Comments on: Bunyips in Australian Rivers (Part 1)

By: Jennifer Marohasy » Bunyips in Australian Rivers (Part 2)

Jennifer Marohasy » Bunyips in Australian Rivers (Part 2) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:07:04 +0000

[...] Read Part 1 here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/bunyips-in-australian-rivers-part-1/ [...]

By: Farmer Pete

Farmer Pete — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:11:02 +0000

This comes of posting while tired.
What I had intended to say inrelation to Landcare and similar management changes, was that they may act to materially reduce the water available for the major rivers. I wonder if the residents of Adelaide have considered that implication?

Peter

By: farmer pete

farmer pete — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:07:40 +0000

I suspect that runoff as a percentage of rainfall is greater now than it was then. Anecdotal history has the soil much softer across much of the country before it was compacted by high stocking rates.

Proponents of cell grazing in the Riverina report greater water infiltration and less surface ponding under their management regime.

Much of what we’re doing as “Landcare” and high production farming is aimed at slowing or reducing run-off, retaining and using rainfall in situ.

If I am correct, then non-flood levels of river flow may have been significantly lower prior to the introduction of livestock, which means that the levels that we regard as “natural’ are actually artificially high. It may also mean that the irrigatoirs are only using the increased flow, not reducing the natural flow of the rivers.

Peter

By: Taluka Byvalnian

Taluka Byvalnian — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:54:18 +0000

Pikey says “To resolve the riddle of the two rivers discovered by Evans, the Governor dispatched in 1817, Lieutenant Oxley and botanist Alan Cunningham to follow the Lachlan and if possible also the Macquarie.”

Interesting to note that about 30 years earlier in 1788, two expeditions were sent out to examine two rivers, the Nepean which arises about 80K South of Sydney and the larger Hawkesbury which was to the North of Sydney. At that stage they didn’t know that there was a riddle with these “two” rivers.

Around three years passed and then they found that it was the same river.

The magnificent Hawkesbury was used to transport goods from Western Plains to the (I was going to say city…) new colony headquarters.

Look forward to Part 2 Pikey.

By: Ron Pike

Ron Pike — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:22:55 +0000

To FDB,
The balance of the article is yet to be posted by Jennifer.
All will be revealed then.
Pikey.

By: FDB

FDB — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:35:03 +0000

“much of what is being claimed in relation to the rivers of the Murray Darling Basin is as unreasonable as a belief in Bunyips”

Any examples?

By: Janama

Janama — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:14:10 +0000

According to the locals the Mighty Clarence river was reduced to dry beds and could be walked across during the federation drought, it’s never been that bad since.

By: Neville

Neville — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:38:59 +0000

Yes everything mentioned above is accurate, the mighty Murray itself was reduced to dry beds and stagnant pools many times before the locks, weirs and storages were constructed.
This was before it had to bare the huge extraction of water to maintain towns, cities and the vast irrigation enterprises.
But today even after suffering one of the worst droughts on record the river still supports this population because previous Australians built that infrastucture.
If we had to rely on the present crop of political halfwits to build that infrastructure we would be sorely disappointed and the job wouldn’t be started let alone completed.