprise, a boofocrat with a one size fits all approach, how very refreshing.
And the bungling I refered to was bungled fire management that torched 2 million hectares in Victoria and another million in NSW which is now regenerating thick and fast, and soaking up more than a megalitre per hectare in lost run-off.
But, oh, don’t worry about that, lets just get back to demonising farmers while urban users and greens reserve the right to double their extractions when the system is least able to deliver.
And if you had bothered to look at a map when you read the quote from Edward Goode you would have noted that Goolwa is well up a side chanel with minimal water mass behind it to produce a strong tidal momentum.
Given the total mass of a 1 metre tidal inflow of 690,000 megalitres into a low tide estuary volume of 1,020,000ml then the intrusion towards Goolwa could only go to approximately 40% of the area of that tidal off-shoot. That is, to about Goolwa wharf.
But note also in the remainder of the quote, “Even in times of these low flows, it
would appear that only small areas of the Lakes (immediately around the Murray Mouth
and into the channels towards Point Sturt for a short distance) were affected.”
The fact that they are talking about such a small area of influence makes it very clear that they are only talking about surface water, not the entire water column. That area is only about 10,000ha and the only way that tidal inflows could be restricted to such a limited area would be if there were no such thing as full moon tides in the period they are refering to. IT IS A GEOLOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. One can only conclude that there must have been much greater intrusion of sea water in the lower water layers.
It must also be noted that these historical quotes are from proponents of the barrage system who could be expected to present only part of the available evidence.
The other quotes claiming consistent flows in the Murray are just plain wrong. The evidence is overwhelming that the Murray regularly stopped flowing.
But the other interesting part of the quotes are the references to flows from the Adelaide hills etc which once served to maintain fresh water in the western chanels. If this is the case, as there is no reason to doubt, then they must explain why these flows are no longer present. And more importantly, why are they now expecting the MDB flows to redress catchment flow changes that were never part of that system?
Ditto for ecological values at the far end of the Coorong.
Well anyone who had a brain could read that there was a factor of 3 difference between best and worst producers – and so there “may” be room for some improvement. Doesn’t mean they can all achieve that due to various circumstances. I see you’re still rejecting any innovation and wanting to stay with inefficient 19th century methods.
Who’s talking about Cubbie’s massive systems (not your Cubby house) ? Ever driven around irrigation areas and seen turkey nests before – I mean you really are full of it.
40 ha – might as well sell it – a boutique postage stamp – something like you would own. We don’t want to put up with this sort of 19th century inefficient nonsense.
The greens have got a good point while ever resource plunderers like you are supporting this sort of backwards production.
Given your maths on PIG glacier you can shove your envelope estimates – I’ll wait for the engineering report thanks. Read the entire history. You haven’t got a clue and AS USUAL have not done your homework. How predictable. History ignored. Mottsa knows best.
“June 1902 salt water at Point Stuart – July 1902 water at Millang brackish
October 1902 . During the Suspension of Sessional Orders in the South Australian House of
Assembly the Hon. G Brookman talking on the Murray Waters said.
‘Lakes Alexandrina and Albert were almost salt. The reeds that used to grow around
them had practically died.
1902 The Royal Commission into the River Murray was tendered the following evidence by
landholders about the Lakes.
Ritchie: Salt as far Pomanda since upstream diversions. Salt felt upstream for 40
miles (from Murray Mouth) for last 2 or 3 years. Only to Point Sturt (16 miles) before
this.
Wolter: Salt as far as Wellington (at times) in past, more frequent now. He believes
it did not go past Wellington.
Newell:( Fisherman). Follows saltwater as far as Wellington, but in former years
only to about Point Sturt. To Point Pomanda in last 3 or 4 years. Salt came only in dry
portion of year. Saltwater fish to Port Agnes and Brinkley. Cod to about Point Sturt.
1915 2 April. The Mount Barker Courier had an item on saltwater at Mannum saying that it
was ‘ caused by seawater coming through the Murray Mouth. The water has never been
so brackish. A most remarkable factor however is the presence of freshwater about 8
mile above the town continuing to near Purnong a distance of about 20 miles after
which it was again quite salt. The brackishness of the upper river is caused by salt
springs and not the sea’
. . . . .
1915 12 November. The Mount Barker Courier East Wellington correspondent informed the
readers ‘The river is beautifully fresh and it is also high, but the willows are practically
all dead, only one here and there being alive. This of course, is the result of last years
saltwater’
1933 Edward Leslie Goode, ‘I can remember when it was a remarkable thing when the
saltwater came up to the Goolwa wharf. Now we see saltwater in the Lakes for months’.
31 October. In Adelaide the Advertiser published a letter to the editor from T Charles
Good regarding the Murray barrage and the effect huge diversions of water had had on
the system. ‘Sir, Few South Australians realise how important the Murray barrages
are to this State. Since 1888, when Messrs Chaffey brothers started at Mildura, more
water has been diverted until now streams like small rivers run far into Victoria down
as far as Lock 9. Mildura supports 11,000 people.
Red Cliffs is said to have the largest pump in Australia; Merbein is coming on also.
In New South Wales 25,000 tons of rice was grown last year, apart from large
quantities of fruits. In 1901 Lakes Albert and Alexandrina were fresh. Lucern (sic) at
Meningie would grow to the water’s edge, and fresh waterweed grew for a mile out
into the lake, and cattle stood in the water eating it. At Narrung reeds eight feet high
grew, so that a sailing boat could shelter in them, and in the summer they were good
stock feed. These also flourished at Point Sturt and in the Currency Creek. At port
Agnes willows were so thick that in a storm a vessel could lie in perfect calm behind
them. On the jetty at Point McLeay Mission Station were wool scourers, and at
Poltollock (sic) an engine pumping to the garden. Little by little all this has gone; and
in my opinion, if we do not stop the flow of fresh water out and salt water in, we will
hereafter have the sea up to Swan Reach.”
But you know better eh?
You didn’t even know where the bloody pipelines to Adelaide run from !! What an expert (not).
Johnathan, A link to a study on the Coorong/lakes can be found here. Limited skills prevent me from transfering it here.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001964.html#comments
What everyone wants is a return to natural, yet the concept of the barrages being unnatural has never come up!
Thanks rojo,
Since the beginning of this thread, I managed to get a bit more insight into this myself.
I agree with you re. the barrages being “unnatural” ie. man made, but this fact only makes things more complicated.
What are we going to do about it? On the one hand it was a solution to a problem, that turned out to be a problem later. But this is typical of human interference.
If it was up to me, I would make some interim arrangement for the supply of drinking water to the towns, and blow up the barrages!
The other option of course is to make provision for opening and closing the barrages on demand, again, there would be problems, which aquaculture are we going to support, salt or fresh, mixture?
Would it return to the original state?
Glad I’m not in charge.
Well you would need an “interim” solution for 3.8 million people.
Another straw man from Luke. No-one was suggesting that there had been no adverse impacts prior to the barrages so his little cut and paste job is his standard ploy, the more tenuous his position the larger the cut and paste job.
But of course, he’s on our side, he said so, didn’t he?
But all those quotes need to read with the knowledge that the first 30 odd years of last century were much dryer than the remainder of the century.
But notice his sidestep? Does he seriously expect us to believe that there were no full moon tides in the 1920s? Or that the influx and outflows from these tides was not in the order of 40% of the entire low tide volume?
He can try all the spin he wants but it will not alter the fact that 2/3rds of the people who depend on the MDB actually live in the MDB while the other 1/3rd (Adelaide) is not even in the catchment.
He cannot alter the fact that the 2/3rds of the people who live in the MDB understand that if there is less water available then they must use less water. The other 1/3rd believe they have a god given right to take as much as they want and to double their extractions when the least water is available.
The 2/3rds who live in the MDB understand that there is an upper limit to what they can take from the system while the other 1/3rd believe there is no upper limit to what they can take. They believe they have a right to continue expanding their ‘share’ as their population grows, at the expense of the other 2/3rds of the people.
That, folks, is not the definition of a partner. It is the unambiguous definition of a parasite. They will not stop helping themselves until the host is dead.
The real porky in all this is that they are now seeking to imply that it is all part of the “greater Coorong wetland”. But the far reaches of the Coorong would never have been flushed by fresh water from the Murray except in years when the sand spit was broken to allow water to actually flow behind the dunes. And they can fix that problem with a few pipes and gate valves. They sure don’t need a million precious megalitres for that gig.
In fact, the same would apply to Lake Albert. How would water flow in through such a narrow entry unless it was influenced by tidal surge?
The water in these backwaters is now much more saline than sea water. So who could argue that flushing with sea water would not improve that ecosystem? Run some more pipes right in to Lake Albert. It is only about 5km from the southern ocean. Do it carefully and monitor as you go. http://search.ninemsn.com.au/results.aspx?FORM=MSNH&v=1&MKT=en-au&RS=CHECKED&GO=GO&q=Lake%20alexandrina
And don’t try and tell me it would cost anywhere near as much as a million megalitres and all the lost value chain.
Surrender on irrigation efficiency noted.
“No-one was suggesting that there had been no adverse impacts prior to the barrages so his little cut and paste job is his standard ploy, the more tenuous his position the larger the cut and paste job.” – NO diversionary smoke screen interpretation by you – quotes very comprehensively demonstrates the potential of saltwater to move right up the system !!!!
The willows died and reed beds all died !
“But all those quotes need to read with the knowledge that the first 30 odd years of last century were much dryer than the remainder of the century.” WHAT – LIKE THE PRESENT – eerr the WHOLE POINT?
Equitable resource sharing is fine. But the table is NOW surrounded by unequal players to start with – done deals – lots of history – anomalies – vested interests. So a good process to revisit this issue is what ?
And the climate appears to have changed – what hydrological assumptions should be use for the future? Perhaps a climate change scenario ? (muffled gagging noises heard …)
Or we can base it on the 120 years of data and ignore the science.
And in our Federation we are no longer allowed to transport materials from one catchment to another?? Better turn off the Snowy scheme then. Leave the iron ore in the Pilbara? Leave the coal in CQ.
Just a reminder
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23887065-2702,00.html
How about some quotes from opponents of the barrages, Luke? You know damned well that no-one ever does a royal commission unless they have already stitched up the outcome.
And if it is such a good idea then why not do it with the mouth of the Hawkesbury River? Or any other river system with a large estuary? Because there is no way in hell it would ever get past an EIS today, and you know it.
Just another metrocentric hypocrite.
“How about some quotes from opponents of the barrages” What you mean bolshy rhetoric from owners of 19th century inefficient water guzzling irrigation farms.
EIS – Motty wants an EIS ? HOLY COW !
You’ve getting smaller. Desperate Mottsa. Desperate.
Hey how’s that list of corrupt grazing research papers going. LOL !
Money for irrigation companies to adapt to climate change
23/06/2008 10:09:00 AM
Irrigation water providers in the Murray-Darling Basin can now apply for up to $500,000 in Federal Government funding to help them modernise their water delivery infrastructure….. continues ….
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/article/794721.aspx
Gee wiz, half a million in small change while the bimbopolis blows $500 million worth of fresh water evaporation every year. That must make you one of the more numerate ones in DNRM/EPA, wouldn’t it Luke?
Not a word on comparative costs of alternatives.
Not a word on the blatant impossibility of managing a river system sustainably when 1/3rd of the users retain the right to double their extractions in drought and continually increase their extractions over time at the expense of other users.
Lots of talk about how sea water would supposedly invade good farm land but not a word on the fact that the water that is there right now is actually saltier than sea water.
And not a word about how removing the barrages would lower this salt water level by about 75cm, to mean sea level. http://search.ninemsn.com.au/results.aspx?form=MICBAF&q=Lake%20alexandrina%20height
Not a word on how large tracts of flood irrigated land between Wellington and Mannum are actually below the artificial lake level. Gee wiz, do you think that might have raised the water table and the bloody salt with it? Yeah, yeah, just blame that one on land clearing a thousand miles away.
And then there is the little matter of “The barrages cause an increase in water level of approximately 50 cm as far upstream as Lock 1 at Blanchetown (274 km upstream).
And not a word about how it has been the altered flows from the Adelaide hills into the western chanels that have had most impact on the area mentioned in your selective quotes.
It is all more of the same old metrocentric same old. Let the urban public’s ‘roo herd expand at will and eat as much grass as they can gorge themselves on and then blame the grazier for the damage done. Oh, and then fudge the DSE calculations to grossly misrepresent the true fodder consumption story.
Just another day for departmental spiv, eh Luke. But as your DG is a crow eater, I guess it will be good for your prospects to serve the cause of distant urbanites at the expense of Queensland farmers.
Channel 9 is now a reference – LOL !
$500,000 gets one a lot of turkey nest as on-farm storage.
Reality is that you are a supporter of inefficient irrigation – typical redneck water waster.
Reality is that prior experience says salt water right up the Murray – Adelaidians can have a glass of seawater with their Chardonnay under Mottsa Murray Management Ltd. So who cares about your increasingly discredited envelope engineering methods.
And how many DSEs or incorrectly estimated equivalents do you have on your Byron weekender hooch plantation – LOL?
Still waiting for that list of corrupt research grazing papers. As usual Mr Biffo comes up empty.
Pathetic side step by old jellyback. Would you like the link to the SA water users group that regard their flood irrigation of grapes as a major achievement?
Not a word from Luke on the easily calculated tide volumes as a proportion of the low tide estuary volume? No, that would expose all his historical quotes as being from partisan proponents of what is now clearly a failed experiment.
They certainly did have full moons prior to the barrage and that means they certainly did have 1.0 metre tidal rises and falls. And according to a 1963 report the water in that drought year was only 3 to 7 feet deep (1-2 metres). And quite clearly, a 1 metre tidal surge will go a lot further into the lake than the first 10km.
It would certainly be enough to give a partial flush to Lake Albert.
In fact, it would deliver a very thorough flushing to the entire system, of the kind it used to get just about every full moon before the barrages were put there.
A very interesting thread, Motty. Of course, the real irony in all this is that all the proponents of retaining the barrages and flushing with valuable fresh water are also of no doubt that climate change will raise sea level significantly over this century.
In which case the barrages and the entire bogus intellectual framework used to justify them, will be completely redundant.
Either the barrages days are numbered or climate change is bunk. They can’t have it both ways.
Nothing new from Motty. The early 20th century salinity observations were well researched, detailed and widespread. Wellington is a bit further inland than Lake Albert. Enough of your fanciful calculus.
Tom – I think Mottsa Bulldozer Inc could whip you up a sea dyke with no problems at all – he’s advocated before elsewhere. The current IPCC considered rate of 30-50cm over the next 100 years should give managers enough time to adjust.
Good point, Tom. As usual, Luke mouths off without considering the consequences. The water level is already 50cm higher some 250km upstream. So the addition of another 50cm will extend the zone of influence much further, and wider. And all that time lifting water tables higher and transporting subsoil salt loads higher.
It is one thing to use a simple sea wall to keep a rising ocean out but it is another matter altogether to maintain a very large body of water at a height above that sea wall. The dune system at Goolwa needed significant earthworks simply to cope with the existing barrage. And as the height of the barrage increases, the length of dune system needing augmentation, and the actual length of the barrages, will also increase.
And it will all significantly increase salinity impacts on surrounding farmland, demanding extensive new bund walls at the back of the lakes and well up river.
The fact is, the sea will eventually retake the estuary so why are we being asked to spend $billions on ‘protecting’ an artificial ecosystem whos days are already numbered?
A cynical person could take the view that the bureaucrats are setting this up as a permanent bureaucratic job creation scheme. After first spending a few billion dollars on an expensive system flush they then ‘discover’ that the naughty climate change is threatening to undo all their good work. So can we have another five billion please?
“Mouths off without consequences – phhttt !” Is this blatant hypocrisy I see before me – how can the sea retake the estuary when the sea level according to Mott is not rising. Holey doley – a negative reality inversion. In fact the mouth is sealing over.
The Murray Darling system is over allocated, sharing is inequitable and with climate change twist to boot.
Requires a major reorganisation and reallocation. I can already guarantee Motty won’t support any of the options.
And I’ve seen enough of Mottsa calculus to last a lifetime. Take the barrages down without thinking and you’ll have salt all the way back up to Mannum.
Yes, Luke, salt may well go all the way up to Mannum but it will be under a layer of fresh water at the river bed, and only on a full moon tide. And of course, that tide will still be lower than the existing bund wall and lower than the surrounding farm land that is currently flood irrigated by gravity.
And no, Luke, it is all the proponents of global warming who are claiming that sea level will rise. It is the official position of the elected government that sea level will rise. And it is the official position of CSIRO that sea level will rise.
Yet, these same people seem to be telling us that using additional flows of fresh water will be a sustainable long term solution.
My position is that you cannot have it both ways. If sea level will continue to rise then a policy that relies on the maintenance of the barrages is untenable.
I obviously have some doubts as to whether sea level will actually rise but if all these other people agree with me in relation to Lake Alexandrina then they must agree in every other policy area. They do not have the right to be selective in their interpretation of the science, no matter how much the Luke’s of this world would like that to be the case.
It seems reading the history, the facts & the emotion around this issue, that a PARTIAL solution with the least negative consequences in saving a proporation of the evaporation impact of the lakes would be a direct 5 km (monitored) pipe from the Southern Ocean into Lake Albert which is already sealed at the Lake Alexandria entrance. Would this not at least allow this body of water to be ecologically maintained (albeit salt)& save the fresh water evaporation and drain of the Murray at this point.
In terms of fresh water for irrigation & human consumption, the extent of demand could realistically be met by an increasingly utilised & efficient small scale desalination plant.
I would like to see Johnathon, Luke and Jennifer respond to the post from Goodoo at June 20, 2008 11:06 PM which attends to historical salt levels in the lower lakes and to the impact of drawdown on water from overuse by agriculture.
It suggests that the impact Jennifer infers from seawater on the lakes historically needs to take into account the freshwater flow downstream before it was overdrawn, and it suggests that the lakes were never as saline as she has inferred. I think that Tom assists Goodo’s point when he asks “how can the sea retake the estuary when the sea level according to Mott is not rising…[and] In fact the mouth is sealing over.”
My view is that, pretty soon, if we are to keep the Murray Darling system intact and functioning, we are going to have to abandon much of our export economy. We are going to have to produce less. Work less, produce less, drawdown less fossil fuel and put out less CO2. What a nice change.
Astrid
I think that Johno, Luke and Jennifer Marohasi should respond to Goodoo’s post of June 20, 2008 11:06 PM, which takes into account the history of the lakes AND the impact of drawdown upstream. In my view it is the best post up here.
I think that Johno, Luke and Jennifer Marohasi should respond to Goodoo’s post of June 20, 2008 11:06 PM, which takes into account the history of the lakes AND the impact of drawdown upstream. In my view it is the best post up here.