is for you to sign the petition here: http://petitions.listentous.org.au/detail/index/pid/17
RIVERS NEED ESTUARIES CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED
Biologist Dr Jennifer Marohasy has launched the Australian Environment Foundation, AEF, campaign’Rivers Need Estuaries’ to have the current Murray Darling Basin Authority draft plan completely revised to prioritise restoring the Murray River estuary.
Dr Marohasy announced that the campaign’s petition would call on the federal parliament to recognise the estuary should be restored by re-engineering or removing the 7.6 kilometres of barrages, in part or whole, to allow inflows from the Southern Ocean.
The AEF maintains that restoring the estuary through removal of the barrages should be the priority of the basin plan as it would allow for savings of hundreds of gigalitres of water during times of drought, water currently wasted attempting to maintain artificial levels of freshwater in the Lower Lakes during the last drought.
Over 800 gigalitres (equal to 800,000 Olympic swimming pools) evaporates from the Lower Lakes each year.
“Communities are being asked to give up further large amounts of water to prop up this badly managed Lower Lakes system that has been degraded by the barrages since they were completed in 1941.
“The current MDBA draft plan fails to address this fundamental issue.”
The peer-reviewed scientific literature, unlike many recent government reports, recognises that the barrages have destroyed the estuary.
The campaign has the support of communities across the basin as they face further cuts to water allocations without any specific environmental benefits so far articulated in the draft plan.
The Rivers Need Estuaries campaign petition to be tabled in the House of Representatives details the major objectives of the campaign.
This petition of concerned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:
Despite past dire predictions, the Murray Darling Basin has not been lost to salt or drought. However, upstream water storages are not large enough to keep the Lower Lakes supplied with adequate freshwater during protracted drought. Furthermore, the 7.6 kilometres of concrete barrages that created this artificial freshwater system have destroyed the Coorong-Murray River estuary.
The petitioners request that the Australian parliament recognise that:
1. Restoring the Coorong-Murray River estuary must be a priority in any Murray Darling Basin Plan.
2. The estuary should be restored by re-engineering or removing the barrages in part or whole to allow inflows from the Southern Ocean.
3. Adelaide’s water supply can be secured by building a lock downstream from Tailem Bend.
THEREFORE – We petition the members of the House to act to restore the natural estuarine environment of the Lower Lakes and Coorong.
Sign the petition here: http://petitions.listentous.org.au/detail/index/pid/17
’cause it’s all I want for Christmas.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Is it apprporiate for non-Australians to sign this?
I find it surprising that a country that prides itself on strong environmental action is letting an estuary be degraded and compromised this badly. Estuaries are some of the more important environmental niches in the biosphere worldwide.
Not to go off topic, but i believe this sort of poor decision making is enhanced by the cliamte obsession: AGW wastes a good amount of effort that would otherwise be available for actual enviornmental concerns and wastes them on CO2.
The immense impacts of hydrological modifications are rarely appreciated by the Public. I wish you luck with your efforts. I am fighting for a wonderful estuary in the US (Barnegat Bay) that is being held hostage to climate and the new nitrogen cascade narrative. The estuary’s real problems are hydraulic modifications that have altered the tidal prism, tidal range and the loss of its keystone specie- the eastern oyster- due to disease and over harvest. (None of these unlock the funding floodgates however. The average TN entering this Bay is less than 0.5mg/l! yet NGOs and the regulatory agencies claim N is killing the Bay. Of course the answer to saving the Bay is to stop fossil fuels, development and change agriculture practices and not the correction of the hydrologic modifications or restore its keystone specie)
I have been rewarded with being labeled an anti-envrionmental shill for my efforts. (How far we have fallen as a science) Australia seems to have the most sensible handle on N and eutrophication– protect it from the emerging “Nitrogen Cascade”- the new CO2.
They are already trotting out nitrogen footprints in the US.
Alas hunter this blog is dedicated to environmental action being misguided.
It’s quite interesting to ponder that normally this blog would sing the praises of an artificially created environment. Rice paddies, cotton fields and their associated irrigation infrastructure and so on. We’d be be informed what a great variety of new life they support. And of course we’d be prepared that they would occasionally dry to dust during droughts – bye byes biota.
If it were a new irrigation dam on the Fitzroy I’d bet that any considerations of the existing riverine environment would be howled down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzroy_River_(Western_Australia)
So why are the lower lakes any different? Don’t we normally applaud man’s triumph over nature with large chunks of concrete? Bugger the natural biota – who cares?
I don’t know of any other irrigation area in Australia that keeps calling for the removal and destruction of vast, essential, irrigation areas so that it can prevail yet refuses to examine its own problems.
It should either put up with the way things are or do something about itself.
Happy to sign, Jen.
Dear Luke
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
I regularly visit this site and often see your comments. I am always reminded of the old saying ‘There is none so blind as he who will not see’.
Best wishes
Max
Patrick, good luck with that. We also suffer from algal blooms in our bays and estuaries but our smaller population probably makes it look better than it is.
An extended La Nina providing better than average stream flow has helped too.
But surely Spanglers if we’re having a “RIVERS NEED ESTUARIES CAMPAIGN” we’d be including the worst environmental river – the Derwent – where else do we have warning about not eating shellfish and limiting your heavy metal dose from eating fish.
But of course the Derwent would support all sorts of industrial including historic contamination from paper manufacturing.
Surely we’d be interested in other seriously polluted Aussie estuaries? But it’s not about the environment at all is it? Just the dollars. Bugger the biota.
Well picked Luke,
It is also largely the point of this petition.
The difference is that many of us know that it is entirely possible to do both: increase water storage AND be environmentally responsible.
Just because water is moved around does not mean we have irreparably damaged our ephemeral native species. They have wings and legs and seeds and they can fly and swim and float and when it is done properly THEY can and do follow where the water goes. In many ways they are far more adaptable than we are.
However, some mistakes have been made & they desperately need fixing. You are correct that SA is one of many. The SA issue is rather urgent for many of us. The bi polar nature of the arguments emanating from SA issue are part of that problem.
Completely natural is not necessarily best. You seem to always miss the fact that mankind is capable of expanding and enhancing the environment & that the native species are completely fine with it. You should see what is happening this season. An absolute explosion of nature right beside an absolute explosion in production.
That could also happen in SA.
Luke, were you one of the bureaucrats responsible for “fixing” nitrogen in the Moreton basin?
Burying all the native grasses with exotic legumes?
What a “green” solution.
If someone would like to adopt me I would be happy to sign this petition!! ;>)
It’s just about irrigators and dollars. We never hear about other estuaries. Environment baloney. But that’s OK – let’s just be honest.
I disagree Luke,
It is about the Commonwealth Govt wanting to take control of water management and the water storages….they’re using the environment as their excuse….so ‘Environment baloney’ is at least correct.
I wish it was just about irrigation and dollars….at least it would have made some sort of ecomomic sense and common sense. Despite the incessant bleatings otherwise, irrigators are actually quite experienced at managing water and their environment….way more experienced than the Commonwealth Govt.
I would also add that most of the other estuaries in Australia….although some have also been settled by communities….have not been quite so seriously interefered with as this one….and they also don’t incessantly blame someone else for their own errors.
As far as river environments go however, I have to agree that there are many which are in far worse shape than the Murray….Tim Flannery’s property happens to be situated on one of them 🙂
You have also highlighted the Derwent.
It does beg a rather obvious question about the ‘politics’ don’t you think?
Oh no! Sorry guys; Derwent estuary comparison in not on despite years of official neglect and tinkering with the flow. Now feast on this –
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=fate+of+the+derwent+river&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=zLjyTri9LrCaiQe7wNShAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CFAQsAQ&biw=1170&bih=800
Why not do the Mekong etc? Btw I drove round the lower Murray lakes for a while through satellite images before making my post last night on the other thread. That eerie green liquid is so stagnant !
Motty’s got a system worked out for the Coorong:
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/12/has-it-worked
For those interested, R Derwent pollution studies should begin with reference to the former long term manufacturers Australian Newsprint Mills and Electrolytic Zinc. ANM & EZ
http://www.collegesonline.tased.edu.au/water/i2.html
Tasmania’s development of cheap hydro electric power also influenced the estuary when Great Lake water was diverted from Waddamana Power Station on the Derwent to Poatina in the north. Numerous references via TIA
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/809.html#3218
So what’s your point Gavin?
Who is arguing that we don’t interfere with estuaries?
What would you suggest?
Luke said
And of course we’d be prepared that they would occasionally dry to dust during droughts – bye byes biota.
yes Luke but as always you fail to mention the other side, that is, that irrigators only use excess water and in times of drought those areas would “dry to dust – bye byes biota. ” as you put it, anyway.
I would like a feel for extrra costs and benefits – and not by comparison with some long gone pristine scenario but with the present. My nit pick of the year would be to note that the gigalitre/ Olympic pool comparison is crook what is wrong with Syd Harbs – it is just a scale and choice depends whether the hope is to show it is either a lot or a little. If you want a billion dollars pa to sound less terrifying, you just note it is a only a dollar a week for every Aussie and they would spill that much. So 800 gigalitres would be enough for an Olympic pool full for every 10 Australians.
Remember the discovery of the pristine Darling river by Sturt and Hume also led them to record that it was too salty for man or beast to drink.
Sturt also found that the pristine Murray mouth blocked his boats passage to the sea, so Luke’s fantasy of natural is better for our modern human lifestyle is just another fantasy.
Yes we should have more storages in the top end of the river to help conserve our modern lifestyle and a natural estaury at the bottom end to help reinforce that lifestyle as well.
I’m very happy to sign the petition.
Of course in severe droughts in past natural Murray Darling history the rivers dried up to a series of stagnant pools, but we’ve recently experienced many long years of drought and the Murray continued to flow thanks to our large artificial storages.
The salt levels were much better during those long drought years as well, so another win win for our modern lifestyle and continued food production.
Another storage suggestion for the River Murray :-
The Burra Lakes
Allocating 1,200 GL a year to evaporate from the Southern Lakes is an absurd waste of fresh water when salt water would be just as effective at keeping the Murray Mouth open. I also think some of the water allocated for evaporation could be stored elsewhere in S.A. to deliver a large scale reliable water supply, something we haven’t had for many years ( an expansion in water storage capacity I mean).
The Burra lakes ( Apoinga lagoon, Porter lagoon ) south of Burra together can hold around 3,000 GL of water in deep bodies of water. Apoinga lagoon has a surface area of around 50 sq.km and an average depth of around 30 metres. This means that it contains 1,500 GL ( about the same volume as the Southern Lakes ). Evaporation from the South Lakes is around 1.3 metres per annum and given their surface area is 860 sq. km gives the 1,300 GL evaporation Tim Flannery mentioned.
By contrast, Apoinga lagoon with its much smaller surface are would result in only 50 x 1.3 = 65 GL year. This is a tiny amount of water lost to evaporation. It also means that if the lake was filled to capacity in a wet year ( like the current year ) it could be held in reserve for about ten years an by itself could supply Adelaide with the 100 GL that it draws from the Murray several times over.
The only obstacle is the need to build a dam and provide pumping from Morgan up to Apoinga Lagoon. Guess what – the Morgan/Whyalla pipeline runs about 5 km to its north! If we can use the abundant wind resources in the area to drive the pumping for near zero running cost, then the water moved the 50 km from the Murray will not be so valuable that it is too expensive to use again. After all, the pumps already in use from the Murray to Adelaide’s catchment reservoirs seem to do the job economically.
Better still, from the Burra Lakes, water can flow in three directions :
1. Easterly back to the River Murray by existing small creek and channels
2. South-Westerly towards Gawler and thence to our northern suburbs
3. North- Westlery into the Broughton River through Crystal Brook and south of Port Pirie.
And so there are multiple useful options for handling the situation when there is too much water in the system.
Bazza,
Regarding your nitpick about gigalitres and olympic swimming pools.I think it’s more important to express what it will do than how big it is.In other words if a gigalitre produces enough to feed 1,000 people then 4,000 gigs taken out of production could be enough to starve 4,000,000 people.
It is time for the MDBA to calculate the humanitarian footprint of the water buy back.
Hi Dave, Interesting statistics and very meaningful. What crop and regions is this based on? What food crops and could you please provide the links or book references?
Merry Christmas Jen and thanks for another informative article. However I need to correct your comparison of mega litres or giga litres to olympic swimming pools, it is a common mistaken comparison used by the greens to scare the public by falsly claiming that 1 megalitre is equal to one olympic pool. This is not case as an Olympic size pool 50m long, 25 m wide and a minimum of 2 m deep eg a minimum of 2.5 mega litres. See wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic-size_swimming_pool
As a litre is about the size of a milk carton people have great difficulty imagining what 800 billion of them look like. Perhaps a better comparison is to in cubic kilometers most people could visual what a kilometre looks like and then imagin a cube 1 km long, by 1 km wide and 1 km high. Thus you could say the system looses to evaporation 0.8 cubic kilometers each year.
Hopefully we will all have a happy new year when the Government ‘Listens to Us’ and not green pressure groups
Denis,
The true figure for how many people fed (or fed and clothed for that matter) per gigalitre extracted for irrigation is something I’d like to know.My concern is that this aspect is not being looked at.Ron Pike and Jennifer have previously posted estimates of how many millions of meals of rice per day are produced in the Riverina.It is a suprisingly big number from memory,especially when the wheat crop grown on the subsoil moisture in the year following the rice crop is added.Even the much denigrated (by Greenies) cotton crop is a signifigant contributor to food production with a ton or more of vuluable oilseed per acre.
A credible figure for how many people are fed and clothed courtesy of the renewable resource of Murray Darling water is needed to properly inform this debate.