I have received a barrage of excuses as to why the Lower Lakes at the bottom of the Murray River should remain fresh rather than removing the barrages and letting the area fill with seawater, as suggested in ‘Basin barrage of bad ideas” (The Land, November 4, pg. 26).
And I’ve made a few enquiries, to understand why, for example, the government and the opposition remain silent on the issue.
Advisors to both major political parties tell me that the barrages are far too contentious an issue, even for discussion, and that advocating the removal of the barrages could cost them important votes in South Australia.
Ask your average South Australian about removing the barrages and they may have no idea what you are talking about or harp on about how if there was no upstream irrigation there would always be flow down the Murray River and then no need for the barrages.
Indeed, such flawed reasoning suggests a need for discussion because no one can guarantee flow down the river particularly without the infrastructure built for irrigation.
One resident of Milang, SA, a small town on the shores of Lake Albert, emailed me he wouldn’t like to see the barrages removed because the local caravan park might be inundated with sea water. He explained sea levels have risen since the barrages were installed over seventy years ago.
But not enough I assured him, to flood the caravan park.
Phew! Imagine if it really did come down to a choice between irrigated agriculture across NSW and Victoria or the Milang caravan park.
Another wayward excuse comes from NSW Irrigators’ Council.
Their leadership claims nothing can be done about the barrages because the Lower Lakes are listed as a freshwater wetland in an international inter-governmental treaty.
But the Ramsar Convention can allow for the protection of wetlands whether they are coastal, estuarine or freshwater and I suggest the Irrigators Council petition for the current listing to be changed to estuarine.
Of course, the National Irrigators’ Council doesn’t want discussion of the issue for fear of offending its South Australian members, but surely the few remaining dairy farmers who draw from the Lower Lakes could be persuaded to have their water piped in.
I’m saving the barb for worst excuse for keeping the barrages, though for Rob Freeman, CEO of the Murray Darling Basin Authority and his comment at the Narrabri community consultative meeting that the barrages must stay because there is no scientific justification for removing them.
He is plain wrong and should start reading some science, perhaps beginning with the scientific report, River Murray Barrages, commissioned by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, (edited by Anne Freeman et al.), published in 2000, which explains how the barrages are the cause of serious degradation of the Lower Lakes and Coorong.
A version of this article was first published in The Land on November 11, 2010.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“I’m saving the barb for worst excuse for keeping the barrages, though for Rob Freeman, CEO of the Murray Darling Basin Authority and his comment at the Narrabri community consultative meeting that the barrages must stay because there is no scientific justification for removing them.”
Jen,
Congratulations on your efforts.
It’s hard to believe that the CEO could be so ill-informed and ill-prepared for a debate like this.
The CEO has no intension of debating. And considers all those he lectured to at the meetings ignorant irrigators.
Thank you Jennifer for providing that link to your radio interview; I loved your Quadrant Online article http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/09/the-murray-a-fresh-perspective
That was when I became a fan of yours!
I also love Warwick Hughes comment at http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=671
(quoting the last paras)
So – in a nutshell – let us be thankful that nature has already done what the future water-buy-backs were planned to do.
Why not put all these expensive water-buy-back plans back in a file marked “NOT NEEDED NOW” – and we can be thankful that for the time being, nature has done the job for us. Let’s get off the backs of the irrigators and let them get on with their job.
and I’ve left a couple of comments of my own on that site and had a comment published in “The Australian which included this:
“Let’s get off the backs of the irrigators and let them do their job; in drought years they get no allocations so far as I know; useless Government meddling seems to be a sign of the times (think carbon tax or price call it what you will); think renewable energy targets …”
You can still find it here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/minister-must-not-sell-our-farmers-down-the-river/story-e6frg6zo-1225940390309
So Jennifer; keep on battling; Australia needs scientists like you; Warwick Hughes; Bob Carter; David Archibald …. and others of their ilk
Freeman’s proper title should be “the defendant”.
I have another excuse to add to your list Jennifer. This one is my favourite.
How about: “The Lakes will become hyper-saline in two years”. In my opinion, this is the biggest excuse of them all.
DEH included this excuse as the ‘best science’ in their long term plan for the River Murray. The line of reasoning and sources are documented here in this blog post, http://lakesneedwater.blogspot.com/2009/12/hypersalinity-hysteria.html .
Basically, the assumptions imposed upon the ‘science’ by the government funding the report was to insist on only a limited amount and a one time flush of seawater. The government also imposed limits on the seawater, for example the seawater had to come over the top of the barrages, and not through the gates.
An inquiring mind would ask lots of questions. Why not open the barrage gates? Why not enhance the flows with dredging? Why not look at re-establishing an environmentally sustainable estuary with real flows instead of this one time seawater ‘flood’? But no.
Only, “The Lakes will become hyper-saline in two years”. Oh, and a nice footnote to an obscure report entitled, “Risk assessment of proposed management scenarios for Lake Alexandrina on the resident fish community”.
That’s the best science on this one. And allows for the media and every armchair expert to toss out the quote like it’s valid.
Of interest to the younger gen; the Canberra Times has published a full color education supplement on the MDB today.
Of interest to me; the “Basin population grew by 3% between 2001 and 2006…”
Also, there is a re-snagging program since 2002 to enhance our native fish habitat
Our country has truely reached a tipping point where the greater good of our nation (and that of the 70million people worldwide) pales in comparison to the demands of teeny tiny minority of SA who cling to something that was never going to be ‘sustainable’.
What ever happened to doing things for THE GREATER GOOD.
Robert Freeman would have learnt his communication skills from Mr. Holmes CEO of the Dept. of E&H while in S.A. doing a draft report for water and irrigation for the Mt. Lofy Ranges. The MDBA ran into trouble with their report because it was one-sided re environment just like the Lower Lakes is fresh water only. The RAMSAR agreement was set up by Dean Brown Premier of S.A. in the days before the acute water shortage became public knowledge. This resulted in the MDBA allocating for S.A. its 1850 GL per annum. A big part of that was SA’s need to meet its new obligations under the RAMSAR agreement which it argued that the water was a necessary part. The agreemnt covered the Lower Lakes (and their artificial fresh water environment) and the Coorong. Everybody knows since then the environmental state of this area has been downhill where consideration to de-register the site has occured. SA did they use this agreement as lever to get a guaranteed water supply so that it could carry out its primary objectived-cheap water for Adelaide in quantities that meant it didn’t to do anything else. The Lower Lakes now have their potable water supply from Tailem Bend and Strathalbyn extension and the irrigators have their seperate pipeline from Jervois to Currency Creek but doesn’t include the eastern side of the Lower Lakes. Jim Marsh Supt. Goolwa barrage in September 1999 is quoted in Alexandrina local history archive, ” One of the positions being considered is to abandon the barrages and let the Lakes return to natural estuarine condition and rebuilding the structure at Wellington. It would entail quite significant capital expenditure because they would have to build distribution works down each side and all the people who now pump out of the Lakes would have to be supplied from a large pipeline”. As you can see above the pipelines have been done all that remains is a new barrage/lock to be built upstream from Wellington as suggested by Tim Flannery from a article in “The Australian” July 12, 2008 “Heroic Action” sought for lakes.
Simon Crean came to my town but I missed him. In this article he deserves the award for ‘Mr Spin’, speaks a lot in a quiet sort of way but says nothing.
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/political/crean-seeking-murray-basin-balance/2002302.aspx
Politicians have no vision beyond the next election, so on the MDB he seeks reconciliation and talks big money. “Not just $3 billion for buybacks but close to $6 billion in infrastructure.”
Its a clumsy way to buy votes and will fail. If the floods are as big as I imagine, they will be opening the barrages.
thanks El Gordo for the link; I must say I’m sick of hearing this Govt say ‘we think we’ve got the balance right’ and Simon Crean repeated the mantra;
He also says “I want them to stop burning the books or throwing them in the rivers, and understand we’ve got a challenge here we’ve got to work through.” What’s the challenge exactly?
And this is for the votes “We have made a huge commitment to regional Australia in this term of office.” Yeah, what? Oh the NBN I forgot…