Driving home late this afternoon I heard Tony Burke, the Federal Minister for Water and Environment, on ABC news radio explaining that because of “over-allocation” in the Murray Darling Basin the Coorong had suffered during the recent drought. So, he visited the region today to provide an additional $118 million to ensure a “healthy and sustainable future for South Australia’s Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth region”.
The claim of “over-allocation” is behind the Basin plan, but it ignores the reality of the allocation system already in place in particular that during drought allocations are significantly restricted and so crops like cotton and rice are not planted. That the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth region are now awash with water despite significant areas being planted to cotton and rice this last summer also defies the Minister’s logic.
Since arriving home, I have had an opportunity to read a bit more about today’s announcement on the internet and I see it was made with Paul Caica, South Australian Environment and Conservation Minister, who claims the money is part of a plan to ensure the Lower Lakes “remain freshwater”.
I was repeatedly told about the plan to secure a “freshwater future” for the Lower Lakes when I visited Goolwa in March.
When I suggested to the Mayor of Alexandrina Council, Kym McHugh, that the plan was absurd because the combined Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth region is just too vast an area to be reliably supplied from upstream storages, he replied well that is what we as a Lower Lakes community have decided and that is what we intend to see implemented by the South Australian and Federal governments and he then gave me a fridge magnet with the slogan “Securing a fresh water future” below the word “Alexandrina” and told me the same words were emblazed across the top of every piece of official correspondence that left his office.
Of course, water for Lake Alexandrina comes at the expense of upstream environments, communities and industries.
But many Lower Lake residents don’t seem to care. As one business explained to me, “We can import our rice and cotton from overseas, but we can only get our freshwater from upstream”.
In reality the “freshwater future” plan has nothing to do with the environment. Indeed if Ministers Burke and Caica were serious about long term sustainability and building “resilience” as they claimed today, they would be talking about the “saltwater solution”.
The Lower Lakes formed about 6,000 years ago during a period of sea level rise. Studies of fossil foraminifera – tiny protozoa with shells of calcium carbonate – preserved in the sediments of the Lower Lakes show that the Lower Lakes had a maximum marine influence 5,255 years ago and a maximum freshwater influence 3,605 years ago. The period of maximum freshwater influence is thought to have coincided with the period when the Murray Mouth was greatly restricted or closed because climatic conditions in the catchment were much drier. The change in the foraminifera complex over the most recent 2,000 years indicate a general trend of increasing marine influence, up until the construction of the five large steel and concrete barrages that now block the natural ebb and flow between the Lower Lakes and Southern Ocean.
Until construction of five barrages in the 1930s, the Lower Lakes were estuarine meaning there was a strong tidal influence. The barrages were built to stop these natural inflows and create a permanently fresh system. This system now evaporates more Murray River water each year than the total Murray River water allocation for South Australian agriculture.
If the Gillard government wishes to waste an additional $118 million on tree planting to beautify this unsustainable artificial lake system, and to dismantle regulators installed at the height of the drought because the South Australian government refused to open the barrages to seawater, it should not use the pretext of environmentalism. And that Minister Burke included with today’s announcement disparaging remarks about upstream irrigators – perpetuating the myth that they are to blame for the woes of the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth region – indicates that the Gillard government really is contemptuous of irrigated agriculture in the Murray Darling Basin.
**********
Learn about the geography of the Lower Lakes region here:
http://www.mythandthemurray.org/map/
Read about Sean Murphy’s saltwater solution here:
http://www.mythandthemurray.org/blog/
Consider leaving a short comment at one of the following online news sites to correct the misinformation from Minister Burke and Caica
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/9464915/coorong-lower-lakes-get-118m/
http://www.fiveaa.com.au/article_funding-to-save-the-lower-lakes_108434
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
yeah – my Milang friend says this is a victory for common sense and science!! The lakes have always been fresh he says. Then he spouts the mantra that they shouldn’t be growing cotton and rice in the MDB.
This is the paper he quotes:
http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/waterforahealthycountry/cllamm/CLLAMM-spatial-temporal-changes-lake-alexandrina.pdf
Well said Jen.
It’s ridiculous that the lakes have had their biggest and longest flush for years and they’re still struggling with salt and sediment.
The major part of the disaster down there is not being caused by upstream irrigation.
The answer is SOOOOOO obviously NOT more freshwater from upstream.
Maybe they could use that extra $118 million to source their own fresh water from their own state if they’re so hell bent on doing it that way?
Common sense however would dictate that they probably made a serious error when they put in those barrages.
It isn’t the only mistake that has been made but it is also not the only mistake that can’t be fixed.
There seems to be a political ‘no go zone’ around those lakes.
There also seems to be another one around SHL at the top of the same lower MDB system.
It makes it hard for people to come up with some smart solutions that would benefit the whole system and also allow for future growth and prosperity when the top and the bottom of the system which are the mother lode storage and the huge lakes that ‘evaporates more Murray River water each year than the total Murray River water allocation for South Australian agriculture’, are magically sidelined from the debate.
The more people that understand these problems, the more likely it is that we can eventually solve them.
The work you have done is pivotal.
Thanks again for your tenacity on this topic.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/05/18/rob-freeman-quits-whither-the-murray-darling-basin-plan/#comments
Here is some more info on Mr “end of systems flow” Freeman who has recently resigned from the MDBA.
Debbie,
Why is Jen the only one talking about this? Where is Andrew Gregson and the Basin Community Association on this issue? What is that new group pushing by way of solution?
Great posting Jennifer. This formerly natural estuarine system is the largest coastal lagoon system along the Australian coast with lakes Alexandrina-Albert-Coorong, etc occupying approximately 970 square kilometres when full – that is a lot of potential fresh water evaporation. What is it about the lower lakes? Money? Votes?
Interesting comment debbie. However it is clear you don’t ‘understand’ the complexity of the problem. It is not simply or merely political.
Good question Dennis,
‘All over the place’, would probably be the short answer. That would be a feature of the rather disjointed group that they are representing. Many members of NSWIC, NIC and also the BCA are fully aware of this particular issue and its relevance.
We do need to remember that even though SA has caused most of these problems themselves, they are extremely vulnerable at the bottom of the system. That is not good and it would be better if they did not feel so very vulnerable. The answer is not to just give them more fresh water from upstream.
Marc,
I agree it is not ‘simply or merely political’ but I will argue that it is very unfortunately ‘overly political’ and the politics are definitely obstructing practical solutions.
The popular political argument is that the problems are caused by ‘over allocation’ and if that issue is addressed then all problems with water will be solved.
As Jen clearly points out here, ‘over allocation’ is not cause of the problem. One of the simple reasons is that people do not even understand what ‘water allocations’ are.
They are completely different to ‘water entitlements’ and the basic truth is that the farmers upstream and the storages upstream had no ‘water allocations’ either. When inflows are low, upstream storages are incapable of supplying the water that is required to keep the lakes at the level and freshness that SA currently requires.
For that political argument to be used along side their ‘environmental end of system flow arguments’ which unfortunately have more to do with ‘international treaties’ rather than the ‘Australian Environment’ means that we are attempting to solve the wrong problem.
As far as the Lakes are concerned, it is all about keeping them as fresh water when there is compelling environmental evidence from both flood and drought extremes that this is not the best solution.
Added to that, is some extra impractical water management of the ‘mother load’ at the top of the Murrumbidgee/Murray system that saw these same politically motivated legislators tip approximately 1,500,000 ML into the already flooded system. That was done to honour a licence concerned with supplying ‘owed’ water to ‘end of system flows’ as well.
There is no doubt that the problem is ‘complex’ but you are being naive if you believe that politics are not a driving factor.
Jenniffer,
Di Bell on this morning’s 891 News said it wasn’t new money, for the first time ever I hope she is right. If she is it is part of the $600 plus million that Nick X got from Penny Wong of which $220 million has already been spent on new pipelines around the lakes. The cost of the removal of the Narung Bun and the Clayton and Currency Creek I believe had already been approved when they were built and that when the time arrived we had to burn some “MIDNIGHT OIL” by getting Mr. Garrett’s permission for environmental reasons to remove them.
It’s these F…ing Climate Scientists that have all the answers:
http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com/2011/05/insane-clown-posse-part-ii.html
Here’s a little gem from the MDBA.
For once they have actually recognised where most of the noise was coming from and how it was sent.
It hasn’t been easy to give this lot much credit.
They probably should be congratulated for pulling apart these stats with a caveat from form letters that only required people to click a button.
http://mdba.gov.au/communities/having-your-say/feedback-overview
As NSWIC has pointed out in a press release today:
MDBA figures show that some 1,440 submissions advocated a higher than 4,000 gigalitre target, but that only 86 of these were individual submissions.
“Let’s put this in context – a whopping 94% of higher-than-4,000 responses were simply a ‘click here’ campaign run by a lobby group. Only 6% were legitimate submissions from people genuinely engaged.
“The organisation responsible for this blatant attempt to manipulate a public process should be ashamed of their tactics. We call on them to publicly apologise.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/authority-looks-at-cutting-murray-buybacks/story-fn59niix-1226059242075
And the plot sickens…no thickens…nah! probably sickens!
Hi Debbie,
Thanks for the link to the article in The Australian by Lauren Wilson. It is poor journalism. In the article the opinionated ‘scientists’ are not named and an alternative opinion is not provided. Furthermore the amounts of water quoted are not placed in any context.
Lauren Wilson has apparently been background briefed by the Wentworth Group. She has not queried what she was told and newspaper has simply published her/their story. Note there is a victim (the river), a villain (government) and a rescuer (the unnamed scientists/Wentworth group). It’s a narrative without substance, but one that fits the established storyline.
And this is the same journalist who was given ‘the Snowy Hydro’ story to investigate; she was provided with leads indicating that Snowy Hydro ran water from Lake Eucumbene west to generate non-essential electricity topping up already spilling Blowering and Hume Dams.
It was potentially a huge story, but she blew it. Instead of investigating, she just phoned up Snowy Hydro management and wrote down everything she was told. The Australian newspaper then published it in effect publishing misinformation.
I agree Jen,
Whenever the lakes or SHL are mentioned, it always appears to be generated from a well paid/placed PR machine.
Very good marketing but very little actual substance.
As you also point out, the same probably applies to the Wentworth Group.
As I said…the plot sickens.
As far as these type of stories go, the MDB communities themselves are never seen as the ‘rescuers’. If you believed stories like this one you would believe that it’s the Government and groups like the Wentworth Group that have to rescue the rivers from the MDB communities.
That would be the experienced people who actually live and work there and would more than likely have a much better idea about what really needs to happen.
The same applies even in SA. You have people like Susan and Sean and I’m sure many others who are trying to insert some common sense into the politics surrounding those lakes.
They actually live there!
As far as I know, Mr Flannery lives on the Hawkesbury and the most of others from the Wentworth Group are Urban based and not from SA?
None of them actually have practical experience with water or water management.
I’m also fairly sure that hardly any of them are qualified water scientists/hydrologists either!?
Why do they get almost unlimited space in the MSM when they want it?
Debbie asks: Why are they heard?
Because their view is fashionable and it has never been seriously challenged.
Hi Jennifer,
Re your article, “More Government Waste on Unsustainable Lake System”
The claim of “over-allocation” is behind the Basin plan, but it ignores the reality of the allocation system already in place in particular that during drought allocations are significantly restricted and so crops like cotton and rice are not planted. That the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth region are now awash with water despite significant areas being planted to cotton and rice this last summer also defies the Minister’s logic. Of course there is over allocation we have allocated some 240% of the Basin’s water! If all entitlements were fully used in the Eastern States SA would not get any water!
Whilst the Lakes Alexandrina, Albert and the Coorong is a vast area the evaporation from the Menindee Lakes is greater than from Lakes Alexandrina and Albert!
Also, “Of course, water for Lake Alexandrina comes at the expense of upstream environments, communities and industries. Crap! But many Lower Lake residents don’t seem to care. And vice versa as most Eastern States persons don’t care about SA!
The $118 is not new money!
Hi John,
Your friend is partly right as a “TIDAL” system the Lakes were mainly fresh when the River ran to the sea but I like many others are sick and tired of people blaming rice and cotton as if you have a water entitlement you can use it as you wish.
Hi Debbie,
Your comment, “Thanks again for your tenacity on this topic” well I am just as tenacious but with a different result in mind!
Hi Dennis,
You say, “Why is Jen the only one talking about this? Where is Andrew Gregson and the Basin Community Association on this issue? What is that new group pushing by way of solution?” many are talking about and involved in very in depth consultations but I suppose the old adage is correct, “empty cans make the most noise”.
Hi Raredog,
You make comment, “Great posting Jennifer. This formerly natural estuarine system is the largest coastal lagoon system along the Australian coast with lakes Alexandrina-Albert-Coorong, etc occupying approximately 970 square kilometres when full – that is a lot of potential fresh water evaporation” well I’m sorry I don’t see it as a great posting and it was never Estuarine but Tidal and look at the evaporation from the Menindee Lakes!
Hi Marc,
Well said.
Hi Debbie,
What a crap comment, “We do need to remember that even though SA has caused most of these problems themselves, they are extremely vulnerable at the bottom of the system” how did we in SA cause the problem?.
Hi Sean,
Di Bell is correct it is not new money.
Hi Debbie,
Re the Wentworth Group, “As far as I know, Mr Flannery lives on the Hawkesbury and the most of others from the Wentworth Group are Urban based and not from SA?
None of them actually have practical experience with water or water management.
I’m also fairly sure that hardly any of them are qualified water scientists/hydrologists either!?”
I suggest you check their credentials as they are, “The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists is an independent group of Australian scientists concerned with advancing solutions to secure the long term health of Australia’s land, water and biodiversity”. Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists
Hi all,
My information from a meeting I attended yesterday is as follows re the MDBA Plan to be released later this year.
The Plan should be released by 31st July and there will be a 7-year period of adjustment before it comes into effect.
End of system flow will no longer be the benchmark and maybe some of the cuts will remain the same but each of the Valleys will have to be responsible for the Valleys environmental improvement and all Valleys will be treated equally but the overall flows to the Murray Mouth will remain the same and the Murray Mouth is to remain open!
Hi Jennifer,
Re your article, “More Government Waste on Unsustainable Lake System”
The claim of “over-allocation” is behind the Basin plan, but it ignores the reality of the allocation system already in place in particular that during drought allocations are significantly restricted and so crops like cotton and rice are not planted. That the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth region are now awash with water despite significant areas being planted to cotton and rice this last summer also defies the Minister’s logic. Of course there is over allocation we have allocated some 240% of the Basin’s water! If all entitlements were fully used in the Eastern States SA would not get any water!
Whilst the Lakes Alexandrina, Albert and the Coorong is a vast area the evaporation from the Menindee Lakes is greater than from Lakes Alexandrina and Albert!
Also, “Of course, water for Lake Alexandrina comes at the expense of upstream environments, communities and industries. Crap! But many Lower Lake residents don’t seem to care. And vice versa as most Eastern States persons don’t care about SA!
The $118 is not new money!
Hi John,
Your friend is partly right as a “TIDAL” system the Lakes were mainly fresh when the River ran to the sea but I like many others are sick and tired of people blaming rice and cotton as if you have a water entitlement you can use it as you wish.
Hi Debbie,
Your comment, “Thanks again for your tenacity on this topic” well I am just as tenacious but with a different result in mind!
Hi Dennis,
You say, “Why is Jen the only one talking about this? Where is Andrew Gregson and the Basin Community Association on this issue? What is that new group pushing by way of solution?” many are talking about and involved in very in depth consultations but I suppose the old adage is correct, “empty cans make the most noise”.
Hi Raredog,
You make comment, “Great posting Jennifer. This formerly natural estuarine system is the largest coastal lagoon system along the Australian coast with lakes Alexandrina-Albert-Coorong, etc occupying approximately 970 square kilometres when full – that is a lot of potential fresh water evaporation” well I’m sorry I don’t see it as a great posting and it was never Estuarine but Tidal and look at the evaporation from the Menindee Lakes!
Hi Marc,
Well said.
Hi Debbie,
What a crap comment, “We do need to remember that even though SA has caused most of these problems themselves, they are extremely vulnerable at the bottom of the system” how did we in SA cause the problem?.
Hi Sean,
Di Bell is correct it is not new money.
Hi Debbie,
Re the Wentworth Group, “As far as I know, Mr Flannery lives on the Hawkesbury and the most of others from the Wentworth Group are Urban based and not from SA?
None of them actually have practical experience with water or water management.
I’m also fairly sure that hardly any of them are qualified water scientists/hydrologists either!?”
I suggest you check their credentials as they are, “The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists is an independent group of Australian scientists concerned with advancing solutions to secure the long term health of Australia’s land, water and biodiversity”. Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists
Peter,
You have had an absolute rant here but you did actually ask me a question:
how did we in SA cause the problem?.
There are four general answers to that question with numerous sub answers that I won’t go into here.
1) SA has not provided enough back up storage to cater for the growth that has occured there
2) SA reclaimed approx 95% of the wetlands that used to supply the lower Coorong with water. They have also done that by draining the majority of that water straight out to sea.
The Murray flows did not often supply water to that area historically.
3) SA built the barrages to reclaim the lakes as fresh water only, then listed the lakes as fresh water under Ramsar and then did not have enough back up storage to keep the lakes at the required level.
4) SA has repeatedly fed the rumour that all of their problems are due to over allocation upstream and could be fixed by regular flushing.
Your claims about ‘over allocation’ are not correct. There is a little more truth to the claims about entitlements but because there is a difference and because there are water sharing plans in place, your claims about 240% of the water upstream are misleading and do not really effect what happened to SA and the lakes during the drought. Please remember and be grateful for the fact that SA did indeed get enough survival water during the drought. There was simply not enough to keep those lakes fresh and you must know that. If it wasn’t for the way water is allocated upstream or indeed if it wasn’t for upstream storages, the Murray River would have dried up probably by the middle of 2006 if not before.
You may also need to check the credentials of the ‘concerned scientists’. You might also need to check their experience in practical water management. There are many different science degrees Peter, most of them have nothing to do with water, hydrology or water management.
You may also need to check what they are actually so ‘concerned’ about.
You may be surprised to discover that they are no more concerned about your SA farmers and your SA businesses that they are about the Eastern States.
I stand by my comment about SA vulnerability. SA is vulnerable at the bottom of the system. I don’t think that is a good thing and I also don’t think screaming and ranting at the Eastern States that they don’t care is a wise way to try and solve that problem.
Peter,
Thank God Di Bell is right. I wonder what she thinks of her wonder boy Allan Holmes. The money is available to pull down the Narung Bun, Clayton and Currency Creek regulator it has been there since 2009. The State Govt. had to burn some “MIDNIGH OIL” by sending a environmental report to Mr. Garrett and get his permission to pull them down. The Times at Victor Harbor this week writes that Allan Holmes sought an extension from the Dept.of DSEW&C to delay returning the Clayton and Currency Creek sites as close to their original shape as possible by June 30, 2012 and March 30, 2013. It hasn’t got anything to do with money,he doesn’t have anywhere to dump it. I can’t see Hindmarsh Island Marina wanting the soil from the Clayton regulator back as they have already sold some of the water front blocks. This is the same person that got Lake Albert wrong despite what the locals had told him, it only cost $10 million and his comments on 891 radio was “at least we tried”. The same person is running into a lot of trouble now with the Marine Parks issue, he just doesn’t know how to consult.
Hi Debbie,
I don’t class my input as a rant I spend a great deal of time each week working on my main passion, that is the Murray darling basin and more specifically the River Murray!
Re your numbered replies: –
1) Whilst we (SA) have not provided, “enough back up storage to cater for the growth that has occurred there” you are partly right but it is a question of where and can we keep them full. Regarding growth I hope you are not saying the Eastern States have done enough to provide for growth, that is discounting accessing water from within the Basin.
2) I don’t agree with your 95% figure but whole heartedly agree the South-Eastern drains should never have been diverted to the sea. The SA Government is looking at redirecting the drains or pumping the Southern Lagoon of the Coorong out to sea. I should get yesterdays presentation in the next couple of days and will be happy to send it to you if you contact me via my web site.
3) I believe the barrages were built instead of the weir near Wellington (there was 26 Locks/Weirs planned in the first planning stage) and was it just the SA Government?
4) If you believe there is not an over allocation problem in the Basin, please have another look. What SA irrigators have done is become the most efficient in the Basin, no open drains, all water piped and their extraction is metered at the point of extraction the RIVER.
SA need not be grateful we are all Australians’ are we are in this together!
You say, “There was simply not enough to keep those lakes fresh and you must know that. If it wasn’t for the way water is allocated upstream or indeed if it wasn’t for upstream storages, the Murray River would have dried up probably by the middle of 2006 if not before. Well refer to the above the water in the Basin is shared supposedly on equal terms.
I agree the River could have dried up and if that had of happened ‘bad management’ would have been the cause and the River has been dry before as members of my family walked across the River at Murray Bridge in the 1910’s as I did just upstream of Swan Reach 3-yeasrs ago!
My friend Professor Mike Young, a member of the Wentworth Group I can assure you has a great deal of knowledge you question and you are right, “they are no more concerned about your SA farmers and your SA businesses that they are about the Eastern States” they are concerned about what is happening in the entire BASIN.
We are venerable as we are at the bottom of the system but does that make us any less important? I would not swap where I like at Mannum for where ever you live.
Hi Peter
Thanks for letting us know that the plan will be released at the end of July.
And I guess if government is to guarantee the Murray’s mouth is to remain open then the barrages will have to be opened to let in the Southern Ocean during times of drought.
‘If it wasn’t for the way water is allocated upstream or indeed if it wasn’t for upstream storages, the Murray River would have dried up probably by the middle of 2006 if not before.’
This should be more widely known, I don’t think city folk understand the whole story.
No Peter, I was definitely not saying that the Eastern States have done enough. It is a problem throughout the basin.
I also did not say that SA is less important. What I said was that it is not good that SA is vulnerable because SA is at the bottom of the system.
I was not expecting you to move from Mannum if you like it there, what made you think that?
You also seem to be getting allocations and entitlements confused.
Jen is correct when she stated:
The claim of “over-allocation” is behind the Basin plan, but it ignores the reality of the allocation system already in place in particular that during drought allocations are significantly restricted and so crops like cotton and rice are not planted. That the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth region are now awash with water despite significant areas being planted to cotton and rice this last summer also defies the Minister’s logic.
You have claimed before that you understand the Water Sharing Plans and the difference between allocations and entitlements, but your comments here indicate that you do not understand.
Water is shared according to specific formulas and they are designed to make sure that the environment, towns and cities, stock and domestic and permanent plantings have water above all other uses when inflows are low.
The problems with the lakes during the drought were not solvable from upstream storages because the water had been allocated for survival purposes. There wasn’t any water for broad acre irrigation or for the lakes.
The obvious lesson that we all should have learnt is that none of us have enough back up storage to cater for the growth that has occured throughout the basin, SA included.
The where is not really the problem Peter, it is definitely the will.
el gordo,
Jen, among many others has tried on many, many occaisions to tell that story to city people.
As Jen also pointed out earlier, it is groups like the Wentworth Group who gain the media attention.
They were only interested in talking about the degradation of the MDB due to ‘over allocation’.
Their arguments and their stories are the fashionable ones.
The fact that the Murray was kept flowing throughout the drought and it was because of upstream storage and management is hardly ever mentioned and the Wentworth Group, the ACF and others refuse to recognise that.
They also refuse to recognise the environmental disaster that is developing in the lower lakes.
Debs – I think you had better stop saying MDB. You guys are simply one issue – focussed on getting more water for irrigation in the lower system. Let’s not pussy foot around – it is simply about a bigger allocation for irrigated agriculture in the Murray and Murrumbidgee. Now I didn’t say it wasn’t important did I? So say MMS ….
Meanwhile we’ve heard zip about the Darling and every major river that flows into it from NSW and Qld. Including associated irrigation, allocations and wetlands.
And it’s also interesting that we never hear on this blog about any other irrigation scheme in the nation.
Myopia or ?
Luke,
I don’t completely deny what you have said here but would rather say it this way:
It is simply about getting our legislators to realise that the MDB (as a whole) but particularly the lower MDB is in serious need of upgrade and re engineering if we want to cater for growth since the 1950s and for future growth.
Our legislators also need to cater for the mistakes that they have made.
We have our politicians and popular environmentalists trying to solve the wrong problem.
The focus is on the lower MDB mostly because that’s where the storages held up better than anywhere else during the drought. It is also where a huge whack of Australian food and fibre is grown.
If you notice how those cuts are divided up you will also notice that the lower MDB is where the vast majority of the water is supposed to come from. My area has a 55% target on its back if the original guide was to be followed. The NSW/Vic Murray systems also have very high %s compared to the other valleys. The % average figure is rather deceptive when looked at through the separate valleys.
SA found itself relying almost completely on Burrunjuck, Blowering, Hume, Dartmouth and Eucumbene to keep the river flowing. The river did in fact have just enough water to supply essential needs throughout the drought. Without our system that would most definitely have not been the case. There was some rather interesting water that floated around on paper (or in models) but nonetheless there was just enough to supply critical needs.
The reason we hear little about other irrigation systems is because they are mostly too far away from the bottom of the system to really influence ‘end of system flows’. The original MDBP guide was almost completely focused on hydrological ‘end of system flows’.
Interestingly, all the other wetlands in QLD, NSW & Vic also suffered terribly during the drought. Unlike SA, none of those areas had an extra option.
Also interestingly, the majority of those wetlands have bounced back in a spectacular manner since the end of the drought, but those lakes are still suffering badly.
Clearly, the drought and/or lack of water from upstream was not their main problem.
The reason we don’t hear about the other irigation schemes in the nation, such as Ord is because that is not where this latest legislation is focusing. They are also not the subject of Jen’s post.
They would probably do well to pay attention to what’s happening in the MDB because whatever ends up happening in the MDB will set a precedent for those areas as well.
Also, you may not understand that the current push via legislation is most definitely to REDUCE irrigation in the MDB, not to get a bigger allocation for irrigated agriculture.
As an MDB irrigator I of course find that very distressing. I would of course argue that we could produce more and have better security for our system if the Water Act and the MDBP had a different focus and different goals. I also believe that goals that focused on future growth and future water security would create far better outcomes for Australia and of course Australian irrigated agriculture.
The MDBA was definitely tasked with coming up with a number so that the Govt could REDUCE irrigation.
That is also because they are essentially attempting to solve the wrong problem.
I believe even Peter would agree that many of the problems have been caused by parochial government legislation and too much interference by politics.
No one is arguing that we haven’t made mistakes. Of course we have. All 4 states in the MDB have made mistakes.
We do need to be honest about what those mistakes are and the best ways to correct them.
It’s an interesting ploy. Someone is talking about one important subject, and what they are saying is hitting home. So you attack that person for not talking about another related subject. With a little faux-indignation, and a cutesie-pie avatar, …you’ve created the needed distraction!
But, please don’t get distracted, Jen and Debs. You guys are doing fine. Just keep hammering away. We’re reading and listening.
WOW the Wentworth Group have spat the dummy.
Yep, speaking of the Wentworth Group.
Peter,
You do realise that they are mostly academics don’t you and that their specific fields are in fact not water science? Actually you do realise don’t you that several of them are not scientists at all but are qualified in other fields?
Also, you claim they are ‘concerned’ about the ENTIRE BASIN, what is it that you think they are actually concerned about?
Did you happen to read their report that was released prior to the MDBP last year?
Their ‘concern’ led them to claim that over 60% of irrigation should be cut.
Do you think that is a good outcome for MDB communities your patch included?
I wasn’t going to, but I also need to take you to task over Menindee Lakes and your attempt to use them as a reason for arguing to keep the lower lakes as fresh water only.
Two reasons why I need to do that.
1) At full capacity Menindee lakes will evaporate approx 480,000ML. The lower lakes at full capacity evaporate approx 740,000ML. So your comment:
“Whilst the Lakes Alexandrina, Albert and the Coorong is a vast area the evaporation from the Menindee Lakes is greater than from Lakes Alexandrina and Albert!”
Does not match the figures that I am aware of. Maybe you have access to different figures?
2) In low inflow years and drought, Menindee Lakes cannot be rescued by sea water but the lower lakes can.
I would not disagree that evaporation in low level storages is a problem, but your argument isn’t solving that problem for either the lower lakes or Menindee. They are different parts of the system, with different problems and will therefore need different practical solutions.
Yes Debbie – I also was concerned about the Menindee lakes reference.
If Peter wants to compare the two then he must allow the lower lakes to dry out totally as do the Menindee lakes in times of drought and low water input from upstream.
BTW – here’s the Darling River at Menindee in January 2010.
http://www.360cities.net/image/darling-river-kinchega-national-park-new-south-wales-
Debbie,
The figures I have on the Lower Lakes are :-
Evaporation Loss (EL)@1.3 m/a.
Lake Albert 185 sq.km. Evaporation 240GL /a , Lake Alexandrina ( Upper Zone ) 523 sq. km. Evaporation 680GL/a, Lake Alexandrina (Lower Zone) 100 sq. km. Evaporation 130GL/a, Goolwa 40 sq. km. Evaporation 52GL/a. Total for the AREA :- 848 SQ. KM. EVAPORATION 1,102GL/a.
Tim Flannery has quoted a figure of 1,300GL/a.
To me there is a big difference between the two. The Menindee Lakes the water can be used to top up Lake Victoria plus supply further water to many other places down the River Murray to S.A.’s benefit as the Darling can’t flow uphill to Victoria at Wentworth. The Lower Lakes can supply water to the Goolwa Channel and the Murray Mouth and Coorong depending on water flows.
Wow!
That’s 1,300,000ML!
That’s a lot of water.
You’re right about the difference between your 2 figures. 198,000 ML.
That is also a sizeable amount of water.
Hi el gordo,
I agree if it weren’t for some good management the Murray Would have dried up or at least there would have been no water crossing the SA border!
You are also correct many in cities around Australia and they are the same ones who believe everything is now OK!
Hi Debbie,
OK it is, “not good that SA is vulnerable because SA is at the bottom of the system” and I am not confused about entitlements and allocation but I must change my terminology ie, if all entitlements were delivered the Basin could run dry in poor inflow years but because of allocations and sharing rules we survived!
Because of the above therefore Jennifer is correct!
I must be missing your point, “That the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth region are now awash with water despite significant areas being planted to cotton and rice this last summer also defies the Minister’s logic.
You say, “The problems with the lakes during the drought were not solvable from upstream storages because the water had been allocated for survival purposes. There wasn’t any water for broad acre irrigation or for the lakes.
The obvious lesson that we all should have learnt is that none of us have enough back up storage to cater for the growth that has occurred throughout the basin, SA included. Interestingly, all the other wetlands in QLD, NSW & Vic also suffered terribly during the drought. Unlike SA, none of those areas had an extra option” if those other wetlands were able to be supplied with seawater WOULD THAT OPTION BEEN ACCEPRABLE? I think not as it would have destroyed the wetlands and also destroyed them beyond repair!
Please leave the Ord out of the discussion or idiots will think we should be piping water from the Ord into the Basin!
I certainly agree, “I believe even Peter would agree that many of the problems have been caused by parochial government legislation and too much interference by politics.
Hi Sean,
Yes, the Wentworth Group have pulled out of the discussions with the MDBA and many may think that is good but I can always remember Professor Mike Young commenting, “If the environment is healthy so is the Murray Darling Basin!”
Hi Debbie,
You comment, “I wasn’t going to, but I also need to take you to task over Menindee Lakes and your attempt to use them as a reason for arguing to keep the lower lakes as fresh water only” I do not do that to argue for keeping the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert fresh I do it to point out the losses in the system to evaporation. Mike Young says in time of low inflows all water should be kept in the Rivers not shallow catchments and if that happens and the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert become very low all the more reason for an EIS into Lock Zero.
Hi John,
Let us have that EIS.
Hi Sean,
That figure from Tim Flannery (as much as I respect him) is wrong the closest figure I can find is about 850-Gigalitres!
Hi to you all,
SA has become extremely efficient in irrigation practices as I have said before, everything possible should be done to cease open drain water transfer and all extractions should be metered from the extraction point from the Rivers.
Peter,
So you believe the total area of the Lower Lakes is 654 sq. km.
Peter,
So you believe the total area of the Lower Lakes is 654 sq. km. working on the evaporation
rate of (EL)@1.3 m/a.
The Upper Zone of Lake Alexandrina is where the Point Sturt Road reaches the Lake below Point Sturt then a straight line across to the Lakes edge just below Terlingi. 523 sq.km.
The Lower Zone is below that line down to the Goolwa zone at the Finniss. 100 sq.km.
The Goolwa zone is 40 sq.m. giving us a total of 663 sq.km.
Lake Albert Zone is the total lake itself 185 sq.km.
Peter,
RAMSAR agreement – What was its purpose ?
Peter,
your question about the upstream wetlands doesn’t make sense.
They have never had the option of seawater and they have never been tidal or estaurine. It would not make sense to put seawater in them and it’s impossible to do so anyway.
The lower lakes are different and do have that option in low inflow or drought years.
Mike Young’s comment sounds reasonable but considering what the Wentworth Group claimed were necessary cuts I would have to seriously question his definition of a healthy basin and a healthy environment.
Do you think 60% reduction to irrigation entitlements is a good idea?
Also, the point Jen was making is that even though there are 100%allocation to entitlements upstream, there is no shortage of water in the wetlands anywhere in the system at the moment.
So it is obviously possible to have all entitlements filled in seasons like this one and the lower lakes are not short of water.
I do however think it is wrong that S A irrigators are not on 100%. The only reason they’re not is once again caused by politics.
It is not because there is a shortage of water.
Hi Sean,
I am not a Lakes person my time has been spent residing along the River Murray from Wellington Blanchetown but my information re Lakes Alexandrina and Albert is sourced from people have spent most if not all of their lives residing and working in the areas.
My interest in the Lakes not being invaded by seawater is to protect the Lower River Murray from Lock 1 to the Great Southern Ocean.
Re the Ramsar listing my belief is to protect important flora and fauna.
Hi Debbie,
I will put the question another way.
You make the point that we had the option of protecting our Lakes Alexandrina and Albert by allowing the barrages to be opened and we didn’t allow that to happen.
You said, “all the other wetlands in QLD, NSW & Vic also suffered terribly during the drought. Unlike SA, none of those areas had an extra option” and I realise that option was not available (seawater) but if it were available you would have resisted to opportunity.
To your comment, “Do you think 60% reduction to irrigation entitlements is a good idea?” my answer is no!
Your right saying, “I do however think it is wrong that SA irrigators are not on 100%. The only reason they’re not is once again caused by politics. It is not because there is a shortage of water” and how stupid is this?
Peter,
RAMSAR is the site of Adelaide’s 190GL / year RESERVOIR. Saved the State Government heaps of money and concrete.
Hi Sean,
Come off it what a stupid comment! Ramsar site are under the control of the Federal Minister for the Environment!
No Peter,
Ramsar is an international treaty that the Federal Government can use to over ride the Australian constitution.
It is also used by governments to list places like the lower lakes as fresh water wetlands.
It is also used by State governments and corporations to get extra commonwealth funding for things such as reservoirs and effluent disposal sites.
If rice farmers wanted to, they could also list their rice paddies through Ramsar as ephemeral wetlands and have fesderal funding to uphold that listing.
Just as well they didn’t don’t you think?
That would have definitely caused some problems for SA 🙂
Peter,
That is how Dean Brown got the extra water of 190GL for Adelaide’s water supply by using RAMSAR. Everybody knows that since the agreement has been in place the only direction of the evironmental state of this area has been downhill. Twenty years of management and it has declined in value to the point where the ratifying body has allegedly been considering whether to de-register the site as no longer being of international significance. As long as the agreement kept the water flowing, everybody was happy. How about the Coorong in the meanwhile ? Well the Coorong is a complicated issue in its own right, there was very little or even nothing done for the North Coorong. Occasionally there would be sufficient water to open the Tauwitchere barrages for a month but this did very little in reality for the overall state of the Coorong. How can it ? It is an opening at the western end of the North Lagoon leaving the eatern part and the entire Southern Lagoon unaltered. Yeterday we notice a similar thing is still happening Tauwitchere Barrage is open Ewe Island has a salt reading 2783 EC, Pelican Point 3925 EC and then we go further into the Coorong Long Point 11850 EC, Parnka Point 107,869 EC, Cattle Island 116164 EC and Snip Island 126695 EC. We still see Lake Albert in the high 6000 EC.
Oh for Christ’s sake Peter – get off your high horse!! You are perpetuating a system that won’t work. It’s been clearly demonstrated that the lower lakes cannot be supported by natural flows and that in extreme times need additional input of fresh water that the system cannot possibly supply.
You are supporting a group of diehards that demand the system sustain a freshwater environment in a system that cannot possibly sustain it it!!
You have relied on a system of rigged up barrages etc that defy the natural system of water flows and are fighting back as if they were the natural flow – well they aren’t are they?
Hi Debbie,
I realise Ramsar is an International treaty and I know about the power of the organisation and any breaches must be signed off by the Minister.
Hi Sean,
I was interested to hear the, “it has declined in value to the point where the ratifying body has allegedly been considering whether to de-register the site as no longer being of international significance” my contact on the Ramsar body has never informed me of this.
Yes, the Coorong is in real trouble the Southern Lagoon is hyper-saline and at Thursday’s meeting we discussed pumping out the Southern Lagoon and also other options.
Hi John,
I sorry you think I’m on my high horse but I think you are just also pushing your own selfish barrow. I believe at all costs the barrages should remain but we need, and we need it yesterday, is an Environmental Impact Statement into a proper regulator at Wellington.
If seawater is allowed to invade the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert the water in the River Murray will be unusable to Blanchetown including for Adelaide and most of South Australia!
And yes the Barrages are holding back the natural as all of the regulators in the MBD are restricting natural flow!
Peter I have no selfish barrow. I just see this stupid argument go on and on. Sharks have been recorded as far up as Tailem Bend, history has shown conclusively the lakes were tidal and sometimes were fresh, other times salty. That’s nature and natural.
What don’t you understand about this??
you are the one with a selfish barrow.
Peter,
I believe you we need another Lock upstream of Wellingtont to Swanport to protect Adelaide’s water supply and the remainder of the river up to Lock 1. As Susan has told you the longes andtt distance between Locks is Lock 1 and the Barrage.
Peter has the same person on the RAMSAR body mentioned that it was discussed at a meeting with overseas people here in Goolwa, that was when we heard that RAMSAR sites can be either estuarine or fresh.
Hi John,
Seawater fish and Dolphins have been recorded upstream of Mannum and whiting caught at Younghusband, I am not arguing with anybody about that. THAT WAS BEFORE THE LOCKS WERE CONSTRUCTED AND ALSO PRIOR TO THE BARRAGES! I also agree the Lakes were tidal prior the completion of the Barrages!
If the seawater was to be allowed free access entry into the Lakes that during times of little or no flow over Lock 1 the River Murray from Blanchetown to the Southern Ocean would become un-potable, Adelaide’s, the South East’s and most of SA’s water would be unusable for agriculture and critical human use,
In your own words, “What don’t you understand about this??”
Hi Sean,
The answer is No he has not.
Also I know that the RAMSAR site can be estuarine or fresh but when it was declared a RAMSAR site it was fresh so any variations must be signed off by the Minister (Federal) for the Environment!
The request for an Environmental Impact Statement into Lock Zero (found on my web site http://www.psmithersmyriver.com ) has been discussed with Minister Caica to no avail and emailed to every Elected Member of Federal Parliament and every Elected Member of every State and Territory Government and every Shire and Council in Australia and also every major media outlet in Australia and overseas.
Without that EIS is, the umpires decision I will continue to take every action possible to prevent any alteration to the management of all Barrages!!
The Ramsar meeting Sean refers to was attended and written up by someone for our website. You can find the link here to what happened at that meeting:
http://www.lakesneedwater.org/meetings/wetland-rivers-group-conference-9-sep-2009
One question I’d like to throw out there is this. Well, two questions.
1) If the ‘new science’ finds that the Lakes can be returned to estuarine (assuming locks, etc) THEN how much fresh water is required to keep them as a ‘healthy’ estuarine system? We all are assuming it’s less fresh water required, but so far the ‘science’ has been too timid to suggest any numbers.
2) And if the Lakes being restored to estuaries and reconnected to the Coorong is part of a basin wide plan, will the irrigation community upstream be more supportive of ‘all that freshwater evaporating and going out to sea’.
Jennifer is very one-eyed about the problems in the Murray Darling Basin and particularly regarding the Lower Lakes.
Susan, the irrigation community upstream couldn’t care less about anyone downstream. Nor do they appear to care one jot about the environmental damage.
Those are good questions Susan,
Also a good point about the ‘timid science’.
I strongly believe the answers to your questions would have to lie in some sensible engineering and technical solutions rather than hydrological ‘end of system flow’ science that basically doesn’t recognise that much of the system is highly regulated.
Part of that solution would have to be the Wellington solution that Peter keeps talking about and also SA would need to be prepared to look for other engineering solutions and storage solutions that could provide enough ‘back up storage’ to supply what it decides is the right level of ‘fresh’ water in low inflow sequences. When we have high inflows, there is plenty of water for the ‘end of system flows’, despite Peter’s, Getup’s, The Wentworth Group’s, ACF’s etal loud arguments to the contrary.
If the Coorong was reconnected to its original water supply and the Lakes were allowed to return to their tidal/estaurine ecology, then SA would not need so much water from the Murray.
If SA wants to keep those Lakes as always fresh, then it must come up with ways to do that and not expect upstream storages to supply water they are incapable of supplying in low inflow sequences.
Peter is correct that we need to protect established practices and definitely need to protect fresh potable water supplies for critical human needs and stock and domestic purposes.
All of those problems are solvable and there are many plans already available to do that.
The how is not the problem, the where is not really a problem either, it is definitely the political will that is obstructing some sensible and practical solutions.
Unfortunately for all of us (and I fear even more so for SA because it is so very vulnerable at the bottom of the system) the Federal Government’s attempts, using an inadequate international treaty to muscle in on Australian water management, has so far succeeded in making everything even more complicated and more difficult.
We have confused and ‘timid’ science and a Water Act that is demanding a “cut back and shut down’ number.
The federal Govt has hamstrung itself because it uses an environmental international treaty that then forces it to only consider the health of wetlands and birdlife when coming up with that number.
The information coming from the Senate inquiry into the Water Act’s ability to deliver a good balanced outcome is confirming that the Water Act 2007 is unable to do that.
25th. May,2011, 8.00 pm. Barrage set to hold a pool level of around 0.50mm. The water level upstream 0.612mm and downstream 0.969mm. Hindmarsh Island Bridge 0.634mm with a salt level of15,262 EC and beacon 20 just upstream of the barrage 16,375 EC. 26th. May,6.00 am. Barrage upstream 0.513mm and downstream 0.934mm. Hindmarsh Island 0.513mm with a salt level 10,892 EC and Beacon 20 11,400 EC. As you can see a small estuarine situation has happened in the Goolwa Channel and that is after climbing over the barrage with a 0.50mm wall and they say the Lakes have always been fresh prior to 1930’s.