A year or more ago a prominent climate sceptic suggested that he felt sorry for me whenever he heard me talking publicly about the Murray Darling. When I asked why, he suggested it was a lost cause… the Murray Darling. Furthermore, he hinted, it did the reputation of other sceptics no good for me to be defending irrigators.
More recently, in a piece in The Monthly, New York-based Australian author and poet, Kate Jennings, suggests it does the Murray Darling cause no good my being a “prominent climate-change sceptic”. While Jennings, may understand very little about anthropogenic climate change, her recent article on the Murray Darling is better researched than most and is of course beautifully written.
Jennings writes…
“THE demonising of farmers has been insidious in the last decade but reached a crescendo this last year when the Murray Darling Basin Authority’s Guide to the Proposed Basin Plan was released – all 1118 pages of it with production values as high as a Mercedes-Benz brochure – and a miniscule contingent of angry irrigators – arch-villains du jour – burned copies in Griffith. It was a plan which proposed cutting water in amounts that would’ve, if not outright killed irrigation areas and their towns, at the very least caused them to atrophy. A plan assembled without consultation with farmers and scientists from the areas in question. A plan the government neglected to tell them was only a discussion paper. The actual burning, televised and played whenever the issue comes up, imitated an earlier event at Deniliquin that wasn’t caught on tape. In Griffith, journos all but handed the demonstrators the match. The protest left most of the people who attended the town meeting – 5000 of them – squeamish, but some now admit that at least those ratbags forced the nation to look in their direction.
You know much of this, yet it bears repeating because another plan is due in mid November, and it’s strongly rumoured, despite reassurances that social and economic factors will be taken into account, that we are in for more rural outrage, this one fuelled by political betrayal. This is not a storm in a teacup: two million people live in the basin, which produces 40% of our agriculture. The Murray Darling Basin Authority chieftain, Craig Knowles, a master of political expediency who replaced the hapless Mike Taylor, is already passing the buck by saying that two states, New South Wales and Victoria, are hindering the release of the plan. “The people of Australia expect a partnership,” said Knowles. Yadda yadda yadda…
Åsa Wahlquist, the former rural correspondent for the Australian, began her book Thirsty Country, published in 2008, by repeating a claim by “water guru” Peter Cullen that we have farmers who “slop on water like they did in the time of the pharaohs”. She follows that up with: “we still value the right to irrigate, no matter how poorly, over the health of our ancient, beautiful, fragile land.” And then there is Don Watson, who likes to say that 30% of farmers are bad farmers. All of these statements are inaccurate or exaggerations – examples of what WH Auden called “the folded lie” in his poem September 1, 1939 – and also unhelpfully judgmental. As for Watson’s claim, I’d answer that 30% of any profession aren’t up to snuff, including bureaucrats and environmental scientists…
The Australian Conservation Foundation and similar groups need their feet held to the fire over their emotional language and scientific distortions; the damage to the trust in science and the larger Green cause alone is inestimable. And take out the barrages and create a functioning Murray River estuary with tidal flows that scour and revitalise…
Read from the beginning here:
http://www.themonthly.com.au/guide-murray-darling-basin-water-under-bridge-kate-jennings-4012
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I’m always bemused how inner city greens continue to pour scorn on farmers. Go to say, Balmain, and what would we see?
Any land that has not been built on has been cemented or tarred over. There are few natural water courses, few original fauna or flora and air is polluted. Maybe they should return 80 per cent of their suburb to its natural state before they tell farmers what to do. And while they are at it, construct hundreds of wind turbines in their area like they demand of their country brethren.
They demand from the country which they have failed to do themselves.
Of course the anomaly graph with a 15 year moving average line shows how much less rainfall there was from 1900 to 1949.
The line fails to reach the average rainfall line for the first 50 years. Actually rainfall was below average from 1895 to 1900 as well and that makes it 55 years below average rainfall.
Currently MDB storages are at record levels for at least 40 years.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=15
“Uncertainty is essential information for decision makers.”
As with climate science, so with the MDB.
But the greens don’t even know enough to know what uncertainty is.
Jen beg to differ – Jennings simply says “Jennifer Marohasy is a prominent climate-change sceptic, so her work on the barrages is dismissed out of hand. (We could also dismiss anything from the Wentworth Group because it is funded by the World Wildlife Fund, which could bias findings.) ”
And that is quite astute and not an insult to you.
A great article – and a pox on everyone’s houses for being unable to drive through real solutions for both economic and environmental issues. So so all the billions of aid and research invested in the MDB are we any further advanced? And with the withering share of agriculture in the current GDP – is it even a good proposition?
Perhaps good money to be made in the Asian century in food and fibre – why waste our time bogged down in the unsolvable MDB quagmire. Go north !
The MDB has recieved much more rainfall in the last 55 years compared to the 55 years 1895 to 1949.
BTW Bolt will talk to Prof Garth Paltridge, Prof Bob Carter and Prof Peter Ridd about Juliar’s co2 tax garbage at 10am and repeated at 4.30 pm.today.
It should be on Youtube and Bolt’s blog in about 24 hours for those who have missed it.
——————————————————————————–
Luke Mate, Why does Jennings in her article, go on and on about how she believes in climate change. Differentiating herself. The first paragraph is all about her own beliefs. Establishing herself as a good guy. Jen as a free thinker on a range of issues is necessarily a bad guy.
Neville Mate, Ask Bolt why he never runs Jen on the Murray. I reckon Bolt believes the Murray Darling is stuffed. Maybe that is also why he never runs her on climate change.
Utter utter nonsene Neville. Sheer poppycock. The lower MDB is an exceptional stand-out. Only a denier would suggest otherwise. Unless of course your are some sort of con-artist lumping the huge area from the Carnarvon’s in Qld to Lake Alexandrina into one climate zone.
There is more than a fair case for AGW involvement in the lower MDB and sceptic piddling around with BoM rainfall graphs of the whole basin is about as stupid as one could get. But it’s not worth discussing with someone like yourself who doesn’t have the inclination nor the ability to study the real investigative science.
“the ability to study the real investigative science.”
Lukespeak for cherrypicking.
Had a butchers at the Qld end of the MDB lately, Lukey?
Not cherry-picking in the slightest – actually using what we call a poompteenth of intelligence.
Relevance of the Qld end of the MDB to AGW – zip ! And remember you’re a self-confessed drongo
So. You not only cherrypick, you verbal as well.
Now who have I heard accusing others on this blog of just that?
Thinks…
Poor old Lukey, it’s not me but you that doesn’t have a clue.
The trend for SE Australia is slightly positive over 110 years and the trend for Southern Australia is positive i.e. higher rainfall, as is the trend for South Australia as well.
What don’t you understand about reading a simple graph?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=saus&season=0112&ave_yr=15
Dennis I’m afraid you’ve got the bull by the horns, Bolt would be the last person to think the Murray was stuffed and has stated so for years. Where have you been, residing in a cave?
He used Jen’s info on salt levels to help her highlight ridiculous CSIRO nonsense on salt levels years ago.
After they both finished with them the CSIRO changed their site info and stopped their BS for quite a while.
Looks like the Chinese know a stupid BS proposition when they see it.
Just a pity we have silly dummies like Luke who wouldn’t wake up if a country outhouse fell on them.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/08/global-warming-is-a-bogus-proposition/#more-48880
The problem with the Lower Murray has got absolutely nothing at all to do with whatever anyone thinks about climate change.
It has everything to do with inappropriate land use since early Australian settlement around and during the 1860-1940’s.
It was every state for itself, grab as much water as you can, grow food and settle the continent. You can’t really blame the early settlers. But the biggest problem in all of this is trying to use an estuary as a freshwater source.
It’s not rocket science.
I think Kate’s article does a good job at showing their is a middle road here to finding a solution, and it does not matter whether or not you are a climate poobah of whatever sort.
A step in the right direction but a pity Windsor doesn’t apply the same logic to the Carbon Tax:
http://www.mdba.gov.au/media_centre/transcript
Poor Neville – scientifically clueless – and alas understanding what is happening to our climate is indeed rocket science – wasted on Neville who hasn’t got the ticker for the science and is persuaded by charlatans. Poor Neville condemned to clubbing rocks and preferring to wallow in ignorance.
Stop the silly crap Luke. Wasn’t it great to see Bolt’s three scientists on his show today telling the truth at long last.
I’ve shown you the record from BOM and if you can’t accept the facts then that’s your problem.
I suppose the BOM 110 year rainfall record for Southern Australia, SE Australia, SA and MDB is wrong?
Why don’t you also wake up to this mitigation fraud by reading the link to soaring Chinese and Indian co2 emissions in the above link at WUWT.
O/T
Looking at the NAO confirms why the UK had a cool wet summer and if it falls below the line again they can expect another freezing winter.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao_index.html
The NAO is directly linked to the sun’s activity, so this gives us a clue how regional cooling begins.
“understanding what is happening to our climate is indeed rocket science”
It’s a lot more difficult than rocket science I think you’ll find.
NASA got their RS working very well over 40 years ago but their experts today can’t even work out whether clouds are a + or – feedback.
And worse still they won’t admit to this and many other uncertainties in climate science yet they keep feeding us their GCM “projections”.
Judith Curry made a beautifully simple statement recently:
“Uncertainty is essential information for decision makers.”
Wish our govt would hear that.
Hello Susan,
Does this inappropriate land use include accidentally growing Redgum forests where they never were, then calling them National Parks ? The older locals call them “White Man’s Forests”.
Or is it what I saw the last time I drove down the Hume Highway at Wallan and saw all those new houses in the fertile valleys.
Most of what you say makes a lot of sense.
In the great scheme of things , does anyone in the city really know how many people,in the world, DO NOT STARVE , as a result of huge areas of southern NSW and Nth VIC not being flooded out every wet year ?
The water is stored and grows food.
Luke , already think I have mentioned on here, My Sydney brother eventually hung up on me when I insisted these rivers were full ,about a year ago, they still are. In fact some dangerously so.
His logic was that my bit was,- but it is huge . Is that what you say Luke ?
Well stuff you lot , I work from the top of the Darling , to all over the Bidgee , the Lachlan, the Edward , the Billabong Creek, the Old Man Creek, the MANIPULATED Willandra The Warrego , the Cuttaburra , etc, etc . Have a bloody look , or ask a local 80 yr old . Not some blow in computer modeler.
Incidentally, ,as of last weekend the Murray has still got a minor flood warning happening and Hume Weir is around 98pc and Burrenjuck the same. . If they were not there Shepparton to Hay would currently be inundated . Read some history
The Murray-Darling’s problem is that it exists. Its massive production is real, its problems are real. The GetUp/Greens want us to focus on maybe-issues and one-of-these-day schemes. It’s all so enticing and effortless, like the job you don’t have, the family you don’t have, the neighbours you don’t have.
Of course, sometimes people take the luvvies seriously and bring into existence their maybe-one-day schemes. Big mistake. The Fairfax-perusing classes want paralysis, not action. When the desal plants and solar plants and wind farms are being dismantled at great cost, they’ll say: “That’s not what we meant, don’t look at us. We were just providing creative input.”
In immediate money terms, irrigation agriculture may be slight compared to all that carbon that we send offshore – some whisper that the Chinese are actually burning it! – but food is number three behind oxygen and drinking water. Money, though I love it, comes a lot further down the list.
Anything productive which meets real and immediate human needs will have its perennial problems and perennial clashes of interest. Entropy is inevitable and comes with the human adventure. Sorry, Gaia – but you’ve seen worse.
Instead of sorting out nothing at great cost (CAGW etc), let’s sort out SOMETHING at great cost. And while we’re at it, let’s improve and extend irrigation agriculture. Of course, we should listen to all the reasons why one can’t. Then we do it.
Neville – Bolt’s stuff was the usual pre-rehearsed fraudulent nonsense – skiting over the facts, omitting heaps and didn’t Paltridge look uncomfortable responding to the “fixed” format. Appalling spectacle !
Ian Thomson – you see you guys aren’t climatologists – and you have had the debate neatly corralled by the deniers on narrow terms of reference. Reality is that the forcings that have dried out SE Australia are still in play. Neatly swamped for now by a fortuitous La Nina.
Piddling around with Neville’s little graphs lifted from BoM’s site are hardly an analysis.
This is an analysis http://www.seaci.org/events/2011workshop/presentations/index.html
Salient facts
13-year drought in the region is unprecedented in:
– Extent
– Lower year-to-year rainfall variability
– Seasonal pattern of the rainfall decline
• 13% lower rainfall led to a 44% decline in river flow
• Low autumn and winter/spring rain linked to:
– Broadening of the Hadley Circulation & intensification of the subtropical ridge
– Associated with global warming/greenhouse gases
– Natural variability also likely a contributing factor
and
• SEA is affected by a long-term rainfall deficiency
– The very wet 2010-11 ended the Millennium Drought but not the long-term signal
– Large-scale modes of variability are important (year to year, e.g. 2010/11) but not convincing to explain long-term deficit
• SEA mean climate is a result of the Mean Meridional Circulation (MMC)
– The MMC is changing
– Hadley Cell is broadening, intensity is unclear
– Storm-track, tropopause height confirm this
– Drive in turn the sub-tropical ridge: SEA local controller (other modes drive it as well)
– Autumn is a transition season where the expansion of the HC is very large and drive both intensification and shift in position (non-linearity)
Hello Ian,
When I said ‘inappropriate land use’ I was referring to the area around the Lower Lakes and below Lock One. My own backyard.
I’ve been researching the early SA settlement period of this area by reading through the digitized newspapers available on Trove (http://trove.nla.gov.au/) .
For example the fishermen of the era around Goolwa and Milang opposed the barrages and claim that the draining of the lower murray swamps destroyed the cod nurseries. These drained swamps became pastures for dairy operations. These same swamps are also at the highest risk now for acid sulphate soil problems when they dry out. Many of these dairymen exited the industry during this latest drought.
The fishermen of the era also claim that the barrages destroyed the mulloway fishery. The barrages made the lakes year round freshwater. For the sake of farming in this region around the Lower Lakes, the estuary was destroyed. That’s what I meant by ‘inappropriate uses’.
An estuary was destroyed to suit farmers in this area. I think it is possible to restore the estuary, and thus ease the pressure on the rest of the river system. We do not have to continue using the Lower Lakes like giant farm dams.
I’ve collected a few of the more interesting old news stories here: http://lakesneedwater.blogspot.com/ .
Hi Susan, When you say ‘inappropriate land use’ do you mean, ‘High Value Irrigation’ against ‘Low Value Irrigation?’High value being irrigating permanent plantings as against annual plantings and if so the irrigated areas in the Lower River Murray and from Lakes Albert and Alexandrina were ‘High Value Irrigation.’ Your backyard well why not starting to fight for your backyard instead of perpetuating crap? Fishing is an important industry but not the main game in feeding our bludgeoning population. The acid problem was caused by bad management of the entire Murray Darling Basin during the drought so now we below Lock 1 are left to clean up and most of the acid sulphate problems were not on the irrigated swamps and of course, ‘Many of these dairymen exited the industry during this latest drought’ costing your/our area millions of dollars with that cost now being multiplied and the vacated swamps turning into saline waste lands. Lake Alexandrina was NEVER estuarine but TIDAL for the umpteenth time! The Lakes Need Water does not in any way seek the removal of the Barrages and in Craig Knowles our words last Friday when others and myself met with him the removal of the Barrages is a ‘no brainer.’ And again the Barrages were constructed as a trade off for the constructing of the Lock/Weir at Yarrawonga creating Lake Mulwala, please get on the same page.
Peter,
You are not a member of LakesNeedWater. Our group members have a range of opinions regarding what should happen with the barrages. The one thing our members do agree on is that the Lakes should be restored to estuaries so that we do not face another drought like the last one with the very unnatural consequence of lakes below sealevel, exposed to air producing acid sulphate soils.
My ‘backyard’ bore the brunt of wind blown acid sulphate soils. The EPA tested our rainwater for heavy metal contamination. I watched while the government aerial sprayed grass seed over the dried up lakebed, only to see it all blow away the next day. The rehabilitation efforts did not work in ‘my backyard’.
There is no reason why the farmers cannot change their methods around the Lower Lakes to accommodate the lakes being restored to their natural estuarine condition and still continue their operations.
Hi Susan,
I still refute that Lake Alexandrina was ever estuarine it was TIDAL with sea water travelling up stream passed Younghusband and in an average year in access of 200-Gigalitres flow out through the River’s mouth, though in drought years the mouth did allow sea water into Lake Alexandrina. Droughts thou an act of nature we are extracting far too much upstream and this must be better managed. I know about the acid sulphate problem (I was a member of the Advisory Groups looking at the problem and the problem of bank collapse) and the way to stop that is cover with water most, successfully fresh water and keep the pool level high enough to stop the River’s banks collapsing.
No I am not a member of LakesNeedWater and could never be as any plan to allow sea water to invade the Lower River Murray would be an environmental, ecological and economic disaster without Lock Zero. Could you please accept the truth, “The Barrages were constructed as a trade off for the constructing of the Lock/Weir at Yarrawonga creating Lake Mulwala.”
Hi Peter,
A bit of documentation would make your ‘truths’ easier to accept. Where does it say that the barrages were constructed as a ‘trade off’ for Lake Mulwala?
Also, just because I think the Lakes would be better off managed as estuaries, does not automatically mean I am ‘for’ or ‘against’ a ‘Lock 0’ or whatever else the engineers can come up with. This is not a black and white issue, and armchair experts discussing engineering projects of this dimension don’t do anyone any favours.
I think restoring the Lakes to estuaries, sometimes fresh and sometimes salty, should be on the table for discussion. I’m a rate payer, I own property there too.
And since you were on the Advisory Group about acid sulphate soil problems, then you should know that if the barrages had been opened to allow seawater to cover the exposed lake bed, then the potentially acidic soils would never have turned acid in the first place. The Lakes would have ‘gone salt’ as they did in the early 1900’s, and with the next flood event, the salt water would have gone out with the tide.
Only Lower Lake farmers wouldn’t like that, and everyone else who lives down there is stuck with Lower Lake farmers making the decisions.
All this hysteria about economic and ecological disasters does not help find a solution. And the absolute insistence by people like you to keep seawater out caused far more problems than it prevented.
Hi Susan,
You want written proof go back through the Federal Government Gazettes the research may open your eyes. My point about Lock Zero is that if you wish to totally kill everything below Lock 1 we will have to build Lock Zero to save the Lower River Murray. “This is not a black and white issue, and armchair experts discussing engineering projects of this dimension don’t do anyone any favours” by us do you mean those hell bent on destruction. I have spent a considerable amount of today looking at the web site, “LakesNeedWater” and other then some people who want to be able to catch more fish (they want to catch) in Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert what else is there aims? KJ who is a member of, “LakesNeedWater” and the rest of you are wrong. Since my last entry I rang many people who reside around, make a living around and value their environment they are all unanimous in their condemnation of your groups aims. Instead of talking BS worry about the entire Murray Darling Basin from top to the sea not your own selves, the future of the Basin I am glad to say is not in your hands!
Your comment, “The Lakes would have ‘gone salt’ as they did in the early 1900′s, and with the next flood event, the salt water would have gone out with the tide” only prior to the over extraction as it is now. For pity’s sake when are you people going to realize on in times of plenty, like the rains in the last two years, of rain would we ever be able to flush the two million tonnes a year of salinity etc out of the mouth, do you also want to stop the over extraction?
One final question, do you expect those who irrigate from both Lakes to be forced to purchase water from the pipelines ie, SA Water.
Hi Luke
Nice list, I’ll get back when time allows.
Why did they build the pipelines at taxpayers expense then Peter if they are not going to use them?
Under certain conditions, the Lakes are getting seawater either over or through the barrages anyway. The barrages aren’t even doing the job they were designed to do.
The government refers to them as ‘backflow events’.
http://www.waterforgood.sa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/flows_advisory_30_september_2011.pdf
This article has links to detailed observations from 1904 about the tides and the Lakes.
http://lakesneedwater.blogspot.com/2011/09/side-effects-of-no-tides.html
Susan,
Sorry I forgot it was you doing that interesting historical stuff.Those fish catches are something all Australians should know about.
Luke,
Nope, I am not a ‘Climatologist’ If they’d been invented when I started work and I had foreseen their access to funding I may have taken it up, though.
The 13 year drought is a non event compared to the one in the last Ice Age, when most of the MDB blew away and filled the lakes and rivers with sand. ( The ‘governmentologists’ know about this- They are about to start taxing spearpoints) Please keep things warm.
My whole point is that the locals in these places outguess the models- hence my reference to Octagenarians- Why ? It’s all happened before, AND they have seen it.
Finally Peter,
Do we expect you to purchase fresh water elsewhere ? YES .
And some of us would love to see the billions of dollars of OUR money ,currently being used to destroy irrigation elsewhere, used to subsidise your change from Riparian Receivers to equal citizens of the MDB.
God, we’d give you the lot, if we could.
Hi Susan,
The price of water from those pipelines make it nearly impossible to keep irrigating compared with the price of pumping from the Lakes but I would not be surprised if you thought that was good! I know the Barrages are leaking and believe they should be updated so as this no longer occurred and I also believe the Barrages should be made more efficient. Give us a break what happened in 1904 has no bearing on this discussion. If you want to go back to the situation as it was in 1904 no Dams, Weirs, Locks or Barrages that’s fine but would you please just shoot the population before we die an agonising death from starvation.
Hi Ian,
What a load of crap this is not about fish it’s about survival of the MDB! Why should I purchase fresh water elsewhere I live on the Murray below Lock 1? And as far as the MDB is concerned we in this country are all joint owners of the Basin but most of us care for the Basin not ourselves!
Luke, I’m a little surprised they are still looking at POAMA for seasonal inflow forecasting.
Hopeless, they are still predicting neutral conditions for ENSO.
Peter,
I may be misguided .
Do you currently pay (per Meg) for your water ?
Do you pay an infrastructure charge every year ? Even if you have NO WATER ?
The whole MDB is not in trouble Some parts ,like the Menindee Lakes are under threat from people who ignore them .Like the MDBC.
And I am serious .Have the billions and leave us alone to enjoy the normal ebb and flow of our current climate cycle .
Oh, and the catfish
Hi Ian,
No, no, and no. If you believe the whole MDB is not in trouble I feel for you, it may not be all in trouble now but when the next drought comes, and it will, we must be prepared, we must have in place a robust management regime. If only the Menindee Lakes were in trouble it would be OK. The MDBC is no longer Ian and I don’t want to leave any body alone until they realise the Barrages must stay! And Ian catfish are protected so put them back.
Luke, this from Timbal et al. last year.
‘The intensity of the STR also peaked in the 1940s at the time of the previous dry decade in SEA. During the 20th century the long-term evolution of the intensity of the STR follows the curve of the global temperature of the planet. This relationship indicates a high likelihood that the current rainfall deficit is linked to global warming, through the intensification of the STR.’
Sorry comrade, I don’t buy it.
The rains have returned as they do periodically, so there is a high likelihood that the current rainfall in the South-East is linked to natural variability.
There, fixed it.
Thanks Ian. The history is a refreshing source compared to some of the current ‘information’. Terms like ‘gone salt’, or ‘low river’ are used frequently like a modern day slang.
There is even a few stories about an important pastoralist who planted the non-native willows along the riverbank, then used them as an example when they died in one of the big droughts as an excuse for the need for the barrages to keep the lakes ‘sweet’.
This is a newspaper article where a dairy farmer from around the Lakes quotes prices.
http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/state/niche/general/farmers-struggle-under-rising-water-costs/2126270.aspx?storypage=0
I’m told it is an incredibly high price for water for an agricultural producer.
But would it not be better to get the Commonwealth to let go some of the billions to subsidize piped water prices near the Lakes and negotiate a better price for water?
“Sorry comrade, I don’t buy it.” – well jeepers that’s a devastating technical rebuttal. BoM have no hope while you’re on the case. Let’s not worry about evidence or investigation – let’s just ask El Gordo.
Peter R S,Susan,Jennifer,
Wouldn’t it be a better use of resources build a loch where the river enters the lakes,channel fresh water around the edge to users and dismantle the barrages ? That would save more than 1 million megalitres of fresh water from evaporation, wouldn’t it ?
Even if each megalitre of irrigation in the MDB only feeds one human being that’s a million people saved from starvation. Surely every other means of environmental improvement should be exhausted before even 1 more megalitre is taken out of production.
Dave,
During the drought there was a proposal by the state government to build a weir (no lock) at Pomanda Point which is where the river meets Lake Alexandrina. It was opposed by the local activist groups for various reasons, mainly because they felt it was a precursor to opening the barrages. They even went so far as to already build a special purpose gravel road to the site. Then the EIS was denied and the weir idea was scrapped.
I found this from this site – http://www.estuaries.org/why-restore-estuaries/
‘ Healthy estuaries produce more food per acre than the richest Midwestern farmland because of the fertile mix of nutrients from land and sea.’
There’s a place for farming, and there’s a place for other things. I think this part of Australia needs it’s estuary back.
Hi Dave,
Pipelines already exist for water to the Meningie area, to Langhorne Creek and other places. One of the problems is that piped water is ultra expensive compared with extracting from the Lakes. This is not about supplying freshwater it is all about those who wish the Barrages removal for their own selfish selves.
Peter R S
Who are you calling selfish ,those who produce or those who consume ?
Susan
Wouldn’t it be possible to have both farming and a healthy estuary ?
Thanks for the link.
Dave
Hi Dave,
The selfish are those not prepared to admit that Lake Alexandrina was NEVER estuarine but Tidal and want to see the Barrages removed or modified to allow sea water to invade the Lake knowing the damage that will be the result!
‘The very wet 2010-11 ended the Millennium Drought but not the long-term signal.’
LOL
The global warming signal has gone into hibernation, a double dip La Nina will fill storage to capacity and produce more floods.
Dave,
I would like to think it is possible to have farming and a healthy estuary. As it stands now the farmers have used water directly from the Lakes that have been made artificially fresh by the barrages since 1940 for the purpose of year round fresh water for crops and livestock.
Prior to the barrages, the region around Narrung and Lake Albert supported grazing operations that relied on rainfall and not irrigation from the Lakes.
A fisherman from the area back in 1933 commenting on the proposed barrages is quoted as saying,
“The scheme is to deal with the salinity of the water to safeguard dairymen and blockers.” Mr. Woodrow said. “From my experience, the more they irrigate the more salt the water be comes, because of the seepage into the river….”
The full text is here: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article46990356
Doesn’t get any more direct than that does it?
So El Gordo – climate is defined a couple of years eh? LOL !
The big denialists lie – uniformitarianism.
Susan,
Thank you for the link, which enlightened me about Peter’s point of view.
Correct me if I am wrong- These farmers can directly pump from the lakes ,for not a big fee,but the water quality is not reliable enough for them. SA Water provides them with reliable water at an exorbitant ,traitorous price.
Therefore if Canberra can guarantee quality water, direct from the lakes, things will be all good for these farmers.
Why not just guarantee good quality water,at a non treasonous price ?The money is there to do it.
Peter,
Sorry if I intimated that you had a free ride. The next major drought will not hurt the MDB as much as constant flooding in the lower reaches has- And I mean right through the last one, when historically it should have been dry like most of the rest was.
Estuarine or tidal ,it is still not a fresh water storage. Or is there a yet undiscovered fresh water dwelling mulloway , which used to be caught by the natives at Morgan ?
I am 20mtrs from the Murrumbidgee right now, and it is running a banker, all the storages are dangerously full and crops are being grown. Right now.
What the hell do you people want ? Are we to endure continuous floods to keep you and Mr Brown happy? That is the only way you can get more. Please agitate for the money to get a reliable supply and grow some food.
‘Climate is defined a couple of years eh?’
A decade where the temperature falls a degree, will satisfy me.
Here’s the latest from Roy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2011.png
Good news story on the mighty snowy.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/gamble-pays-off-snowy-runs-wild-from-top-down/story-e6frg6nf-1226164348648
Hi Ian,
The price of water for the remaining dairies still operating around Lake Albert (there were 26 to 30 dairy farmers around Lake Albert in 2007 and now there are 4) is certainly exorbitant rising by over 400% from the pipeline. One dairy farmer who I have done some work for has told me the water from the pipe could be as high as $100,000 per year!
Another problem for the area, “A draft Coorong Tourism and Economic Development Plan released in September said $59 million had been slashed from the local agricultural sector in three years. It said the agricultural sector contributed $152 million to the local economy in 2010 compared with $211 million in 2008.”
Whilst the Basin would have been dry during the last half of the recent drought we luckily we have been the last ones to see fresh water, because of the Dams, Weirs, Locks etc but that is what we have put in place. Without the, “Dams, Weirs, Locks etc” sea water would have entered the River Murray upstream maybe as far as Blanchetown.
What we want? What is best for the Basin? What we want/seek is an EC level of no more than 1000 in Lake Alexandrina that would ensure the EC level in Lake Albert was lowered considerably.
When the drought was at its height they, the powers to be, had restrictions to flow built in Lake Alexandrina at Clayton and Lake Albert at Narrung, with Federal Government permission. We want them removed totally as we were promised by both Federal and State Governments.
Ian, if you wish more information check out my web site http://www.psmithersmyriver.com and my email and phone contacts are there and I would be pleased to converse with you.
The Jennings article is well researched and well written.
I for one thank you Jen for supporting agriculture and farmers.
Peter….your arguments re high value vs low value have no substance in reality….have you looked at the current commodity prices for permanent plantings? Those people have no choice but to use water every year regardless of the market prices….it has left grape growers particularly vulnerable and many other permanent crops like citrus and prunes are also in big trouble.
That was always a ridiculous argument and demonstrated a total lack of understanding of calculating value per megalitre or commodity markets. The biggest advantage for the broad acre irrigators is that their crops are annual….if there’s water they can grow them, if there is no water they don’t have to. The permanent plantings are an incredible strain on the water supply when we are in severe drought.
The water traders are also suffering badly at the moment….they structured their whole plan around permanent water shortages.
Everyone seems to forget that our natural environment is mostly ‘ephemeral’…which means it is perfectly capable of weathering both droughts and floods….our natural environment was never in any real trouble despite the persistent bleatings otherwise….As Ian pointed out….have a good look around….it has bounced back in a most spectacular fashion….despite Luke’s ‘salient facts’ and Peter’s baseless emotional comments.
It is actually the human environment that isn’t coping and the one that needs help.
We’ve outgrown our water infrastructure and we need to fix that!
Peter’s TIDAL vs ESTUARY argument also does nothing to advance his case….the barrages have stopped the tidal influence just as much as they have stopped the estuarine environment. It is a totally meaningless comment.
If you want more water in SA Peter…then be honest and say so….you have tried to use the ‘environmental lobby’ to advance a ‘non environmental’ argument and it has slowly but surely unravelled.
If we need more water for everyone to move on…then let’s source more water. While we’re at it, let’s also be honest that we have made some mistakes and then fix them. Those barrages are not the only mistake but they are one of the biggest mistakes.
Also…if the environment needs its own water storage….then how about we build some for it?
Of course….that’s rubbish….the natural Australian environment doesn’t operate that way….it’s way tougher than us!
And Luke….keep watching…the GDP will have a healthy spike from Agriculture this year and most likely for quite a few more. As I’ve mentioned before even 1% is a positive result and Agriculture contributes considerably more than that.
The prognosis for the next few seasons is quite good….in case you haven’t noticed ….the drought has broken!
( a little hint….pull your head out of your computer).
“The Jennings article is well researched and well written” what a load of crap!”
“The Windsor report questions the wisdom of the draft plan’s focus on “end of system flow” i.e. the volume of water arriving at the Murray mouth. As long as enough arrives to flush the system – the 2-million tonnes per year!
“However, at the risk of sounding as simplistic as the ACF, you could argue that this achieves only two things. First, Adelaide is assured of a supply of fresh water. In good years, Adelaide gets a substantial amount its water from the lakes at the Murray mouth. What a load of crap!
“The barrages were put in place from 1915 to 1940 at the behest of dairy farmers wanting to irrigate their pastures. “The Barrages were constructed as a trade off for the constructing of the Lock/Weir at Yarrawonga creating Lake Mulwala.” Before the barrages, the sea had the nasty habit of intruding into the Lower Lakes and even further up the Murray.
“The community at Murray Bridge is depressed because you can’t generate enough economic activity there to sustain it.” Not according to the Mayor, councillors or residents!
Well researched this BS!
“High value vs Low value” I understand about the water use but when SA irrigators of permanent plantings, especially below Lock 1, had zero allocation available many millions and millions of dollars of investment were lost and businesses and families went to the wall and suicides numbers rose.
Your comment, “It is actually the human environment that isn’t coping and the one that needs help” that is correct but so many in SA, once again especially below Lock 1, can’t be helped their permanent plantings are now part of history!
As I said, “The price of water for the remaining dairies still operating around Lake Albert (there were 26 to 30 dairy farmers around Lake Albert in 2007 and now there are 4) is certainly exorbitant rising by over 400% from the pipeline. One dairy farmer who I have done some work for has told me the water from the pipe could be as high as $100,000 per year!’
“If we need more water for everyone to move on…then let’s source more water” OK but it must be fresh and from where.
“While we’re at it, let’s also be honest that we have made some mistakes and then fix them. Those barrages are not the only mistake but they are one of the biggest mistakes” here we go again same old same old that condemns the Lower River, Lakes Alexandrina and Albert to an economic basket case, “A draft Coorong Tourism and Economic Development Plan released in September said $59 million had been slashed from the local agricultural sector in three years. It said the agricultural sector contributed $152 million to the local economy in 2010 compared with $211 million in 2008.”
We don’t have a, “natural Australian environment” we have engineered the natural out of, especially, the River Murray and whist we can make changes it can no longer be natural!
I am not emotional, my passion is the Murray Darling Basin and especially my river is, hence my email address myriver@exemail.com.au
Peter,
Saying something is ‘a load of crap’ is not really helping.
You seem to have totally missed the point of my post as you have ranted emotionally with many exclamation marks etc.
Those permanent plantings were lost precisely because there was no water available. It is very sad that happened but it’s because our infrastructure, storage and management systems are well past their ‘use by’ dates and no longer able to cope with a severe drought, not because of ‘selfishness’ or ‘tonnes of salt’ or ‘environmental degradation’ or ‘over extraction’ or ‘high value versus low value’ and numerous other bi polar arguments you have tried to advance here.
Of course we have a ‘natural Australian environment’….haven’t you been looking around lately? It has bounced back in a most spectacular manner all over the basin as well as all around the country.
The River Murray is now regulated, that’s true, but haven’t you noticed that the birds and the fish and the turtles and the frogs and the native flora are just as happy flourishing in the regulated rivers and the irrigation channels and dams as they are in the creeks and billibongs etc? They are back because they know the drought has broken….they’re way tougher and way more resilient than us humans. We need to start looking at ways to make sure we can all survive the next severe drought….and also do that with the lessons we have learnt about being ‘environmentally responsible’.
While we keep focusing on and spending insane amounts of time and money on trying to solve the wrong problem we are getting absolutely nowhere at all.
The barrages seemed like a good idea at the time….but along with some other mistakes that have been made (many which are already fixed) history has taught us that shutting off that tidal prism (and estuarine environment) has not yielded good environmental outcomes.
And Peter….if ‘flushing’ was going to fix up the salt problem….after over 12 months of consistent flushing….wouldn’t it have been fixed by now? Apparently, flushing is not the whole answer?
I have no wish to condemn SA lower lakes area to an economic basket case. Along with the rest of us, SA irrigators and farmers suffered huge losses during the recent drought, it was not a unique problem in SA. It wasn’t upstream’s fault….we didn’t have any water either and there was more industry lost upstream, than in SA. If there’s no water, it doesn’t matter how much you complain…..there’s still no water. That was the problem….we don’t have enough infrastructure and storage to cater for the increased demands made by population growth. Especially in SA!
We have not learnt the real lessons that the drought has taught us. SA is extremely vulnerable at the bottom of the system. Unfortunately, instead of taking some responsibility for that, SA is demanding that it needs to take water from perfectly sustainable upstream production to try and prop up something which has proved to be unsustainable in a severe drought.
There are plenty of ways to secure more storage and more water for SA, what’s missing is the political will. Instead, SA is trying to use ‘environmental’ arguments to justify shutting down upstream production.
Calling upstream ‘selfish’ and calling Jennings article ‘complete crap’ and ranting about Jennifer’s work (which is factually based) and pretending that those lakes were not affected by tidal prism and were essentially an Estuarine environment before the construction of the barrages and many of the other arguments about value etc….is not going to solve anything.
SA needs some help….no one can pretend otherwise….but while people like you keep trying to blame everyone else for your water issues instead of taking a good hard look at what has happened in SA (incuding your South East drainage works)….it is very difficult for us to help you.
It’s time you started thinking outside your ‘over allocation’ box. You’re completely failing to recognise our highly variable and highly unpredictable climate and river systems. That’s what we have to work with.
I think Peter is having a hard time spelling…. it’s C. A. R. P.
If it’s about ‘the environment’ and water for the environment, etc etc, why is all this fuss coming from dairy farmers in SA around Lake Albert.
Last time I checked cows were not native to RAMSAR ‘freshwater wetlands’.
Maybe calling the article a load of crap is not really helping but article should be facts.
I know why the permanent plantings failed but it’s not so much about, “infrastructure and storage” but bad management
And yes our,” systems” are past there use by dates but whatever are put in place the river must flush and not just over Lock 1, my backyard but into the ocean. Regarding, “natural Australian environment” I was referring to the Murray Darling Basin, it is no longer natural, and it’s over regulated. Strangely enough I have noticed, “birds and the fish and the turtles and the frogs and the native flora are just as happy flourishing in the regulated rivers and the irrigation channels and dams as they are in the creeks and billabongs etc” but I have also noticed how many Red Gums are dying/drowning along the Lower River Murray.
I could not agree more we must become, “environmentally responsible” or more “environmentally responsible.”
“The barrages seemed like a good idea at the time….but along with some other mistakes that have been made (many which are already fixed) history has taught us that shutting off that tidal prism (and estuarine environment) has not yielded good environmental outcomes” as Craig Knowles said last Friday, “removing the Barrages is a no brainer” I support Mr Knowles.
“And Peter….if ‘flushing’ was going to fix up the salt problem….after over 12 months of consistent flushing….wouldn’t it have been fixed by now? Apparently, flushing is not the whole answer” please enlighten me how should it be done as the salts are increasing in amounts each year.
“I have no wish to condemn SA lower lakes (Lakes Alexandrina and Lake Albert – correct terminology) area to an economic basket case. Along with the rest of us, SA irrigators and farmers suffered huge losses during the recent drought it was not a unique problem in SA. It wasn’t up stream’s fault….we didn’t have any water either and there was more industry lost upstream, than in SA” and I am not blaming upstream. If there’s no water, it doesn’t matter how much you complain
…..there’s still no water. That was the problem….we don’t have enough infrastructure and storage to cater for the increased demands made by population growth. Especially in SA!” no not especially SA the Basin.
“SA is extremely vulnerable at the bottom of the system. Unfortunately, instead of taking some responsibility for that, SA is demanding that it needs to take water from perfectly sustainable upstream production to try and prop up something which has proved to be unsustainable in a severe drought” and we are not demanding anything but a fair share, this Basin belongs to all Australian’s.
“Calling upstream ‘selfish’ and calling Jennings article ‘complete crap’ and ranting about Jennifer’s work (which is factually based) and pretending that those lakes were not affected by tidal prism and were essentially an Estuarine environment before the construction of the barrages and many of the other arguments about value etc….is not going to solve anything” regarding selfish we are all in this together, regarding the article if it’s not completely factual in my terms is crap. As for Jennifer I have said before her paper, “Myths and the River Murray” stated, “At Morgan near where Adelaide’s water comes from” she was over 120-Kilometres out.
As for the, “South East drainage works” that water which is saline never drained into either Lake Alexandrina or Albert.
“It’s time you started thinking outside your ‘over allocation’ box. You’re completely failing to recognise our highly variable and highly unpredictable climate and river systems. That’s what we have to work with” yes your right and we are all in this together but firstly lets all get on the page and ensure Queensland signs a cap agreement.
There has been a good agreement signed as now SA’s water is allowed storage space in Dartmouth and Hume.
And for Susan, I can spell Carp, no they are not naïve either they were introduced from some clown purring then into a farm, I think in Queensland. “Last time I checked cows were not native to RAMSAR ‘freshwater wetlands’” but the cows do not go near the, RAMSAR ‘freshwater wetlands’. Just I case you can’t understand Susan a healthy environment means a healthy Murray Darling Basin.
Lake Albert is part of the RAMSAR listing http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/environmental/wetlands/pubs/coorong-factsheet.pdf
This is exactly the same lake some dairy farmers are trying to irrigate from, but cannot because it is still to salty to use for stock. That is even after this entire year of ‘flushing’.
So Peter, it does look like dairy farmers are trying to irrigatre from a RAMSAR listed wetland environment of which the MDBA plan is going to take 2800 GL from to ‘flush’.
I am fine with saying SA needs the water to support their farming businesses. Just don’t hide behind the ‘environment’ to get water allocations.
And just for the record, Tourism along the River Murray in SA lost a whopping $200 Million in ONE year due to the loss of water, compared to the $59 Million for dairy over 3 years due to the lack of water. And tourists don’t need ‘sweet’ water, they just need an ecologically robust environment.
http://www.mdba.gov.au/files/bp-kid/257-EBC-Vol9-regional-analysis-sa.pdf
Check out page 55-56.
Hi Susan,
I never said that Lake Albert was not a RAMSAR site, what I said was, “but the cows do not go near the, RAMSAR ‘freshwater wetlands.’ Yes dairy farmers the 4 that are left out of the original 26 to 30 used to irrigate from Lake Albert but as it is at 5500-EC that is no longer possible. The 2800-Gigalitres the figure put forward to flush salts will have NO affect on Lake Albert. Any flushing of the River Murray will have no affect on Lake Albert because of engineering disasters put in place during the drought and further back than that. We aren’t, “Just don’t hide behind the ‘environment’ to get water allocations” we did not set the 2800-Gigaltres, but Mr. Knowles told me last week that is the amount aimed for in the plan.
When the River Murray below Lock 1 was as much as 10 to 12 feet below pool level most of the tourism was lost because the River in many places was unusable for marine craft. “And tourists don’t need ‘sweet’ water, they just need an ecologically robust environment” with water but we can’t supply sea water and ruin the Lower River Murray!
The major freshwater fishing competition I co-ordinated in my home town stopped after ten years and 4678 entrants, $100,000 in prizes and over $30,000 to charity.
Peter,
Thank you for your contact invitation ,when I have more time I will do that.
Susan,
We’re playing the same tune, I think.
Salinity levels are going down, upstream of SA . Not least as a result of interception of historic saline entry.
This is Jennifer’s field, I think.
As an aside, there is a man growing his own OZ variety of capers at Rankin Springs . He said on the radio the other day, that the salt from Mildura was perfect for his process- As it was ‘mild’
Silver lining time.
Peter, there is a pumping station at Morgan, but you are correct it does not pump to Aadelaide it pumps to Whyalla. However if a mistake like this is all it takes for you to think “crap”, I hate to think what you think about basically everything that comes out of the mouths of politicians, many scientists and most journalists. I suspect with all due respect that if it suits your bias you wouldnt be calling it crap?
Hi Toby,
That is a huge mistake and there are many more as the author who clarifies herself as an authority on so many subjects but I can assure her knowledge about the Basin is limited and about the Lower River Murray ie. Below Lock 1 is only sourced (when she visits) from people who agree with her and has been invited many times to speak to the other side but as she is financed by irrigators in the North East of the Basin (not just my words also Craig Knowles opinion) what else can we expect.
Re, “I hate to think what you think about basically everything that comes out of the mouths of politicians, many scientists and most journalists. I suspect with all due respect that if it suits your bias you wouldn’t be calling it crap?” unless there is peer review or other proof I put those you mentioned below car salesmen.
Peter?
‘removing the barrages is a no brainer’ ? You realise that is a totally ambiguous statement don’t you?
I would recommend you be a little careful placing faith in your new friend Mr Knowles.
He has been upstream re assuring us as well. He actually made the exact same statement to us which can be taken in the exact opposite way.
Did you say the red gums are drowning? How is more water going to stop that from happening? Are you wanting upstream to hold it back now? You realise we can’t do that don’t you? If you want flood mitigation as well as drought storage you are going to have to campaign for massive funding and infrastructure. What we have now cannot possibly do both.
There is nothing wrong with Kate Jennings’ research Peter….she just has different conclusions to yours.
Also….your comment about the healthy Murray Darling Basin is starting to wear very thin.
We had a drought and we all suffered…..interestingly, the native fauna and flora has bounced back in a spectacular manner (and so has the wretched carp unfortunately)…as I mentioned before, it is the human environment that is struggling, not the native environment. We are wasting insane amounts of time and money attempting to solve the wrong problem.
Even though the scientists may have been ‘peer reviewed’, much of their modelling has proven to be highly inaccurate and deliberately false and misleading..
The models were projective and the projections have not come to pass…in fact the exact opposite has happened…. All projective science must be tested against reality….reality is disproving the models….so the models are wrong Peter….not reality!
Their economic modelling was particularly abysmal….hence the ridiculous conclusions re high value vs low value crops. I’m very disappointed to see that you tried to use that woeful and now completely disproven argument.
I would advise that you actually look at how they came to those conclusions. As a hint, they used water prices at the height of the drought and the inflated commodity prices of 2007/08. The circumstances of 2007/08 were way out of the normal range. In fact those particular circumstances have never occured before and will probably never occur again.
And I repeat….as you totally ignored the obvious…..the MDB has had the biggest and most consistent flush for decades…why do those Lakes still have a salt problem?
Also….I did not say the lakes got water from the SE of SA…..That would be the Coorong….which didn’t traditionally get water from the MDB!….yet strangely….that’s what SA is demanding should happen now.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “removing the barrages is a no brainer’? You realise that is a totally ambiguous statement don’t you? I would recommend you be a little careful placing faith in your new friend Mr Knowles” I AM not putting faith in and he is not my ‘new friend’ but I will give him and the authority the curiousness of delivering the plan, I will then read it hold some community meetings and then formulate our response. Regarding ‘no brainer’ anyone who believed removing the Barrages has merits is NOT using their brains.
It’s not about more water it’s about better management and not wetting and drying some of the wetlands below Lock 1 but wetting and managing to keep damp.
Re, “There is nothing wrong with Kate Jennings’ research Peter….she just has different conclusions to yours” there are a massive distortion with her comments and until people visit below Lock 1 instead of just believing what they are told that will continue.
Re, “the healthy Murray Darling Basin is starting to wear very thin” it may be wearing thin for you and yours but I thought we were all aiming for an environmental healthy ie, healthy Basin, I regret I was obviously wrong.
Re, “Even though the scientists may have been ‘peer reviewed’, much of their modelling has proven to be highly inaccurate and deliberately false and misleading” correct I’m sad to say.
I regret for, your sake, “re high value vs low value crops” I don’t see it as, “woeful and now completely disproven argument”
it’s still important to many irrigators in SA.
SA is not DEMANDING fresh water to be used in the Coorong what we are seeking is the Southern Lagoon which is hyper saline be pumped out to the Southern Ocean (we have done all the planning etc, what we need now is the State Government to undertake the task) and freshened up, we are not talking a lot of water.
peter, sadly the peer review process is now massivley corrupted because basically governments fund the scientists and they start out with preconceived intentions. The CSIRO which used to be such a highly regarded “independent thinking” organisation is now just a mouth piece for the environment. The new boss of CSIRO, is ex macquarie bank who decided that climate change was real when the “winds” stopped blowing the same way when he sails!!! Lunatics are truly running the asylum!
Sadly now it takes people like you and others close to the ground like debbie and susan to help to form an opinion of any value . Gone are the days when i listen to scientists and dont think ” now where is your bias and who is funding you”.Climate change and the envirnmental movement in my opinion have a lot to answer for….and of course i do not excuse those useless windbags in canberra!
It is worth remembering i think that the murray frequently used to stop running during peiods of drought, our country has always been one of flood or drought and our environment is built to cope with it.
I have relatives who live along the river just out of Morgan, and the river flats are still flooded and nature is booming.
Hi Toby,
Yes, Toby the whole process does seem to be corrupt as many organisations, single persons etc seem to be talking from funding sources which is not only disappointing but totally misleading us!
Whilst Debbie and Susan and I don’t agree we are still maintaining our input at various levels and whilst I meet with members of the MDBA and SA Government Members and chiefs their views are very biased.
Also Toby, whilst the River did run dry during times of severe drought the Murray Mouth closed in I believe 1981 for the first time since the Barrages were completed and since then there has been until 2009 nearly constant dredging and also whilst the River flats are booming many varieties of plants are now drowning.
Peter,
Why do you keep mentioning drowning plants? How do you propose we can stop that when everything keeps flooding? As well as being unable to supply enough water for the lakes in a severe drought, upstream storage are also unable to mitigate floods of these magnitudes. I severely question why governments would be doing any ‘environmental watering’ at the moment, but they think the birds need their help. Of course that is monumentally ridiculous, it looks like a Hitchkock movie at my place.
What you keep asking for is not possible unless we do some major storage and water conservation work.
Also, grapes are now worth very little and so is the water trade. The high value vs low value argument was always false and it is also completely misleading. Please check the modelling if you don’t believe me. Many of those enterprises you are referring to have also completely ignored the valuable resource of gravity. Water likes to run downhill you know.
That also creates another huge problem for S A because it happens to be at the bottom of the system. We can’t put it back if you end up with too much and we shouldn’t let it go Willy nilly and deplete the storages.
You are very vulnerable down there but we can’t help if you continue to try and blame us and call us selfish and pretend its an environmental issue.
It is a storage and human issue.
Hi Debbie,
I know grapes are worth very little it is the citrus and other permanent plantings lost and the lives it ruined that I lament I really have a lot less sympathy for grape growers, sorry grape growers.
Thank you Debbie I didn’t now water ran down hill and I/we have never asked for Eastern State storages to be run down and hope that our entitlement stored in Dartmouth and Hume will be able to, with good management see us through next time.
I also after 65 years on the River know storage is a problem and how to rectify that issue is too big for me but I suppose you have the solution.
Since Peter has brought up the Murray mouth closing and the well publicized 1981 date, here is some background information for people.
The River Murray mouth closing was a concern as far back as newspapers were printed. I found a reference from 1908 that describes the concern of a well respected local man, and gives his opinion on why silt is causing the mouth to close.
To find this type of information has only been possible since these old newspapers were digitized a couple of years ago on ‘Trove’. To give the CSIRO scientists the benefit of the doubt, this information would have been practically impossible to find, by random searches through old microfilm records.
This author of this report by CSIRO in 2005 http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/consultancy/2005/WfHC_hydrodynamics_coorong.pdf would not have had the benefit of searching a database for old newspaper records.
It appears the mouth has a history of ‘closing’ and moving and it pre-dates 1981. Sorry to burst your bubble again Peter.
Here’s the link to a blog I did awhile back http://lakesneedwater.blogspot.com/2011/09/keeping-murray-mouth-open.html
Good for you Susan. That 1981 story is yet another misleading argument.
Peter, citrus is also severely struggling. The high value vs low value argument is completely false. Please check the figures. Many other permanent plantings like prunes and nuts are also in trouble. If we consider the highly variable nature of our climate and commodity markets, permanent plantings are not necessarily a good idea.
All that is missing to solve the storage problem is ‘poltical will’. There are plenty of solutions including the lock (or wier) that you are asking for.
I repeat, we cant help SA if you continue to pretend the problem is ‘environmental’. As Susan and Jen and Kate Jennings and many others point out, that is not correct. The problem is the human environment.
Also, why didn’t you answer my question about the drowning plants?
Hi Susan,
Thanks for your enlightenment yes the Murray mouth had been I believe as I said, “the Murray Mouth closed in I believe 1981 for the first time since the Barrages were completed” prior to that only once or twice in recordable history and has moved about 14-miles over hundreds or more years!
I take little notice of what, back http://lakesneedwater.blogspot.com/2011/09/keeping-murray-mouth-open.html say as that is a group of selfish in many cases recreational fisher persons who want the Barrages to allow sea water to invade Lake Alexandrina and don’t understand or won’t understand the consequences.
I will be please to admit you have burst my bubble when you actually achieve that feat!
Hi Debbie,
Re, “That 1981 story is yet another misleading argument” read the above to Susan, read and weep, I have not mislead, but by reading again you will since the Barrages were completed. Everybody knows it closed before the completion I can remember my Mother telling me of walking across the River Murray at Murray Bridge during the Federation drought.
Re, “All that is missing to solve the storage problem is ‘poltical will’” I agree wholeheartedly.
Re, “Also, why didn’t you answer my question about the drowning plants?” Please accept my apologies for not backing up my comment.
Along the length of the River Murray, now it is no longer a naturally running River, there are the signs of huge River Redgums (especially in Lake Mulwala) that because of white man’s intervention have been inundated with water to the point they drowned.
Below Lock 1 the same has occurred in many backwaters and flood plains that are (accept in drought) totally inundated. During the drought (especially upstream of my home at Mannum) the land was so dry that a ‘B” Double could have been driven on the surface. At my LRMDRG meetings I sought, to keep the water in the River to have this huge back water/floodplain blocked off and managed. The greenies put up a hell of a row so subsequently when the first ‘rains’ came new growth began to appear hundreds and hundreds of new Red Gums but now those beautiful saplings are dying/drowning, what a shame lack of management/poltical will, now the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is saying, “Maybe you were right.
As I have always been saying where possible keep the water in the water courses and manage the back waters/floodplains.
AH yes but Peter,
That would assume that a bureaucracy in Canberra can manage nature better than nature or farmers can.
In my view, that would be an extraordinary conceit….they have proven time and time again that they lack knowledge and competence and even simple common sense!
Unless we recognise the constraints on the system (and yes believe it or not they also have to recognise that water actually runs downhill unless it is pumped or artificially constricted, which will then cause it to back up and move sideways), and unless we have the political will to do something about the lack of storage and infrastructure, we are going to solve nothing.
Right at this moment, when there is so much water in the system that it is indeed drowning red gums, we still have our government authorities operating under rules that were designed for water shortages and they are denying people access to water.
You are still calling everybody else who has a different view to yours ‘selfish’.
That is completely counter productive.
They are not selfish Peter, just like the carp fishermen, the dairy farmers, the recreational fisherman, the grape farmers, the citrus farmers, the towns and cities, the rice growers, the cotton growers and the water traders…..and the list goes on and on…..they have all been encouraged to do what they have done and they have all invested heavily in their respective enterprises…..they are not being selfish…..they are trying to protect their investments and in some cases their livelihoods.
The arguments you keep advancing are almost bi polar.
The problem is not ‘environmental’…we have to accept that it is a working river system and it’s high time that we upgraded and while we’re at it fix up the mistakes that have been made and correctly compensate the people whose livelihoods have been destroyed through no fault of theirs.
We have also learned much about being ‘environmentally responsible’ since the construction of those barrages and many other developments works in the last 50 years. We are perfectly capable of upgrading and increasing water storage and conservation as well as being environmentally responsible. They are not mutually exclusive.
NO ONE is being selfish and WE ALL CARE DEEPLY about the health of the MDB. It is the HUMAN ENVIRONMENT that needs help, not the native environment!!!!!!!
As an aside….we can’t manage the back waters and flood plains unless we do some major infrastructure upgrades.
It sounds romantic to return everything to nature but that it completely impractical.
Our natural Australian environment will either dry us out, wash us out, blow us out or burn us out if we don’t learn to manage and plan for its extremes. Much of SA would have needed to be evacuated through the last drought if we didn’t have the management systems we already have in place. The last drought has taught us that we need more infrastructure and more storage and water conservation…..why isn’t anyone learning that lesson?
Your argument involves blaming upstream (and even people like Susan and Jen) for being selfish and demanding water be taken from proven sustainable practices to prop up something that has proven to be unsustainable in drought conditions.
All our upstream natural wetlands dried up in the drought too….so did Lake Eyre…amazingly they have proven they can cope remarkably well because unlike us humans….they’re wired for ‘drought and flooding rains’…..don’t you think it is rather odd that people are still bleating about the Lower Lakes and the Coorong? How come a consistent flushing from extended flooding hasn’t fixed the problem like it has elsewhere?
Our upstream native wetlands also didn’t have another option….they have never been a salt water environment.
Re the redgums….they come and go in cycles with our ephemeral climate….there are many many more of them around now than there were last century. They are also in places where they did not exist 100 years ago.
The other thing you’re ignoring is that in the big picture we have made our natural environment even more productive and habitable for both humans and our native fauna and flora….you seem intent on preaching past and future doom and gloom which is really not the case at all…..yes we’ve made mistakes and we need to fix them….but overwhelmingly our development of inland Australia has been successful and highly productive.
The birds, the frogs, the turtles, the redgums etc really don’t care whether they are in or growing beside a natural wetland or an irrigation dam/channel….they thrive well in either case and live and die with the natural cycle of floods and droughts in either case.
The real advantage is the big man made storages actually supply permanent habitat for our native species….that’s actually a big plus for them as well as us.
I will also repeat, SA is very vulnerable because of its position. None of us, but particularly the SA Government, have done enough to protect SA from that vulnerability. It has nothing to do with selfishness Peter….nor does it have anything to do with people not caring about the health of the system. It doesn’t matter how many times you say so, it is simply not true.
Also, that 1981 argument is false not only because it had happened before but also because it blames upstream when in fact the problem occured because of unusually low tides and a lack of on shore winds…..it is tides and the accompanying winds that scour out that mouth…..not much of it is due to the river…..except in extreme flood conditions….which as you know are not common events.
The ever growing Bird Island is also contributing to that problem.
SA and the Murray Mouth is not the only place in Australia where dredging needs to occur at the mouth….but it is the only place which is attempting to blame the wrong culprit.
As you point out, humans like to keep their river mouths in the same spot (because they settle around them) but the ocean and varying tides just love to silt them up and shift them around……the lack of river flow was not the major contributor to that 1981 problem, if you look back through the records you will notice that it was drought conditions through much of the MDB, so upstream storages were not able to help and then the tides and winds decided to not co operate either.
Blaming the wrong culprit will not fix the problem.
If we truly want to fix the problem we first have to admit what the problem actually is…. don’t we?
Hi Debbie,
I have never said, “That would assume that a bureaucracy in Canberra can manage nature better than nature or farmers can” but we all need to be heard and I’m sorry farmers are not necessary the best at manage what nature presents us, especially in areas many kilometres away from their environment often in places they have never seen.
The constraints within system are different in different valleys and yes we must all recognise the differences and the different constrains in our area below Lock 1 one of those constraints is maintaining the integrity of the Barrages or destroying the River Murray below Lock 1!
Give me a break, “to recognise that water actually runs downhill’ I probably became aware of that in the late 1940’s!
Re, “we still have our government authorities operating under rules that were designed for water shortages and they are denying people access to water’ correct!
Re, “You are still calling everybody else who has a different view to yours ‘selfish’. That is completely counterproductive” no I value all points of view and it’s not personal selfishness but area selfishness and we have the same in our area. Most below Lock 1 can’t stop critising rice and cotton.
Whilst, “The problem is not ‘environmental’” and then go on to say, “since the construction of those barrages and many other developments works in the last 50 years” what’s this fifty years deal the Barrages and Locks were finished over 70-years ago and those Barrages are going to stay.
You say, “As an aside….we can’t manage the back waters and flood plains unless we do some major infrastructure upgrades’ what a defeatist attitude, we can manage back waters and flood plains by blocking off and now allowing the leached salinity to enter the River and not just wasting water and I am certainly not getting romantic, “It sounds romantic to return everything to nature but that it completely impractical” I am merely stating the facts this is no longer a natural system.
Re, “Our natural Australian environment will either dry us out, wash us out, blow us out or burn us out if we don’t learn to manage and plan for its extremes. Much of SA would have needed to be evacuated through the last drought if we didn’t have the management systems we already have in place. The last drought has taught us that we need more infrastructure and more storage and water conservation…..why isn’t anyone learning that lesson?” thank you for saving SA’s bacon.
I am not, “Your argument involves blaming upstream” grow up this is Australia and as I have said many times we are all in this together.
You say, “All our upstream natural wetlands dried up in the drought too….so did Lake Eyre…amazingly they have proven they can cope remarkably well because unlike us humans….they’re wired for ‘drought and flooding rains’…..don’t you think it is rather odd that people are still bleating about the Lower Lakes and the Coorong? How come a consistent flushing from extended flooding hasn’t fixed the problem like it has elsewhere?’ Answer Political will our only problem is not just flooding/flushing but total mis-management by Federal and the SA Government.
Re, “Redgums” why destroy them when it is not necessary?
Yes, “but overwhelmingly our development of inland Australia has been successful and highly productive” and we must ensure we manage our system for our grand children etc, that idiot Penny Wong at a Conference I attended two years ago said Australia’s irrigation will be 90% less by 2100, we must ensure she is wrong.
Storages now there is a problem, please where should we build them?
When are you going to accept I AM NOT BLAMING UPSTREAM, we are all in this together but I am not wise enough to know how to fix your problems but I am wise enough to tell you to butt out always telling us what we should do?
Peter,
there are plenty of places to build extra storages and plenty of costed plans.
I am not trying to tell you what to do, just protecting proven sustainable areas. If S A wants to keep the barrages that’s S A’s choice. However, S A will have to figure out how to source the water and make sure it doesn’t involve bi polar arguments about the environment or consficating water from traditional and perfectly sustainable enterprises.
The 1981 Mouth closing argument most definitely blames upstream. Noosa and many other River Mouths in Australia have similar problems but they don’t blame the wrong culprit. They know it is the tides and the winds that silt them up and move things around.
You have also called Susan and Jen selfish.
Of course we are all in this together but it is very hard to either help or offer other solutions when being blamed for something we didn’t do.
Also, I do not understand your point about the redgums. I’m not interested in killing them, I was just pointing out their history.
I’m also sure that you have introduced non native fauna and flora in your garden. . . Dogs? Cats? Horses? A vegetable patch? Roses? Maybe a nice oak or 2? Chooks? Maybe a pet bird? Does that make you an irresponsible manager of the environment? Maybe it is more likely that you, along with the overwhelming majority of farmers, have enhanced your environment and made it a better place for you, your family and plenty of other native critters?
Hi Debbie,
Re, “The 1981 Mouth closing argument most definitely blames upstream” thank you it is not my argument as we as I say ‘all in this together and I am a no blame person.
Re, “You have also called Susan and Jen selfish” to Susan my apologies and to Jen well she is either speaking on behalf of her money source but also wrong!
Re Redgums, what i am getting at, especially below Lock 1 is, why allow water to inundate areas where water is not required so the flora may flourish.
Peter,
These are directly cut and pasted from you……
Also Toby, whilst the River did run dry during times of severe drought the Murray Mouth closed in I believe 1981 for the first time since the Barrages were completed and since then there has been until 2009 nearly constant dredging and also whilst the River flats are booming many varieties of plants are now drowning.
“the Murray Mouth closed in I believe 1981 for the first time since the Barrages were completed” prior to that only once or twice in recordable history and has moved about 14-miles over hundreds or more years!
I take little notice of what, back http://lakesneedwater.blogspot.com/2011/09/keeping-murray-mouth-open.html say as that is a group of selfish….
read the above to Susan, read and weep, I have not mislead, but by reading again you will since the Barrages were completed. ….
Whether it was since the barrages were constructed or not….the point is that the Mouth closing in 1981 is being used to blame upstream. It is a faulty argument. The problem was caused by the ocean the tides and the wind…..NOT by upstream….it can’t be solved by upstream either.
Also….the high value vs low value argument you used here:
Hi Susan, When you say ‘inappropriate land use’ do you mean, ‘High Value Irrigation’ against ‘Low Value Irrigation?’High value being irrigating permanent plantings as against annual plantings and if so the irrigated areas in the Lower River Murray and from Lakes Albert and Alexandrina were ‘High Value Irrigation
Is also highly faulty and is being used to set area against area, state against state and farmer against farmer.
Please check the facts and the figures.
I would also suggest that you check those facts and figures you are using and quoting against real time data.
I know you don’t think you are a ‘blamer’ but you are using and quoting from sources that are ‘blaming’….so the end result is the same.
I believe in your passion and I believe you care…..but saying things like this:
to Susan my apologies and to Jen well she is either speaking on behalf of her money source but also wrong!
Is seriously not going to help!
Money source???? Wrong?????
You speak in absolutes and from a very tightly closed box re this issue. There are many ways to get a better result for SA….the ones currently on the table are far from the best.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “I take little notice of what, back http://lakesneedwater.blogspot.com/2011/09/keeping-murray-mouth-open.html say as that is a group of selfish….” Correct that group though having a number of supporters are certainly not highly regarded in SA.
Re, ‘Whether it was since the barrages were constructed or not….the point is that the Mouth closing in 1981 is being used to blame upstream. It is a faulty argument. The problem was caused by the ocean the tides and the wind…..NOT by upstream….it can’t be solved by upstream either” not just ocean tides and wind, also management!
And re, “Jen” the most distrusted Eastern States person by those South Australians who have a good understanding of the MDB and especially persons below Lock 1!
Re, “You speak in absolutes and from a very tightly closed box re this issue. There are many ways to get a better result for SA….the ones currently on the table are far from the best” I entirely agree but once again removing the Barrages is not on the table.
Debbie,
The old newspaper articles that are online will make it more difficult for Peter’s fanciful version of history to withstand scrutiny.
In the blog http://lakesneedwater.blogspot.com/2011/09/keeping-murray-mouth-open.html a Mr. Albert Molineux, who was a respected member of the community and had a keen interest in plants blames the silting up of the murray mouth on overstocking and grazing of sheep on the sandhills. I’ve seen it referenced in a few places that the early settlers over-stocked, and since then things have changed.
It’s interesting that these sandhills were leased by the government to graziers and the leasee was supposed to maintain the sandhills by planting maram grass. It looks like at least one leasee didn’t hold up his end of the bargain.
This is the original newspaper article from 1908 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/56868797 .
Hi Susan,
I regret I did not know Mr. Molineux as he was before my time but of course he was right and I was wrong it has nothing to do with the volume of water allowed to flow out of the Murray’s Mouth! Susan grow up get with the rest of us, living in 2011 it makes no matter if he was a, “a respected member of the community” it was in 1909 for goodness sake and in-case you didn’t know since then there have been massive changes to the flow of the River Murray from the source to the Southern Ocean and if you can’t understand that well play a different game as your not in this one.
Oh I am sorry but it seems once again SA is being blamed for over stocking and allowing persons leasing property from the Government not to abide by the conditions of the lease.
Susan, of course it is regrettable but it those bloody South Australians’ again and again, I would say very politely ‘get stuffed.’
Hi Susan, I suppose this was your contribution to the AdelaideNow page earlier today, “Susan of Adelaide Posted at 7:01 AM Today. The River Murray can only be saved if we correct the mistake of the barrages across its mouth. The barrages don’t work, and they have destroyed the estuary for the sake of marginal return for farming. Get rid of the barrages and restore the estuary.”
I realise that nothing anybody says will get your mind (unless they agree with you) around the damage that removing the Barrages will cause all the way to Lock 1. Can you please then explain how we stop the River Murray below/downstream of Lock 1 not being totally contaminated by sea water rendering that section of the River Murray to only being useful for recreation/fishing etc?
OK, so we are going to destroy huge areas of food production,to restore the system to its natural state.
Read- Keep the lower lakes “naturally ” fresh .
It is costing, not millions, but billions.
Please just GIVE Peter a free pipe, for the money ,it could come from Queensland.
Love the fact that they will have meetings about THE PLAN, we’re not allowed any.
Susan,
It is amazing how often we get led back to questionable bureaucratic bungling when we properly investigate these type of issues.
You would not believe how many examples I have seen; one of them as recent as this last weekend.
We live in a highly regulated section and it is mind boggling how often this proves to be the case.
No recognition of actual reality at all.
I would also like to let you know that despite Peter’s rude comments, you and your site are well respected.
Peter, that is actually a good question that you ask. If you want to keep that section fresh, what could be done?
Remember that you claim you are not a blamer 🙂
I also agree that management decisions contributed to the 1981 silting of the Mouth. However, they were not the ones that are continuously claimed to be the reason.
Hi Ian,
Re, “OK, so we are going to destroy huge areas of food production, to restore the system to its natural state and Please just GIVE Peter a free pipe, for the money, it could come from Queensland” It’s not about what I want it is about the Lower River Murray ie, the River from Blanchetown to the Southern Ocean. We can no longer have natural!
By allowing sea water to invade firstly Lake Alexandrina all water in Lake Albert, the River , flood plains, back waters and all water sourced from below Lock 1 for human consumption etc will become contaminated (1-litre of sea water will contaminate 11-litres of fresh water).
Re, “Love the fact that they will have meetings about THE PLAN, we’re not allowed any” the MDB Authority invited me to a meeting because of my involvement on various State Government advisory groups, not my call Ian.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “I would also like to let you know that despite Peter’s rude comments, you and your site are well respected” respected by who? Only those who don’t understand the damage that will be wrought on the Lower River Murray.
Re, “If you want to keep that section fresh, what could be done?” Please Debbie tell me what can be done without massive consequences?
Try thinking positively Peter,
despite your claims otherwise you are only quoting arguments that involve the closure of perfectly sustainable upstream business practices and demanding that storages be used in a manner they were not designed to be used. They are actually too far away and too small to deliver help when SA actually would need it.
Your original question was positive. . .What could be done?
Hi Debbie,
What a load of crap, “Try thinking positively Peter, despite your claims otherwise you are only quoting arguments that involve the closure of perfectly sustainable upstream business practices and demanding that storages be used in a manner they were not designed to be used. I do not wish to see any, “of perfectly sustainable upstream business practices” two points all practices must be ultra efficient, no matter where in the Basin they are, (open channel irrigation is not efficient – all extractions should be metered at point of extraction from the WATER source not the channel) secondly we are ALL in this together!
We below Lock 1 have lost over 150 efficient business practices, seen millions and millions of dollars damage caused by bank collapse (one of my friends damage bill, I spoke to him earlier today, is over $2-million) and State and Local Government infrastructure and a lot more but I would run out of time and paper.
Flow into SA since the Lock’s were finished (average) 8,435-Gigalitres per year, (last decade of the 21st century 9,800-Gigalitres per year) and first 5 years of 22nd century 4,800-Gigalitres, if we could be guaranteed an average of 5,000- Gigalitres per year we could I believe we could maintain the now status quo.
Re, “They are actually too far away and too small to deliver help when SA actually would need it. Your original question was positive. . .What could be done?” Do you have an answer?
Gee whiz Peter,
The loss of business through the drought was not unique to your area. We had no water either and I also lament the huge losses that occured.
Minus the amount that SA has now from what you’re asking for. Where are you expecting that to come from? Others have to have less so you can have more?
It has nothing much to do with pipes and pumps versus gravity fed channels. Neither does it have much to do with more efficient metering. The areas that SA want to take water from is metred within an inch of its life.
I guess you must not read my entire posts.
The answer is we must upgrade and source more storage. SA must also take responsibility for the Coorong and its water source. SA must also understand that current storages cannot save those Lakes in times of water storage. If you want to keep them fresh then you have to figure it out rather than playing ‘cheap’ and bi polar environmental arguments. Some honesty about the real problems would be highly appreciated.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “The loss of business through the drought was not unique to your area” I know that but to lose businesses for ever as they just packed up and left has caused a massive flow on affect as in many other areas of the Basin and that land that was once in full production is now turning into salt covered wasteland.
What we would like is enough to keep the River alive and enough to ensure a pool level to keep the River’s banks from collapsing!
Re, “It has nothing much to do with pipes and pumps versus gravity fed channels” open channel irrigation is NOT efficient and efficient metering is metering from the main source!
Re, “Water storages” we in SA have nowhere to construct any storages so we have to get smarter and re the, “Coorong” the water source is Lake Alexandrina, the Coorong must be emptied of the hyper salinity in the Southern Lagoon (by pumping the water out to the sea) and refilled with freshwater.
Re, “playing ‘cheap’ and bi polar environmental arguments. Some honesty about the real problems would be highly appreciated” we am not playing environmental arguments all we want is a healthy environment, we know the problems just give us our share of the Basin’s water.
Radio National’s ‘ Late Night Live ‘ program ( repeated Friday afternoon ), had Kate Jennings as a guest , with ACF’s Sinclair and MP Wilkie.
When allowed to be, Jennings was very precise in her factual observations .Wilkie was much more astute than I’d previously judged him to be. Sinclair was all ACF- ” Once in a lifetime”, ” Previous disasters ” and no facts at all.
I don’t think I am biased ,it is here for others to judge –
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2011/3344659.htm
Hi Ian,
Thank you for that link I listened to it twice and cannot really agree with you. I thought Jennings was trying to be in charge and her comment about speaking to farmers, give me a break, she only visits her father every two years and I am sure she doesn’t go out of her comfort zone – she did point out this wasn’t her knowledge base.
I presented to the Wilkie inquiry and have read much of what he has said and believe he is just an independent/power gone to his head politician. Paul Sinclair, I know Paul, is always talking up the ACF and sometimes seems to be on the wrong track and I get tired of the, “Once in a lifetime”, ” Previous disasters ” but we must get it right but trying to, by Jennings, draw him into the European Carp argument was a bit lame.
I personally believe we have lost the European Carp fight it is not about eradication any more but about containment /management.
It’s not about being biased it’s about the Basin and all voices have an input.
Peter,
You do get your share of the water. You seem to be ignoring the fact that there was a crippling drought and we all suffered. There wasn’t any extra available.
SA is quite clearly asking for more than its share.
Approx 90% of the Coorong’s water traditionally came from the South East. SA now wants to use the Murray water because SA drained traditional supply away from the Coorong.
Open irrigation channels that don’t leak and use gravity instead of electricity are arguably just as efficient and cost effective as piping.
The bulk of the water that the MDBA is planning to take control of is coming from the Southern Basin, particularly the Murrumbidgee, the Murray (NSW & Vic) and the Goulburn rivers. The metering there is completely regulated and accounted for.
People have gone and enterprises have been lost due to the drought all over the basin.
Why do you think there is nowhere to build storage in SA?
Hi Debbie,
What a load of crap we don’t expect any more than our share!
Re, “Approx 90% of the Coorong’s water traditionally came from the South East. SA now wants to use the Murray water because SA drained traditional supply away from the Coorong” another load of crap if all of the drains that were diverted where re diverted it would supply about 14-Gigalitres of water that is saline, more harm than good and at a cost of millions of dollars – a waste.
Re, “Open irrigation channels that don’t leak and use gravity instead of electricity are arguably just as efficient and cost effective as piping” not efficient as the water sourced is not metered from the source! Get with the aim get more efficient, SA’s irrigators are the most efficient in the Basin and we have already paid for our efficiency with the cap.
Is the Goulburn River in the Basin? The Howard Plan had it in but Gillard’s Plan took it out and if it is in the North-South Pipeline should not be.
Re, “Why do you think there is nowhere to build storage in SA?” because I know but I am probably wrong enlighten me.
Kind of ironic that Peter claims SA has nowhere to build a water storage and yet the ‘worlds largest open cut mine’, Olympic Dam, was just approved. They know how to dig big holes when they want to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Dam,_South_Australia
Uses a lot of water too.
Hi Susan,
Really how stupid comparing a water storage to the digging of an open cut mine, which I have been opposing since the first sod was turned over because of the massive, at no cost, use of water from the Great Artesian Basin, which is not an endless water supply.
Now I have said that, Susan where do YOU propose building another water storage facility in SA?
Really Peter?
And you don’t think anywhere else is just as effeicient as SA and no one else paid with a CAP?
Really?
Seriously, everything you complain about re SA is a problem elsewhere as well. These problems are not unique to SA and neither is SA the only place to find world class irrigation in the MDB. There are excellent systems in SA, but there are just as many elswhere in the basin. It also depends on your definition of ‘efficient’, far too often it is only portrayed as a ML/Hectare figure which is only a very small part of the story. Your comments about metering also don’t seem to be substantiated, the areas facing the biggest SDL cuts are most defintiely metered at their source….some of those areas are run under scarily tight metering regimes….much tighter that SA.
As Susan has pointed out, what’s missing is the mindset or the political will re water storage, when people decide to….they are capable of achieving extra ordinary things. She was using the mine as an example. There are indeed well costed plans for extra storage both in SA and elsewhere.
Re the Coorong….I seriously don’t understand what you’re trying to say. The drainage from the SE most definitely took away the Coorong’s traditional supply….are you saying that is incorrect? Doesn’t the Ramsar Listing have the Coorong as saline anyway? I’m quite confused by your answer. The demand now is that the MDB should supply the Coorong when that is not where the majority of its water traditionally came from. The demand also tries to argue this from and ‘environmental’ standpoint. It truly is a bi polar argument.
The Murray Goulburn system is most definitely on the agenda and most definitely part of the plan. Facing big cuts too….
Are you sure you are advancing this ‘we are all in this together’ argument correctly?
It seems to me that your position is to defend SA below Lock 1 and to do so under any circumstances.
You also only ever advance SA arguments and refuse to understand that most of your complaints are equally evident in other places.
Your solution….whether you can understand this or not….appears to be we all have to give SA more…..even if it means that perfectly sustainable upstream businesses must be pressured to close down. You also seem to think that’s fair because SA businesses have been forced to close down…..but not recognising that it was the drought that caused most of these problems in SA….not upstream. We all suffered and we all lost and we all lament that good people and good businesses have gone. IT IS NOT UNIQUE TO SA !!!!!!
It also won’t be solved by just flushing more water down to SA. As many have tried to explain, the upstream storages are incapable of helping to solve the problems you keep highlighting exactly at the time when SA would need the help. The storages are too small and they’re too far away.
Also….after having one of the biggest and most consistent flushes from mother nature on record….something our storages could never hope to emulate….SA’s problems at the Lakes and the Coorong have not gone away….in many cases they are worse.
We have to look outside that box if everyone is going to get a good result. This ‘flush it’ mindset is not going to achieve anything and it completely ignores what is at risk if we allow the ‘flush it’ mentality to prevail….believe it or not…..that includes SA.
Hi Debbie,
OK we all suffered equally and all SA’s problems are their own making, every other irrigator in the Basin is more efficient than the SA irrigators I am sorry we aren’t all in this together, SA is all by itself, nothing has changed, sorry to have bothered you!
Re, “There are indeed well costed plans for extra storage both in SA and elsewhere” well the elsewhere plans aren’t progressing all that well and I am not aware of any plans to construct any new storages in SA, please enlighten me.
“Re the Coorong,” “I seriously don’t understand what you’re trying to say” well the Coorong’s tradition supply was not the South East drains and if those drains were re directed into the Coorong it would only exacerbate the present problem. Yes, the Coorong is traditionally saline, NOT HYPER SALINE, in the Southern Lagoon twice the EC of sea water ot must be pumped out ASAP!
The River Murray (Entire Murray Darling Basin) must flush, be flushed, regularly. Lake Alexandrina is in good even great condition but Lake Albert and the Southern Lagoon are still in trouble and unless the Political will both Federally and SA change their future is bleak.
Have it your own way Debbie (though you are in the minority, minority) just remove the Barrages and completely destroy Lock 1 to the Southern Ocean.
I hope that will make you happy but before you leave turn out the lights in the Murray Darling Basin because that is what will happen before the turn of the next century!
So where do you think the Coorong’s traditional supply came from Peter if it wasn’t from the South East?
Susan must be right, you must have a fanciful version of history if you think it came from somewhere else.
I have also quite clearly said that if SA wants to keep those barrages, then that’s SA’s choice.
You do however need to figure out how you are going to save those lakes in the next severe drought without blaming upstream for your problems when they will have no water either.
Also….plans are not progressing in any extra storage because we lack the political will….didn’t you understand the point? There are most definitely costed plans….you are correct there is no progress….but that is not because of a lack of plans and sites.
I have no wish to completely destroy from Lock 1 to the Southern Ocean or to turn out the lights in the MDB, that would not make me happy….what a strange comment.
Despite your ranting, I am not attempting to write crap either. I am advocating much smarter solutions that reap good results for all….including SA.
You are the one that keeps going on and on and on about SA as if it has unique difficulties and somehow holds the key to the health of the whole system. SA is actually at the bottom of the system….and as we both agreed in earlier posts….water runs downhill and it always has.
The Southern Ocean is not a contaminant either.
We have reconfigured and changed the basin….correct. So how can we now improve on that and also fix up the mistakes?
Trying to advance bi polar ‘flush it’ arguments is not going to solve anything.
Any flushing of the system has always and will always be provided by excess inflows and flooding…..despite your arguments otherwise….upstream storages were not designed to do that and are incapable of doing so.
Hi Debbie,
The Coorong prior to 1900,s was supplied from tidal movement either sea water or when freshwater was flushing the through the River’s mouth by freshwater but we changed everything. The Boundary Creek – Ewe Island – Tawicheree Barrages in the Southern of Lake Alexandrina now regulate that flow. What needs to happen is that the Southern Lagoon needs to be pumped out, Tawicheree Barrage opened to allow the Southern Lagoon to fill before being pumped out again, the costings have been completed and plans drawn up but now we need political will.
It is not JUST SA’s choice to retain the Barrages it is the decision of the Federal Government, the MDBA and those other who realise the value of the Lower River Murray (Lock 1 to the Ocean) ie, those who understand the complete system!
Re, “I have no wish to completely destroy from Lock 1 to the Southern Ocean or to turn out the lights in the MDB that would not make me happy….what a strange comment” you may seem that is a strange comment but if you wish to destroy any part of the Basin things can only get worse.
Yes, I agree we can make many improvements but removal of the Barrages is not an improvement, espacially for those of us below Lock 1.
Peter,
Removal of the barrages if nothing else was done would definitely place below Lock 1 in jeopardy….I totally agree with that.
However….and this is the problem…..if we try to just maintain the status quo and not do some serious upgrading…..and not repair some serious mistakes….below lock 1 is in serious danger next time we’re in a drought anyway.
The ‘flush it’ solution will not save below lock 1 in the next drought because there just will not be enough water available to do that…..especially if you want those lakes full of fresh water and the mouth being consistently flushed by the river.
What annoys many of us is that SA has advanced a truly bi polar argument that involves gloom and doom environmental predictions and consistently blames upstream for the problems. SA is just as guilty of reconfiguring the system as everyone else is and also just as guilty of outstripping available storage in times of shortage as everyone else is. That includes the South East drainage works….which SA is now demanding the water from the MDB should fix. The water from the Murray does NOT come from the South East.
Ramsar listings and bleating about ‘over allocation’ do not change these simple realities.
While SA keeps doing that, it is almost impossible for upstream to work with SA to come up with some good, technical solutions.
Water does indeed flow downhill and that does make SA particularly vulnerable in times of shortage.
What you’re failing to recognise is that the river was kept running during the recent crippling drought precisely because we regulate it. SA would have been in serious trouble, along with just about everybody else, if we did not have those ‘unnatural’ regulatory systems in place.
You do realise don’t you that many upstream water courses and even the Lachlan River actually completely dried up or stopped flowing? The losses and heartache incurred in those places were horrendous.
Wasn’t SA lucky that it was given some priority and the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers were kept flowing?
Wasn’t SA lucky that the Southern part of the basin is tightly regulated?
So….as always….my point is that we should learn that lesson from the recent drought rather than all the finger pointing nonsense that we keep hearing from SA, the ACF, the Wentworth Group et al….
How can we improve our systems so that the next drought does not cause as much damage to everyone as the last one?
And….as far as those lakes go…..how can we make sure they do not get abused again? There is a seawater option for those lakes so that acid sulphate soils do not get exposed like that again….the remainder of the MDB system does not have that option.
However, if that is not palatable for SA then SA must figure out how they can save those Lakes from abuse without demanding extra water from upstream when there obviously won’t be enough available.
As I commented earlier…try thinking positively Peter. Look at what we did achieve and figure out how we can improve on that.
Advancing bi polar environmental arguments is not going to solve anything.
Demanding that upstream ‘flush’ the system in a major drought is also not going to work.
Keeping ‘just in case it might need a flush’ water in upstream storages only results in stressing perfectly sustainable upstream irrigation practices (including SA) for no discernable gain for anyone! Look at the damage that mindset created last year and this year when there is clearly not a water shortage and environmental assets are flourishing (except for the overwatered red gums).
We have to come up with practical solutions Peter…not pretty ‘environmental’ cliches that won’t work in practice.
I’m quite sure that some estaurine environment and productive irrigation can be achieved below Lock 1 if people actually thought about it that way rather than the unproductive ‘all or nothing’ arguments that you are trying to advance.
It is not all doom and gloom and the lights will not be turned out on the MDB. Comments like those are completely counter productive and completely negative. They are also based on false assumptions about our natural ephemeral environment and, as Susan says, a rather ‘fanciful’ interpretation of the MDB history.
Re, “Removal of the barrages if nothing else was done would definitely place below Lock 1 in jeopardy….I totally agree with that” YOUR WRONG!
Re, “However….and this is the problem…..if we try to just maintain the status quo and not do some serious upgrading…..and not repair some serious mistakes….below lock 1 is in serious danger next time we’re in a drought anyway” the entire Basin needs to become more efficient and we know what the last drought did to us below and accept for banks collapsing we are better prepared.
Re, “What annoys many of us is that SA” is that the rest of Australia keeps telling us what is best for THEM!
Re, “SA is just as guilty of reconfiguring the system as everyone else is and also just as guilty of outstripping available storage in times of shortage as everyone else is” YES I agree.
Re, “That includes the South East drainage works….which SA is now demanding the water from the MDB should fix, “WE ARE NOT DEMANDING.”
Re, “The water from the Murray does NOT come from the South East” and neither should the water for the Coorong.
Re, “What you’re failing to recognise, NO I AM NOT, is that the river was kept running during the recent crippling drought precisely because we regulate it, BUT MANAGE IT BADLY. SA would have been in serious trouble, along with just about everybody else, if we did not have those ‘unnatural’ regulatory systems in place” yes I know that but we were in serious trouble.
Re, “Wasn’t SA lucky that it was given some priority and the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers were kept flowing? Wasn’t SA lucky that the Southern part of the basin is tightly regulated?” what do you want praise CRITICAL HUMAN NEEDS water is a legislative requirement, but thanks anyway.
RE, “So….as always….my point is that we should learn that lesson from the recent drought rather than all the finger pointing nonsense that we keep hearing from SA, the ACF, the Wentworth Group et al” is it nonsense because you don’t agree?
We live at the bottom of the system and we will have to accept what happens in the rest of the Basin and my positive attitude is to work and strive for out survival as above Lock 1 don’t really care about SA and I am totally opposed to any legal action our State may take and I have informed our new Premier of this.
Re, “Demanding that upstream ‘flush’ the system in a major drought is also not going to work” I/we are getting a little tired of listening to you prattle on about what we are demanding, maybe seeking by negotiation.
Re, “We have to come up with practical solutions Peter…not pretty ‘environmental’ clichés that won’t work in practice” that, we, is you and your disciples is it?
RE, “I’m quite sure that some estuarine, NEVER ESTUARINE, environment and productive irrigation can be achieved below Lock 1 if people actually thought about it that way rather than the unproductive ‘all or nothing’ arguments that you are trying to advance” maybe but that would mean piped water for all water requirements downstream of Lock 1, firstly costs of infrastructure and then the massive cost of the water making nearly all production financially un-viable.
Re, “It is not all doom and gloom and the lights will not be turned out on the MDB. Comments like those are completely counter-productive and completely negative. They are also based on false assumptions about our natural ephemeral environment and, as Susan says, a rather ‘fanciful’ interpretation of the MDB history” take it or leave it but whose history who wish to believe is completely up to you!
Good luck!
Oh dear Peter,
It isn’t about whose history….goodness me….the history is the history is the history….we are not really able to re invent it. We have all made mistakes and they need to be fixed….we have also achieved great successes and they need to be built on.
What would you have preferred re the critical human needs? Isn’t that and shouldn’t that be the number one priority for water when supplies get that critical?
While I agree that management was not perfect and it still isn’t….it wasn’t all bad either.
Once again we would do better if we built on the strengths and the good decisions rather than whining and whinging and moaning about what wasn’t handled well. SA did indeed have 3 years worth of critical supplies available in the very deepest part of the drought….that is a good thing you know.
And finally….what was wrong with me pointing out that the removal of the barrages would definitely put below lock 1 in jeopardy if we didn’t do something else as well? Perhaps you misunderstood my sentence? I wasn’t intending to make an ambiguous comment but I must have done.
Of course we couldn’t just remove the barrages and do nothing else….that would definitely spell disaster for your area. However, we need to mitigate the damage and problems that have been caused by the barrages and also recognise that we obviously can’t keep those lakes full of fresh water in times of severe shortages under the present system.
As I keep asking you to consider….we need to think outside that box.
It is also greatly amusing me that you think everyone is picking on SA and telling SA what it has to do.
Have you actually listened to your politicians and media and ‘environmentalists’? Be honest Peter, who are they repeatedly and exclusively blaming for SA’s water woes? Isn’t that telling everyone else what they should do?
That behaviour and those comments are not conducive to good negotiations and good solutions.
Hi Debbie,
I know about the history, did you read and understand, “The Coorong prior to 1900’s was supplied from TIDAL movement either sea water or when freshwater was flushing the through the River’s mouth by freshwater but we changed everything. The Boundary Creek – Ewe Island – Tawicheree Barrages in the Southern of Lake Alexandrina now regulate that flow” that mistake as you call it was working quite OK until the drought set in and it can’t be reversed by removing any Barrages! It needs as I said, “What needs to happen is that the Southern Lagoon needs to be pumped out, Tawicheree Barrage opened to allow the Southern Lagoon to fill before being pumped out again, the costings have been completed and plans drawn up but now we need political will.”
As I keep saying removing the Barrages is NOT on the table and I am thinking outside the box let the powers to be give us what can be allocated, not an entitlement but an allocation and when times are bad and we have used all our stored allocation we will have to survive on water for Critical Human Needs.
It’s not about (and I am not about blame) pointing the finger of blame much of the problem is caused by geographical position the rest of the Basin get the supply before it reaches below Lock 1, that’s not blame it’s fact.
If you believe the Barrages need removal give us the WHAT will be done to protect downstream of Lock 1 to the Southern Ocean.
Only approx 10% of the Coorong’s water came from the Murray Peter. Most of its supply came from the S E before it was drained away. It was also from tidal sources.
Are you saying it is not possible to build another weir/lock further downstream? I seem to remember you advocating that in previous posts. And yes I understand that piping and pumping creates extra costs in return for efficiencies, the same applies here.
Thank you for recognising it was the drought that caused most of the problems.
Having extra allocation will have the same result. The storages can’t keep ‘just in case’ water AND continue to support traditional irrigation. Apart from the fact that they were not designed to do that, they don’t have enough space. Seriously, the only sensible answer is to source more storage as well as improve management and efficiencies. The drought has clearly highlighted that we need to do more in this area.
We all have some lessons to learn. Those barrages also need serious upgrading so that it is possible to use the sea water option rather than allowing those acid/sulphate soils to be exposed like that again. I am sure there are ways to achieve all those goals and protect your patch if there was the right political will.
Bleating about environmental degradation and making false claims about the health of the basin will not solve the real problems we are facing. The ACF, The Wentworth Group et al are no more interested in helping your farmers and businesses than they are ours. They believe that irrigation and environmental responsibility are completely mutually exclusive
Hi Debbie,
I will say again, “Re directing the Southern drains, estimated cost of over $10-Million will not produce any where enough water to do any good and also the water gathered will be extremely saline.”
I have been and am the spokesperson for “Lock Zero” and whilst we are advocating for an Impact Assessment into managing the Murray Darling Basin from Lock Zero or an Environmental Impact Statement into Lock Zero we realise the magnitude of what we are seeking.
If the above were carried out we would then, at least have the ‘umpires’ decision’ whether it was feasible or not but we realise the massive costs of construction, ball park figure $1-billion. The one must from such an undertaking is the retention of the Barrages and managing not only the Murray Darling Basin from Lock Zero but also Lakes Alexandrina, Albert and the Coorong and all flow restrictions ie, the Narrung and Clayton Bungs be COMPLETELY removed.
Lock Zero would then be able to maintain a pool level some .3 or .35 of a metre below the present pool level and ensuring flood plains/wet lands were not kept full of fresh water (kept damp) and periodically dried.
Re, “The drought has clearly highlighted that we need to do more in this area” the problem with the situation since the drought most people think everything is fixed just because there seems to be all the water needed.
Management of our storages is a must and should be a priority.
Re, “Those barrages also need serious upgrading so that it is possible to use the sea water option rather than allowing those acid/sulphate soils to be exposed like that again” yes all of the Barrages are in serious need of major upgrading but with upgrading and a major management regime shift and Lock Zero we may be able alleviate the need for any invasion of sea water.
Yes you are correct, “I am sure there are ways to achieve all those goals and protect your patch if there was the right political will” but in that political will has to be the commitment of serious major funding.
Also I am not, “Bleating about environmental degradation and making false claims about the health of the basin will not solve the real problems we are facing” all I wish to see is a healthy environment therefore a healthy Murray Darling Basin.
This report by the MDBC in 2000 deals with the issue of the barrages in a straightforward manner. Unlike the MDBA draft basin plan which did not even mention the barrages this one does not shy away from describing the environmental issues the barrages cause.
http://publications.mdbc.gov.au/download/river_murray_barrages_environmental_flows_an_evaluation.pdf
Have a look at page 11 (as numbered within the pdf file) …
“evaluate options for relocation and revised management of the barrages to enlarge estuarine area to increase the range of habitats,” and
“In the longer term, the feasibility of relocating the ageing barrage structures should be investigated, for the ecological benefits of increasing the area of the estuarine zone and the economic benefits of decreasing evaporative losses.”
Peter,
re:
the problem with the situation since the drought most people think everything is fixed just because there seems to be all the water needed.
I almost completely disagree with this comment.
The problem with the drought and then the breaking of the drought is that our political masters have not learned the real lesson.
They are still pretending that the problem was caused by ‘over allocation’ and that irrigation stole water from the environment. They are also still pretending that we have an environmental and ecological disaster on our hands all caused by too much irrigation.
That is not what the problem was and the breaking of the drought has exposed them all.
Our natural ephemeral environment was not in trouble, it is totally OK with droughts and floods and always has been.
The problem was and still is that our human assets have gone well past their use by dates.
This problem is further exacerbated by a refusal by govt authorities to accept their part of the responsibility. They have made some errors….some of which were only recognisable in hindsight….and they need to be fixed and it is going to cost money to do so.
The bi polar arguments about the Murray Mouth, The Coorong and those tidal/estuarine Lower Lakes are the most obvious examples of a problem that exists all over the basin. They are also the main topic of this post.
As you pointed out earlier, there are equally bi polar ‘environmental’ arguments elsewhere in the basin…one of the more obvious is the CEWH ‘assisting’ bird breeding events (when in a season like this the birds don’t need their help) and in the process are drowning redgums and suffocating fish. Not only that, they are hanging on to ‘environmental’ water that they can’t possibly use effectively in a season like this one…BECAUSE THIS SEASON THE ENVIRONMENT MOST DEFINITELY DOES NOT NEED THEIR HELP….and blocking up the storages so traditional irrigation farmers cannot access their entitlements.
My disgust remains that politicians and particularly SA politicians are lying about the real problem.
I also am not impressed when you quote examples and figures that are part of that lie and are being used to blame the wrong culprit.
The facts are quite simple….along with all other regulation….those barrages are unnatural and they have interfered with the natural tidal/estuarine environment. The Coorong’s traditional water supply was seriously interfered with and it was only ever approx 10% reliant on water from the Murray. The Murray Mouth has closed before 1981 and it didn’t close in 1981 because of upstream irrigation, it closed because the tides and the winds did not co operate and also because your Govt was too slow to do some dredging work to mitigate that problem.
The dams and storages and locks and weirs were all built so that we could populate and produce in inland Australia. They were built to store water in times of excess so that we could wisely manage water in the inevitable times of shortage. They were not built to mitigate flooding or to flush out the river system and they are therefore not capable of doing that AND supporting inland Australia…ESPECIALLY in times of shortage.
The storages were also not built to keep the lower lakes full of fresh water or even covered in fresh water when there is drought…and therefore they are simply not capable of doing that either as well as supporting inland Australia.
If we want to do both….and I agree that we should do both….THEN WE HAVE TO ACCESS MORE STORAGE AND UPGRADE OUR TIRED AND INEFFICIENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS….anything else is just robbing Peter to pay Paul and willresult in a great deal of unnecessary loss and heartache the next time we face the next inevitable drought.
Hi Debbie,
Re: “the problem with the situation since the drought most people think everything is fixed just because there seems to be all the water needed.” I almost completely disagree with this comment. The problem with the drought and then the breaking of the drought is that our political masters have not learned the real lesson.
I can assure you that the people in Adelaide and so many other places in SA (people who are firstly selfish, or don’t understand not only the MDB but especially the River Murray) see the River in SA as running at pool level, se the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert at normal level either with their own eyes or on television or in the printed media believe everything is OK some even get on the radio and ask what we are on about!
Re, “They are still pretending that the problem was caused by ‘over allocation’ and that irrigation stole water from the environment. They are also still pretending that we have an environmental and ecological disaster on our hands all caused by too much irrigation. That is not what the problem was and the breaking of the drought has exposed them all” that is what most people think and they are not prepared to listen, but allocations have risen alarmingly over the last 20-years.
The Basin is over allocated as if all allocations were supplied in one water year the Basin would be dry. SA receives about 10% only of the Basin’s water. I am not blaming over allocation and get into trouble sticking up for rice and cotton as I believe that any business that has a license/allocation has the right to their water but must be as efficient as possible.
Re, “The bi polar arguments about the Murray Mouth, The Coorong and those tidal/estuarine Lower Lakes are the most obvious examples of a problem that exists all over the basin” why is the situation in the Lower River Murray, “the most obvious examples of a problem” are there no major problems upstream of Lock 1?
Re, “My disgust remains that politicians and particularly SA politicians are lying about the real problem’ oh really once again that out your anger at SA pollies!
Re, “I also am not impressed when you quote examples and figures that are part of that lie and are being used to blame the wrong culprit” please tell me the figures that are the lie.
Re, “The facts are quite simple….along with all other regulation….those barrages are unnatural (AS IS THE ENTIRE REGULATION OF FLOW WITHIN THE ENTIRE BASIN).”
Re, “and they have interfered with the natural tidal/estuarine environment. The Coorong’s traditional water supply was seriously interfered with and it was only ever approx 10% reliant on water from the Murray” that’s crap as the source of water for the Coorong was primarily the River or the sea when the influence was tidal.
Re, “The Murray Mouth has closed before 1981 and it didn’t close in 1981 because of upstream irrigation” and I never said it was BECAUSE of UPSTREAM IRRIGATION.
The information is the Murray Mouth prior to 1981 had only closed twice in recorded history, re “it closed because the tides and the winds did not co operate and also because your Govt (IT SEEMS IT IS ALWAYS MY GOVERNMENT THAT IS WRONG!) was too slow to do some dredging work to mitigate that problem” oh stop carrying on prior to 1981 dredging was never considered as an option.
Re, “The dams and storages and locks and weirs were all built so that we could populate and produce in inland Australia” you left out Barrages – the trade off for Mulwala.
Yes you are partly correct, “They were built to store water in times of excess so that we could wisely manage water in the inevitable times of shortage. They were not built to mitigate flooding or to flush out the river system and they are therefore not capable of doing that AND supporting inland Australia…ESPECIALLY in times of shortage” would you please remind me why they – the Barrages – were built?
Re, “The storages were also not built to keep the lower lakes full of fresh water or even covered in fresh water when there is drought…and therefore they are simply not capable of doing that either as well as supporting inland Australia” does that mean that below Lock should just be written off?
This statement is just crap, “If we want to do both….and I agree that we should do both….THEN WE HAVE TO ACCESS MORE STORAGE AND UPGRADE OUR TIRED AND INEFFICIENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS….anything else is just robbing Peter to pay Paul and will result in a great deal of unnecessary loss and heartache the next time we face the next inevitable drought”.
Wake up Debbie, build Lock Zero, upgrade ALL of the Barrages and then, it times of drought etc, keep the water in the River and MANAGE the Basin properly!
Peter,
You need to read what I actually said.
I most definitely included all other regulation on the river and I have also agreed that we need to spend money on infrastructure including Lock zero and the barrages.
I agree that there is a problem with the number of entitlements but water has been allocated according to priority for many years. SA has high priority for critical needs. The river was not over allocated: we had a crippling extended drought.
Over entitlement was definitely done by govts; including yours.
The management has been a huge worry because they are attempting to supply and support cross purpose goals. Everyone wants dam space and there just isn’t enough. There is water in those dams that can’t be used effectively this season, mainly because we have excess inflows, and they are jamming out people who can use it effectively and productively.
SA is unfortunately one of those, but not the only one or indeed the largest one.
Have you been listening to your new Premier? That is not helping your cause.
I am awake Peter, I do believe SA needs help but it has to be for the right reasons and we need to solve the real problems not the fabricated ones.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “The Basin is over allocated as if all allocations were supplied in one water year the Basin would be dry” sorry I meant to say if all entitlement /licences were filled each year, Basin would be dry.
Re, “Over entitlement was definitely done by govts; including yours” but in SA we have certainly not made entitlements over our entitlement.
The only dam space we want is our entitlement and dilution flow approximately 2570-Gigalitres.
I have been listening to what out Premier has been and is saying and I have sent him a number of emails disagreeing with him asking him to wait for the plan to be presented before knocking it! I have also told him that any talk of court action is absolute crap!
SA needs assistance but it must be the proper assistance and we will not be dictated to.
Peter,
I am glad you can see that your new Premier is not helping your cause. It is a real shame that he is playing parochial politics instead of trying to help solve some very real water access problems.
I do beg to differ however on your entitlement argument.
If you haven’t ‘over entitled’ somehow….why is SA now asking for more than its entitlement?
The answer is that SA has relied on excess inflows and allocated those. When the drought hit, there wasn’t enough.
As I keep trying to point out…we’re all guilty of that one…every single State. Some more than others.
It did not however cause water shortage because of the way the allocation system works.
The water shortage was caused by the drought and the drought also highlighted that we no longer have enough infrastructure to manage water shortages effectively.
Our population and production demands have outstripped our storage and conservation management systems…that includes SA. At no time have I argued that it is all SA’s fault. However, SA is not blameless either. The bi polar arguments re your environment are just the main topic of this post so I guess it does look like people are saying it is all SA’s fault here. It clearly isn’t and SA is clearly the most vulnerable simply because of its position.
Instead of this totally unproductive ‘rob peter to pay paul’ mentality, it would be good if we recognised that we are clever enough to source more and upgrade and repair mistakes.
We are missing the political will….not the ability.
Just imagine how much better off we would all be if the Water Act had tasked the MDBA with a positive and creative and progressive task?
Unfortunately, the Water Act has tasked the MDBA to justify taking water from productive irrigation because it has supposedly fatally damaged the environment.
That is sadly a negative and restrictive and regressive task.
They have no choice but to ‘rob peter to pay paul’.
Unfortunately the rest of that Twain quote points out that while peter is being robbed, paul will not stop it happening, even if he knows it is wrong.
That seems to be what’s happening here don’t you think?
It is a real shame and it is not going to solve the real problems we will face when the next drought inevitably hits.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “I do beg to differ however on your entitlement argument. If you haven’t ‘over entitled’ somehow….why is SA now asking for more than its entitlement?” SA is asking for the water it entitled to and its fair share of unregulated flow under the water sharing equation.
Re, “The answer is that SA has relied on excess inflows and allocated those” what a load of crap, we, SA, can only allocate out of our entitlement not unregulated flow.
SA irrigators when granted their full entitlement (100%) rarely use the full amount and just let in flow downstream.
Peter,
You need to check what you’re saying.
Fair share of unregulated flow under the WSP and then claiming that SA does not rely on unregulated flow?
When there is plenty of water around…we are exactly the same and our rules are very very similar.
You need to face the facts….it was a drought…a severe and extended drought….we all suffered.
Our water authorities allowed development expansion relying on dubious projective inflow models and not backing it up with secure water supplies….that is every single state water authority….and some were worse than others. Or maybe…some were greedier than others. There is however no question they are all culpable….all of them….yes, including SA.
SA was not unfairly treated during those shortages. There are many other areas who can and do claim the same unfair treatment. I agree that many management decisions were highly questionable but it was not a unique problem for SA.
SA however is more vulnerable simply because of your position.
My point remains we are not going to solve these problems if we keep trying to advance ‘rob peter to pay paul’ arguments.
I also respectfully suggest you send your premier some more emails….he is most definitely not helping you.
We too don’t use our full entitlement in the good years and we too let it ‘spill’ downstream.
It is no different.
Also…we too had no access to our entitlements….none. Farmers in our area had zero and even negative allocations from November 2007 to February 2008. We then only got 3% at that point.
2009 was marginally better…eventually reached 20% in Feb.
Of course receiving an allocation in February does not help irrigation farmers…they need access in Spring…no later than mid Sept… to have any chance of planning a farming program.
You don’t seem to understand that everything you are complaining about was not just SA’s problem.
You also don’t seem to understand that making claims about ‘selfishness’ and claims that SA holds some magic key to river health all over the basin is not going to help either.
We all hold some of those keys and every State plays parochial politics….including SA!
Every State is also guilty of making unsubstantiated, bi polar environmental claims.
SA’s claims are just the subject of this post….SA is also now claiming that it will accept no less than 4,000GL and will be taking court action if the Plan does not deliver that.
Where on earth do you expect that water would have to come from Peter?
Why wouldn’t the other MDB States be kicking up a stink? Wouldn’t you?
Think carefully about that one. It requires using some wider perspective.
May I also point out that the WSP is what we in the English trade call a misnoma?
That means that the name is actually incorrect.
It isn’t really a Water Sharing Plan…it is actually a Water Priority Plan or a Water Hierarchy Plan.
Straight away, when we actually understand that, the current mess over water policy and the impending Basin Plan becomes a little easier to comprehend.
I am not your enemy…most of us aren’t….but we have to cease blaming the wrong culprits and we also somehow have to stop our politicians playing parochial politics.
The saddest part is that woefully inadequate Water Act 2007 is in the process of making things even worse….not better.
That is very sad indeed.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “Fair share of unregulated flow under the WSP and then claiming that SA does not rely on unregulated flow?” we all rely on unregulated flow we wait for it when it is made available.
Re, “When there is plenty of water around…we are exactly the same and our rules are very very similar” the plans are National MDB WSP Plans we are all on the same ground.
Re, “SA’s claims are just the subject of this post….SA is also now claiming that it will accept no less than 4,000GL and will be taking court action if the Plan does not deliver that” we are not seeking 4000-Gigalitres what we are saying is the 2800-Gigalitre figure is too low.
The 2800-Gigalitre figure is the environmental figure for the entire Basin what SA is saying is that figure for the ENTIRE Basin should be closer to 4000-Gigalotres
SA’s average inflow since the Barrages, Locks, Weirs, Dams, etc were completed has been 6221-Gigalitres per annum counting our entitlement 1850-Gigalitres and dilution flow of 720-Gigilitres = 2570-Gigalitres so that 6221-Gigalitre less the 2570-Gigalitres. So out of non held inflow SA received 3651-Gigalitres (unregulated flow) we are not asking for that amount only what we are entitled to after the WSP are evoked each year.
I have never said you are my enemy, all I ask is we all understand the problems we are facing because of the 2007 Water Act and Federal and State Politicians who do not understand the MDB it’s about what is best for Australian.
peter,
those figures are not reliable or realistic.
They are attempting to create ‘averages’ and if nothing else our river systems have no respect for averages.
They also don’t recognise the impact of the drought….or for that matter the recent flooding.
Playing with long term averages and trying to regiment management plans on them will simply not work.
Our climate is way too unco operative.
That is the main reason we built all the regulatory systems in the first place.
If the system followed averages and was predictable…we wouldn’t have needed the regulatory systems.
The 2800 or the 4000 or any other figure are quite meaningless if we actually look at the way our climate and river systems really function. Those figures are totally meaningless this season.
I also repeat….same goes for the whole basin….it is not a unique problem for SA.
Hi Debbie,
Those figures may not be in your opinion be reliable or realistic but do recognise the drought and the recent flooding as they are the actual averages since the completion of the regulators and yes our climate is too un co-operative too really guarantee that will continue, so we will all have to live with ‘climate change’ but the optimum work is “live”.
Re, “The 2800 or the 4000 or any other figure are quite meaningless if we actually look at the way our climate and river systems really function. Those figures are totally meaningless this season” is wrong as we have to know where we have been before we work out where we are going.
RE, “I also repeat….same goes for the whole basin….it is not a unique problem for SA” yes I also realise that but I make the point some water must be set for Basin health, the entire Basin health and the Basin must be flushed regularly!
Oh deary me,
we are right back at the beginning.
Peter, no matter what those figures say, there is NO WAY that we can flush the system regularly in an extended drought.
Gee whiz, dont you get it?
The rest of the time, there really isn’t much of a problem. That does not mean we can’t improve.
Unless we face that very simple truth SA and the rest of us will suffer just as badly the next time our highly un cooperative climate and completely variable inflows decide to choose lean, low or drought.
There will be no water available for broad acre irrigation or those Lower Lakes.
SA will have critical supplies the same as always.
Seriously Peter, how about you stop mouthing impractical bureaucratic platitudes and pay attention to what’s really happening here.
Parochial politics (and that is every MDB state) and bi polar ‘environmental’ arguments will not EVER solve the real problem.
SHEESH!
Hi Debbie,
I know we can’t flush the system during times of drought!
The key is management and unless we up-grade the management of the MDB we will always be in trouble and I am sorry but I totally reject ‘broad acre’ irrigation.
Part of managing is setting up management to be able to get through ‘climate change’ in the Basin and still be productive.
Until the Federal Government the South Australian Government and the Murray Darling Basin Authority (including other MDB States) agree to an impact statement into the construction of Lock Zero the situation will remain as is, we must do the investigation into the Lock to ensure it is in the best interests of the Basin and the Basin’s management.
And Debbie stop critising as you are like so many others in the Basin above Lock 1 telling us below Lock 1 what is best for us!
Peter,
How can you totally reject ‘broad acre’ irrigation if you also claim that you support rice & cotton etc?
That is such an inflammatory and ignorant statement.
That would be like me saying ‘I totally reject permanent plantings because they demand water at all times even when there isn’t enough’.
Neither of those comments help….
Unfortunately your solution here :
‘but I make the point some water must be set for Basin health, the entire Basin health and the Basin must be flushed regularly!’
IS NOT A SOLUTION!!!!!!
It will only jam up the storages and deny access to traditional entitlement holders when they should be given access AND IT WILL NOT SAVE EITHER THE FARMERS OR THOSE LOWER LAKES THE NEXT TIME INFLOWS ARE LOW!!!!!!
Our current storages are not capable of doing both….it does not matter how many times people bleat about averages. Our current storages were not designed to assist flooding events and are therefore incapable of doing so.
I am not criticising….I am trying to explain that the problems you have below lock one are neither unique or more important than anywhere else.
I am also trying to say that SA does not hold the magic keys to basin health.
SA is just as guilty of altering the natural environment as everyone else.
We all hold some of those keys….but “NATURAL INFLOWS” and NATURAL TIDAL BEHAVIOUR” actually hold the most important keys….NOT THE STORGAES OR THE GOVERNMENT!!!!
Unless we are prepared to upgrade storages and management infrastructure….then we can’t solve the problem…..we are only attempting to justify robbing peter to pay paul.
Hi Debbie,
I reject the use of large quantities of water used for crops that are not by nature irrigated crops. I have supported the right of the owners of water licenses to use THEIR water as they wish but irrigating ‘broad acre’ crops is not the natural source of the water for those crops. Some areas are not really suitable for some crops so they should not be planted in the wrong places.
I have been critical of citrus being grown where the rainfall is not high as citrus fruit came from – originally – areas with 24 inches per year.
Re, “‘but I make the point some water must be set for Basin health, the entire Basin health and the Basin must be flushed regularly! I did not say that was a solution but I believe it is a must.
I beg to differ, “I am not criticising….I am trying to explain that the problems you have below lock one are neither unique or more important than anywhere else” our problem is unique as we are at the mouth which must expel what is so harmful, maybe we should be called the anus of the system, block up the anus and death follows!
I would prefer to say you are at the end of a huge drain. But if you want to use human anatomy as an image I guess that’s OK.
One question though.
Who are you claiming blocked up the anus?
My answer is that to some extent we all did BUT the barrages most definitely are a rather obvious blockage.
Your answer re broad acre irrigation and citrus or irrigation farming in general flies in the face of our proud history of development in inland Australia.
Yes there have been some mistakes made but in the big picture and overwhelmingly it has been very successful.
If we didn’t enhance our food producing capabilities with irrigation and in areas where there wasn’t naturally enough rainfall, there would be a lot of hungry people in the world. That is not a good option Peter.
Dont you think we should further encourage the successes and also fix up the mistakes?
Your arguments and the MDBP and that woeful Water Act 2007 are all advancing a ‘shut down’ ‘rob peter to pay paul’ and then just merrily ‘flush it’ argument.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “One question though. Who are you claiming blocked up the anus?” two answers you have the first one correct but the second one is lack of managed flow.
Re, “Your answer re broad acre irrigation and citrus or irrigation farming in general flies in the face of our proud history of development in inland Australia” we MUST ensure we plant the right crops etc in the right places, and yet it means a paradigm shift but for the best and for the future which could/will, ‘enhance our food producing capabilities’.
My argument re the 2007 Water Act it is a disaster and must be reviewed.
Hi Debbie,
Is this true: –
“Upstream states’ allocation of Murray Darling water grew to 5000 extra gigalitres a year in the three decades after South Australia capped its take. The revelation, in a new report, comes as the State Government calls for SA irrigators to be quarantined from losing any water under the new river rescue plan, expected within weeks. SA took just seven per cent of water diverted from the River Murray, while the upstream states took 93 per cent. SA capped its take from the river in 1968-69, while other states continued to allocate additional water. The river would be much healthier if the upstream states had treated it with similar respect.” The report, commissioned by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, analyses the impact of the original basin plan, released last year, on the community.
That plan recommended between 3000 and 7600GL of water be restored to the system, with a cut of up to 40 per cent of water used for irrigation in the Riverland, the plan was quickly withdrawn because of a huge backlash.
The report says that between 1970 and 2000, the total diversion from the basin jumped from 7500GL to 12,500GL, a 5000GL, or a 67 per cent increase. The report says there was “widespread frustration” in SA that the original basin rescue plan “gives no recognition to South Australia for such restraint”. The report also reveals that nine SA river towns would be highly vulnerable if irrigators were to lose water under a rescue plan. Those towns, including Renmark, Loxton, Waikerie and Berri, as well as towns in the Lower Murray, rely on irrigation and would struggle without diversified industries. Local farmers were described as “fragile”.
No Peter,
It is more statistical parochial clap trap.
Upstream has been capped for a long time as well and we have stayed within those caps. SA also has had its cap and its storage space in upstream dams changed several times since 1968. It also includes using ‘anticipated inflows’.
Along with SA farmers, we have also radically improved our irigation systems and farming methods….it is no different and we are just as vulnerable as SA farmers.
We have had this discussion before.
These figures are being manipulated by including pre cap data and also by accounting for excess inflows in a most peculiar manner that manages to leave out the fact that SA had access to those as well.
Yet another clever sleight of hand and highly parochial.
It is so very sad that this is happening….very very sad.
I also think it will end very sadly for SA…I sincerely wish you could reign in your new Premier.
He is re igniting old problems and re opening barely healed wounds.
That is not going to help….it really isn’t.
The MDBA will likely wipe their hands of the SA government if he keeps this up.
And just to let you know what your Premier and this news report has unearthed….here is a comment that has already appeared in this area….and hence in my inbox.
I just read that article. The new SA premier certainly knows how to make himself instantly popular with his voters. I hope you all have a big offensive planned. It’s extremely bizarre how South Australia is completely unwilling to look at its own behavior. Everyone’s fault but their’s. The barrages, the rivers and tributaries it has blocked, the amount of artesian water it’s using, the unproductive farms, the salt its irrigation areas are pushing into the Murray. Oh man! Irrigation saints down there!
This is not good Peter….particularly for SA.
Trying to pretend it is everyone else’s fault is very counter productive.
Hi Debbie,
I knew those comments would be wrong as it seems whatever is said by South Australian’s is always incorrect.
Re, “I just read that article. The new SA premier certainly knows how to make himself instantly popular with his voters. I hope you all have a big offensive planned. It’s extremely bizarre how South Australia is completely unwilling to look at its own behavior. Everyone’s fault but their’s. The barrages, the rivers and tributaries it has blocked, the amount of artesian water it’s using, the unproductive farms, the salt its irrigation areas are pushing into the Murray. Oh man! Irrigation saints down there!” it seems a bit strange but I am sure you can correct my problem, I certainly don’t blame everyone else, the Barrages were a joint venture Federal Government, MDB State Governments – the trade off for Mulwala and can you please tell me what, ‘the rivers and tributaries it has blocked’ we have blocked and re the GAB mining companies throughout the GAB are allowed to use to much at no cost and primary producers pay for water removed from the GAB accepting stock water.
I am really sorry but SA irrigators are the most efficient in the Basin!
Well unless you have suddenly morphed into the SA Premier and the SA government I didn’t say it was you.
There have been trade offs everywhere Peter….it is absolutely mind boggling how many there have been…all over the basin….almost always to the detriment of good honest family farmers.
I agree that you have efficient irrigators….But the MOST EFFICIENT? You don’t think that might be suffering from just a little bit of SA Parochial bias perhaps?
I think Australian Irrigation farmers are arguably the most successful, most efficient and most productive in the world….once again though…it’s not unique to SA.
BTW….that wasn’t my comment….I pasted it to show you what your Premier has already started to un earth. I didn’t say I either ageed or disagreed with what it said.
I would recommend however, that you analyse that new report before you start getting too noisy about it.
Can’t you lot tell your new premier that he needs to shut up with this line of argument?
He is re opening barely healed wounds and it wont be pretty….I’m not kidding.
Hi Debbie,
Yes I know, “There have been trade offs everywhere Peter” but the one I refer to was huge and if NSW & VIC wish to utilise Mulwala into the future, sorry we want to utilise Lakes Alexandrina & Albert!
Regarding our efficiency, we have had to be the most efficient in the Basin to just survive as we have not increased our irrigation since the cap was introduced except with purchased from interstate water.
I am going to a meeting Wednesday night where the Premier will be addressing the gathering and I shall endevour to speak to him – no promises.
Peter,
SA most defintely has efficient irrigation systems.
But, seriously you must be kidding me if you think SA has not increased irrigation since the 1970’s?
I think you need to check that one.
SA ‘s access to water has increased in a number of ways however I agree that the way it has been done has left SA too vulnerable.
Re the trade off for the barrages. Who do you think was the driver behind that? Check the history? If SA didn’t want those barrages it would not have happened.
Also, the development on the limestone coast and all the associated drainage works were most definitely a SA initiative.
I have never claimed everything is all SA ‘s fault but your premier and your Govt are refusing to recognise that SA also bears some responsibility.
I hope he listens to you.
Hi Debbie,
Before I tell you about the meeting last night I wish to point out a specific point in the article, “Good Advice from New York on the Murray Darling” which was total absolute crap, “The community at Murray Bridge is depressed because you can’t generate enough economic activity there to sustain it. An objective point of view, but also an heretical one” as today at Murray Bridge is the opening of the new $9-Million shopping centre.
Well about last night it was a normal community meeting with its normal amount of blah, blah but also many good points which I have to check. I did speak to the Premier about the legal threat which he admitted could be taken the wrong way and is not in any way to be seen as a given.
Re, ‘The Barrages’ they will stay when first mentioned in the 1890’s (prior to Federation) they were seen as a good idea and still are but need upgrading. The South East Drains proposal is being worked on and we should get an answer soon.
Up-date to follow!
Hi Debbie,
I made a mistake in my last post the correct figure for the Murray Bridge development was not $9-Million but $90-Million so re, “The community at Murray Bridge is depressed because you can’t generate enough economic activity there to sustain it” so it really was crap!
Peter,
I think several of us pointed out that there were some errors in this article.
The major points she was making were none the less valid. Most of the research was OK as well. It is an opinion piece and does not pretend to be otherwise.
I would also add that much of what your premier has said in the last fortnight is fraught with errors as well.
Remember….the major argument being advanced is we have to rob Peter to pay Paul.
SA (as in the SA Govt, not you) also blames upstream for all its water woes.
The barrages definitely seemed like a good idea at the time….can’t argue with that.
History has proved that they may not have been such a good idea as was originally thought.
Upgrading them may help….I hope so.
I would campaign for upgrading and increased storage across the entire basin….you also need an extra lock/weir in SA don’t you?
Some more storage would also be a good idea for SA.