RICE growers along the Murrumbidgee River are likely to be among the hardest hit if the federal government proceeds with its new water sharing plan. If the region loses 45 per cent of its current allocation as proposed by the Murray Darling Basin Authority, an unintended consequence will be a dramatic decline in the populations of over a dozen species of frog. These frogs have benefited from water being pooled in upper catchment areas for rice production; if the plan goes ahead more water will end up going down to South Australia and over the barrages into the Southern Ocean, to the detriment of flood plain wildlife.
Early explorers, John Oxley and later Charles Sturt, described what is now known as the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area as a desolate, uninhabitable landscape. That was before irrigation. Today the region produces wine grapes, citrus, apples and stone fruits, vegetables, wheat, barley, oilseeds and, of course, rice.
Proud locals boast that despite the drought, and because of irrigation and the vertical integration of the food industry, 160 semitrailer loads of quality, fresh food ready for the supermarkets of Australia leave the towns of Leeton and Griffith each day, and a further two and a half trains of containerised food for markets around the world. Not all is produced on irrigation farms, but the certainty irrigation provides has facilitated the development of the food industry with value adding occurring locally to an industry now worth between$2.5 and $3 billion annually.
Leeton is known as the headquarters for the Australian rice industry, and is the location of one of Australia’s most successful, vertically integrated agribusinesses – SunRice.
In years of adequate water about 150,000 hectares of rice are planted across the Murray Darling Basin providing habitat for an estimated 5 billion frogs. The spotted grass frog, barking marsh frog, plains froglet and Peron’s tree frog are four of the most common species which live in remnant patches of bushland and breed in flooded rice bays and irrigation channels between August and May. Scientists at the Institute of Applied Ecology at the University of Canberra estimate that every hectare of Australian-grown rice produces 33,000 frogs in addition to the almost ten tonnes of rice.
Of course birds eat frogs, and so perhaps not surprisingly the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area has also become home to thousands of water birds including rare migratory species.
Incredibly the Guide to the Proposed Basin Plan released last Friday does not mention the word “frog”, or “Amphibian” – not once.
The Guide recognises that most of the 30,000 wetlands scattered across the Murray Darling Basin are on private land and states there are 2,442 key environmental assets across this predominately agricultural region.
In fact during the last 90 years through a constant improvement in management, irrigation techniques, fertility and productive capacity the “desolate” plains are now teeming with wildlife. Of course not all frog species have thrived all the time with the endangered Southern Bell frog undergoing recent decline from the introduction of exotic fish and the degradation of some wetlands particularly from overgrazing.
It was progressive politicians who witnessed the devastation and totally dry rivers that accompanied the droughts of the 1860’s and the late 1890’s that drove the early development of irrigation in the Basin: they wanted to conserve water at times of excess, to sustain farming communities even in drought years. Few realise that since European settlement the Murrumbidgee has run bone dry four times: during the droughts of the 1840s, 1860s, 1890s and 1913-1915. It was so dry in the early 1860s that horse races were held in the bed of the Murrumbidgee River downstream of Gundagai.
Water infrastructure is now extensive across the Basin, so, even during the recent prolonged drought, there was enough water in the Hume and Dartmouth dams to provide for the world’s largest ever environmental water release in October 2005 with 513 gigalitres of water (the equivalent of a Sydney Harbour of water) released into the Barmah-Millewa red gum forest which straddles the Murray River upstream of Echuca.
Without the dams, given the severity of the drought, the Murray River would have likely run dry over the last decade – never mind having enough water to flood a very large forest.
When the then Howard government introduced emergency measures in 2006, making water for Adelaide and other cities and towns within the basin a priority, flows from the upstream dams to the Lower Lakes in South Australia were significantly reduced for the first time in decades.
Malcolm Turnbull, then Water Minister, believed the system was in crisis and the Howard government responded to cries, in particular from its South Australian Cabinet Ministers, by drafting a new Water Act.
Back then the leader of the Australian Greens, Bob Brown, was explaining that it has been “scientifically proven” that 1,500 gigalitres of environmental water is needed to keep the Basin healthy and in particular to keep the Murray’s mouth open. Until very recently, this same figure of 1,500 gigalitres was being quoted by Mike Young, University of Adelaide, and other water experts as the best science.
The Guide, released by the Murray Darling Basin Authority last Friday, now claims that the best science establishes that at least double this amount, 3,000 gigalitres, is the absolute minimum, and 7,600 gigalitres is a more realistic target. The major change has not been in the science, but rather expectations have grown within the ranks of Green activists, along with disdain for Australian agriculture, with rice growers in particular increasingly held in contempt.
The new Guide has been touted as an independent comprehensive scientific assessment of the environmental needs of the Murray Darling Basin, yet incredibly there is no justification provided in the 223-page document for the extraordinary revision of what was “scientifically proven” just a few years ago that is the need for up to 7,600 gigalitres when previously 1,500 was considered more than adequate. Incredibly the new Guide even lacks a reference list, normally a minimum requirement for a work of science.
The new water sharing plan, if implemented according to the Guide, will ensure more water is channeled directly to South Australia but no consideration is given to how this will impact on upstream floodplains.
Indeed at the moment, when it rains there is enough water for everyone, but if the proposals in the Guide are implemented, a near permanent drought will become a feature of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and this will significantly impact on the frogs.
It would be prudent for any radical new plan – the new Guide claims to provide a blueprint for the complete overhaul of water management in the Basin – to carefully consider all the implications of phasing out industries that provide important habitat for key indicator species. Yet incredibly the new Guide does not even consider one species of frog. Indeed there is absolutely no consideration of how changes in water allocations, in particular channeling more water directly to South Australia, will impact on the dozen or so species that comprise the 50 billion frogs many of which are reliant on irrigation along the Murrumbidgee.
This article was written by Jennifer Marohasy and Ron Pike. Ron Pike, now retired, is a third generation irrigation farmer from the Murrumbidgee Valley. It was first published at On Line Opinion .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
filing a couple of comments received by email here:
‘I think Coleambally celebrates the discovery of the Bellmouth Frog in The Coleambally Irrigation Area, found after the arrival of the Rice industry in that area…’
‘an earlier analysis came up with 5 billion, and this may have made it into a RIRDC report. In the frog study, however, we were more conservative with 500 million frogs. Extrapolations are fraught with diiffculty, but its a reasonable ball park figure, and the densities are as high as anyone has seen, although with less rice and thus lless water on farms this number will drop. We dont know the recruitment rates: we know how many eggs are produced but we dont know how many make it into froghood.’
Thanks Pikey for your summary of this very questionable plan.
Because of the huge reduction in frog populations in Australia [and worldwide] these irrigation wetlands together with farm dams and other built pondage are often their only remaining habitats.
Natural wetlands often suffer through droughts and bushfires and can disappear forever for numerous natural reasons as has happened in national parks near me and it is the man-made wetlands that fill the gap.
I bet that the real picture of environmental degradation due to irrigation is nothing like what they paint.
It seems to have a parallel with what happened in the San Joachin Valley recently with the Delta Smelt:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574384731898375624.html
I wish you well in confronting this green stupidity.
For the record, Mr Mike Young of Uni of Adelaide has been reported in Farmonline as claiming that the Murray mouth was only closed once between 1900 and 1999 but now claims it will take place every decade. But Walker identified 1914, 1930, 1981 and the Feb 29 event in 2000 was only 60 days outside that century. The man will clearly say whatever he wants to in support of his squalid objectives.
It should also be noted that both the 1981 and 2000 “closures” were for just a few hours at lowest tide for the month and at close to lowest mean sea level for the year. Just 3 months later the mean sea level was a full 20cm higher. More to the point, the mouth was very much open at maximum high tide just 6 hours later, as it has been at every other high tide for at least the past 2 or 3 centuries if not much longer. Much more to follow on this issue.
Hi Spangles and All,
First thanks to Jennifer for posting this and her input.
But you can be sure this is NOT my response to the MDBA “plan.”
I am writing responses for several entities and will when finished write one for a wider audience which I will post here.
In the interim I would just say that the report is totally based on false premises and as such has No basis for discussion.
Pikey.
Ron, it’s good to hear from you. It’s been too long!
One question, why is it so important to keep the Murray mouth open all of the time? Isn’t all of that water running out to sea just a waste?
Cheers.
Interesting to learn that a rice field also provides habitat. Not something your average urban dweller would realise. However, this is the same argument used for keeping the Lower Lakes ‘freshwater only’, providing a freshwater habitat (ie. frogs and turtles) at the cost of something else.
Water running out to sea is not a waste. Estuaries, where the freshwater and seawater mix are one the most prolific habitats on earth. This website does a great job in explaining why not, and while it is in the US, the same principles apply world wide. As does the same knowledge curve.
http://www.estuaries.org/why-restore-estuaries/
Cheers.
Hi Susan,
You raise important philosophical issues and I beg to differ on a couple of key points.
If we are after healthy and biologically diverse, rather than say natural…
Then opening/removing the barrages would be a best option for the lower lakes. Given the current situation the lakes are mostly a breeding ground for carp, and when flows are low because of drought have interrupted breeding of the Congoli and created ASS problems in Lake Albert etcetera.
As regards the rice fields, many of the species of frog now dependent on these ‘artificial wetlands’ are native and otherwise rare. Many species of Australian frog have been severely impacted by an exotic fungal disease, which has been particularly virulent in some of the most pristine of habitats.
You can read more about the chytrid fungus here: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/chytrid.html
Thank you Ron and Jennifer. Very interesting article.
Ron – I lived in Wagga and know the Leeton and Griffith area. Surely the major water courses from the Murrumbidgee feeding the irrigation areas could be covered with a simple curved aluminium frame supporting a plastic cover to stop the constant evaporation. I realise piping would be the ideal but it could be reduced immediately by covering the main arteries.
Hi John,
Thanks for the suggestion but there are a number of reasons why not.
First, there is no more important link in the chain of life than evaporation. If it suddenly ceased all life on earth would begin to die.
Too much attention is being paid to this in the present debate.
Wherever we water vast silt floodplains anywhere in the world it is done by gravity in open channels, because it is not only the most efficient way but the only way to move the volumes involved.
Secondly, think of the canals and channels as man-made rivers and creeks. That is what they are.
Everyone who has lived there has likely as children and adults spent many hours catching tadpoles, yabbies and very edible fish from these man made rivers. It is an ideal environment for all our aquatic species.
Elsewhere I will explain why it is not necessary as we have pleny of water for the next 100 years and population increases as long as we get some truth in this debate.
The truths that we have to win in the Court of Public opinion before we begin to put this right are:
1: Australia is not short of water, we have an abundance.
2: Water is our most abundant renewable resource.
3: Dams do not destroy rivers. They improve and enhance the riverine environment.
4: Every storage and channel we construct increases the wetland habitat area.
All the best.
Pikey.
Yeah – I’ve seen kids swiming in them as well on the frighteningly hot days of the MIA summer – the Murrumbidgee was so damn cold you got a headache if you stayed in to long.
Ron – does Australia import rice and if so where from??
Hi John,
Yes we do.
The Australian industry in a year of adequate water produces about 1.3M tonnes of paddy rice, which is all processed to ready to eat standard in the area in which it is grown.
About 80% of this is exported to over 40 countries around the world.
However because Australia has a free trade policy, some speciallity rices are imported from Bangladesh, Thailand and India.
Thai restraunts in particular like to cook with Thai rice.
Pikey.
Interesting Ron – I always thought that Thailand was tropical rainforest until I flew over it via google earth – it’s now one huge paddy field with remnant rainforest which is why it’s the largest exporter of rice in the world.
I doubt our environmentalists would allow such a huge transition from forest to paddy field.
Hi John,
What you were looking at is not necessary what you thought.
Much of Thailand was not covered in Rainforest.
It has been farmed for centursies and for at least 100 years Thailand has been the biggest rice exporter in the world.
All the best.
Pikey.
3: Dams do not destroy rivers. They improve and enhance the riverine environment.
What a completely erroneous, misleading and irresponsible statement. Can you explain how this is to be true?
– river fragmentation
– migatory species
– river bank erosion
– o2 depletion
– sediment transport
– breeding cues
– water table
– water temperature
Ask your friend Jennifer what damming the Yangtze did for Baiji.
4: Every storage and channel we construct increases the wetland habitat area.
This sounds a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul, surely. Every storage and channel that directs water away from the original source reduces supply to other potential ‘natural’ wetland habitats.
You are biased in your reporting due to your farming background and its blatantly obvious.
In my experience, when someone says, ‘for the sake of the frogs’ (or spotted owl or whatever), they’re usually distracting you away from what they really want, which is often quite mundane and even tainted with avarice.
Frogs cast no votes and have no money. But they mean either or both to someone, so the next question is, cui bono?
halfacow,
Let’s confine our discussion to this topic which is about the MDB, which is complex enough without going to China.
Could I suggest that you quitely read my 2 papers “Bunyips in our Rivers,” which you can access on this site under my name and then we can continue the discussion.
Increasing stream flow (other than flood flows) does not water natural wetlands.
This fact is explained in the article.
In relation to your personal attack. I have since my earliest memories spent most of my relaxing hours, days and weeks on the many miles of the rivers of the lower Basin.
From age 4 or 5 I had the wonder, beauty, mystery and the ecology explained to me by devout enviromentalists in my Grand Dad and Father.
Long before I became an irrigation farmer my love of the rivers and the interdependence of the species of the Basin were deeply enbedded in my D&A.
I can honestly claim to have walked or boated along nearly every river mile in the entire lower Basin. From the alpine sources to the mouth of the Murray.
That is ALL of the rivers.
I don’t think there is a dam, weir or wetland I have not visited, many often.
So Schiller,
As to whose benefit, the only thing driving me is trying to correct what is false to the end that we get policy that is in the best interests of furure generations.
Obviously that includes what is best for “The Environment.”
Sadly most present day comentators on this subject wouldn’t know a billabong from a dope bong.
They wouldn’t understand the environment if it bit them on the backside.
Pikey.
halfa(sacred)cow, it is one thing to give us a list but another altogether to actually explain how you think these issues impact on ecosystems. Name all the migratory bird species that will not roost on or beside a Dam and then name all the riparian species that will not use a properly designed fish ladder or who have no alternative means of maintaining connectivity. Explain to us how a captured flood peak produces the increase in downstream flow velocity and volume required to cause river bank erosion. And please do explain to us how a large stable mass of dam water manages to not capture a major portion of the sediment that flows into it. And then explain to us which forms of water release from dams do not produce a substantial restoration of oxygen levels in the stream below.
And no, a storage channel is not robbing peter to pay paul if the water in the storage would otherwise have already been discharged into the sea. Add just one more variable (time) to your simplistic grasp of the issue and your conclusions are rendered crap. Even the water that evaporates from a dam serves a much more useful ecological purpose than that water would if it was already mixed with sea water 800km away. Local evaporation, and local transpiration from irrigated land remains longer in the upstream location where it falls as dew or reduces moisture demand in all surrounding vegetation. And it thereby maintains leaf, flower and sap based food chains for much longer into drought cycles and enhances survival of dependent species and reduces mortality in base populations.
There is also not the slightest room for doubt that a wind shift that brings more humid air from a major irrigation area into a forest in summer will substantially reduce both the incidence and severity of bush fires. You should remember that next time your ignorant urban green mates manage to torch another 3 million hectares of native forest and every creature in it.
Looks like this is going to blow up – the local farmers where I live in the Clarence aren’t part of the MDB but they are locked in with their mates in the MIA.
They are willing to travel down there to support them whenever it’s required. They are talking war between them (the farmers) and the city folk (the greenies)
They are sick of all the shit being laid on them by the urban greenies and will stand up and fight for their right to farm!
BTW Jen – they all know of you from The Land and will be cheering for you on Monday.
Good on them. I hope they all take the time to drop down to their local cenotaph and check out the names of all the local farmer’s sons who fought, not for king and country, but for the whole bundle of rights and liberties that they enjoyed, and which, they had been repeatedly informed, were inviolable. They should think about all the families that suffered in the battles to win those rights over many centuries and all the heroes, the “Roddie MacKaulays” that went to the gallows, as rick burners and for every other act of legitimate protest against unjust “clearances” and “enclosures” that were classed as a criminal acts.
They should also think about our own obligations, “as we that are left grow old”, to protect these rights for our grandchildren. And then they should ask themselves if they are worthy enough to walk on the same street those young Diggers walked on if they would let those rights be taken without so much as a bloody nose. A right that is not worth fighting for is not a right at all. It is nothing more than a concession from the powerful, granted to the meek. Are we fit to carry our Grandfather’s name, or what?
Ron, “Sadly most present day comentators on this subject wouldn’t know a billabong from a dope bong.
They wouldn’t understand the environment if it bit them on the backside.”
Do not patronise me or dismiss my level of intelligence when you yourself do not understand what “D&A” is, not to mention the countless simple spelling errors contained in your misleading drivel you present as authoritative articles.
Ian,
Those points were a list of concepts (known problems with dams) I was seeking clarification on. That you also failed to address adequately.
A general statement such as; 3: Dams do not destroy rivers. They improve and enhance the riverine environment. It absolute nonsense, regardless of the spin you want to put on it.
Show me the evidence. Please do not limit your reply to a specific river system.
Regarding the fires, are you attempt to lay blame at the feet of the green movement? The same fires that were deliberately lit? Came on the back of 4+ years of drought, a week+ long heatwave (including the hottest day on record for Melbourne), that were potentially related to weather bought about by the possible consequences of climate change (the same CC that greenies campaign about)? You mean those fires? Yes, i can see how a narrow minded person like yourself could do that.
Another uneducated farmer that cant see beyond his own paddocks.
For the record i am a product of Lock, Eyre Peninsula in SA. You may know the region, it is well know for agriculture.
halfacow,
We are touchy today aren’t we?
I really didn’t appreciate that this was a spellun campetition.
I rather hoped that it could be a mature and reasoned debate on a very important issue for the future of Australia.
But I guess that is difficult when someone demands, “Do not patronise me or dismiss my level of intelligence.” and then proceeds to refer to Ian Mott and myself as “uneducated farmers that cannot see beyond our own paddocks.
Very balanced and articulate indeed.
By the way, I was not refering to blogers when I said “present day commentators.”
We could of course spend the next two weeks or more discussing your list of supposed problems with dams and likely reach no conclusion suitable to you.
But simply the answer is this.
If we had no dams on the rivers of the MDB, then during the recent drought, there is no doubt all of the rivers would have been dry for several extended periods.
All of the towns and cities on those rivers would have been destitute.
Adelaide would have run out of water.
So what is your answer?
Do you want no dams?
Do you want some dams?
Or are you chasing some ideological, green pie in the sky dream?
Comments you have posted makes me think it could be the latter.
Pikey.
It makes no sense, in the driest inhabited continent, to grow rice and cotton for export.
Thankyou Jen for another very accurate article. The Frogs and birdlife supported by irrigation is enormous, and the MDB plan is to destry this new environment.
uh… Steve… let me tell you nicely becasue i am absolutely sick of this stupid, uneducated, moronic statement that is clearly made by someone who has nothing to do with growing rice or cotton – and possibly nothing to do with agriculture or farming, and possibly has never left the metropolitan area.
It is not the driect continent – antarctica is.
All non-permanent plantings are only planted when there is plentiful water. If you think for a second you will know that austrlia has drought times and flood times. ( yes, Austrlia has been here for a long time and the rainfdall volume changes.. it isnt climate change it is natural and normal and we are used to in in the coutnry areas of australia)
Rice has not been planted in any great volume for YEARS!!!! we have been relying on imported supplements to get us through the drought. and now that we are flooded the rice industry is gearing up for a good crop. We are not wasting water, we are gowing food with the water that is available.
AND before you atart slinging mud at the rice and cotton industry, please stop and think… other indsutries use alot more water than rice and cotton… Almonds, Dairy for example. I am not saying get rid of any commodity based on water consumption, but the enormous MIS schemes in the lower Murray that grow thousands of Ha of almonds are just one of the wrong things about the system.. BUT they wont go anywhere becasue the big banks and pollies are involved and they dont want to lose ont ehir investment. Even if the long term farmers who ahve been sustainably farming do have to cop it for their short sightedness and greed.
and that was me being nice.. now go and get yourself in a car and drive sround our beautiful nation. it is at its best now:)..
and yes – i cant be stuffed checking my spelling – too cranky…
Steve Putnam,
In relation to Australia and water.
On this site if you click on my name you can access a paper titled “Water in Australia.”
If you read that you may understand that while the statement “driest inhabitated continent,”
is strickly correct; it is meaningless unless we understand that compared to the other inhabitated continents, we have a miniscule population and therefore in fact have more water per head than most other countries on earth.
In Australia, not only do we have vast amounts of water but water is our most abundant renewable resource.
Think what we could do if we just blinked away this environmental blindness.
All the best.
Pikey.
Well done Kristy!
Pikey.
“but water is our most abundant renewable resource.”
Technically water is NOT a renewable resource. There is a finite amount of water on this plant.
“I rather hoped that it could be a mature and reasoned debate on a very important issue for the future of Australia.”
with comments such as;
“You should remember that next time your ignorant urban green mates manage to torch another 3 million hectares of native forest and every creature in it.”
and;
“Sadly most present day comentators on this subject wouldn’t know a billabong from a dope bong.
They wouldn’t understand the environment if it bit them on the backside.”
It would appear you and i also have very differing views on the definition of ‘mature’.
No, halfacowsarmpit, you rattled off the standard green litanny, a list that was designed to give the impression that you knew what you were talking about. But your failure, after more than a few opportunities to elaborate on any of them makes it crystal clear that you are just winging it.
And the fact that you are a South Australian parasite just makes the picture all that clearer.
You see, if we combine the growth in Adelaide’s water, and all the other pipeline extensions to Wyalla etc, and the decline in catchment water yield due to the explosion of unmanaged regrowth in burned out National Parks, most of which are in the high rainfall parts of the MDB, then it becomes quite clear that there has been no “over-allocation” of irrigation water at all.
Both SA urban water, and the incompetent parks managers, have undertaken activities that have constituted a “material change” to the MDB water budget, without either proper development assessment or consent. So while farmers were making the best of the allocations they were given, Adelaide doubled its population and doubled its demands for water from the system. And over the same period the Parks nazis allowed their run-off into the system to halve, again, without either development assessment or appropriate consent with relevant prescriptions.
So while the departmental goons were busy extending the assessment and consent net to every aspect of farm life, their own kind was running rogue developments that compromised every principle of sustainable development. And when the consequences of these unassessed, unlawful, and unsustainable developments become apparent, the first thing they do is point the finger at farmers who have done everything by the book.
And while you might splutter at the facts, you cannot possible claim that any catchment system can be sustainably managed when two of it’s major stakeholders refuse to be constrained in any way. The MDB can never be managed sustainably when its biggest landholder (National Parks) reserves the right to allow its run-off to reduce and it’s largest single water user reserves the right to double its allocation every 50 years.
Parasitic hypocrites, thats all you are.
Yes halfacow,
There is the same amount of water on earth today as there was 1 thousand years ago and 10 thousand ago and all of the time it has been used by all species on earth.
We use it to drink, wash ourselves and all maner of things in; we even grow crops like rice in it and yet the same amount is still on earth.
It must be a miracle.
If that’s not renewable pray tell me what is?
We are all still waiting for you to tell us how we can provide water for present and future generations without water conservation in times of excess flow.
That is without dams!
Time to put up or do the other.
Pikey.
Pikey,
I am still waiting for you to provide evidence for your outrageous claim;
3: Dams do not destroy rivers. They improve and enhance the riverine environment.
Ian,
“you rattled off the standard green litanny, a list that was designed to give the impression that you knew what you were talking about. But your failure, after more than a few opportunities to elaborate on any of them makes it crystal clear that you are just winging it.”
I could provide links to hundreds of papers that illustrate the inherent problems with dams n relation to the environment, and you will dismiss them all. I could also provide a link to a psychology study that shows this assertion to be true.
“And the fact that you are a South Australian parasite just makes the picture all that clearer.”
And herein lies one of the problems, it is that sort of attitude that is major factor in this problem not being dealt with. How does me being from South Australia have any relevance to the topic?
South Australians have spent the last decade+ improving urban and agricultural water efficiency, we have fast learned not to rely on the Murray for our water, especially after the raping it cops from the Eastern States. For the record a 10% increase in water efficiency in SA results in a 10% saving in water, whereas a 10% increase in water efficiency for a farmer equates to 10% more produce.
Also, i never pointed the finger at farming for anything, my problem was the erroneous statements in biased commentary that are beyond irresponsible.
Until people like yourself accept your portion of responsibility for the role you play and influence you have had (and continue to have) on the state of our river, nothing will change.
Ian, do you support the claim; “Dams do not destroy rivers. They improve and enhance the riverine environment.” ??