IT is assumed in the draft Murray Darling Basin Plan that the more water in the Murray River and in particular the more water moving down the river to South Australia, the healthier the environment. But what’s the philosophical basis for such an assumption?
As I wrote in my column for The Land newspaper this week:
If the current water reform process is truly about giving back to the environment, then we should be thinking back to a period before rivers and creeks became constricted by sheets of water running off compacted soils, before swamps were diverted, before river de-snagging and before the blasting of rock bars for paddle steamers.
As historian Bill Gammage notes in The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia, back in the dreamtime shallow streams and overflows flushed more of Australia, filling billabongs, swamps and holes, and recharging springs and soaks.
That was a time when the health of a landscape was measured less by how much water was in a river, and more by how many kangaroos it could support.
In 1901 James Cotton, a Cobar pioneer, wrote that before the district was stocked with sheep and cattle it was covered with a heavy growth of natural grasses and that the ground was soft, spongy and very absorbent.
Overstocking was a problem throughout the Murray Darling Basin particularly during the late 1800s resulting in significant land and water degradation. Overstocking transformed soils in many districts from soft and spongy to hard clay that, instead of absorbing water, caused the rain to run off in sheets as fast as it fell – to again paraphrase Mr Cotton.
In the past one hundred years there has been a gradual improvement in land management. Stocking rates have fallen, some native grasses are returning and there has been a move to minimum tillage conservation farming practices. This has resulted in a general improvement in soil structure.
The ground may not be as soft, spongy and very absorbent as it once was, but there is no doubt that when the rain now falls on the Murray Darling, much less water runs off into adjacent rivers and streams than it did one hundred years ago. This must have implications for the amount of water flowing to South Australia.
Indeed a truly healthier Murray Darling Basin would mean less water for South Australia.
******
My entire column can be read on page 9 of The Land – in newsagents now.
Bill Gammage, The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia. Allen & Unwin, 2011. I got my copy from Dymock’s in Sydney for $49.99; and bought another as a Christmas present.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen,
This recent rain is very interesting WRT runoff and down stream.
I have never seen so much rain (approx 250mm since 23rd Nov) and so little runoff. In this our dams filled very slowly. An extreme example is one which only last night got enough runoff to get from the silt tank into the main dam, and won’t be at capacity without more rainfall.
We’ve seen three minor floods in the creek in that time.
I’ve got some of that healthy, carbon sequestering soil that requires 10 inches of rain to fill my dam. Got 4 inches recently and the dam rose barely 6 inches.
Drives me bonkers.☺
SD,
Might be time to dig a little hole up from the dam. Might be a nice little stream down there now.
Ian, I’m sure you are right. I’d be better off with a well than a dam.
Utilise those underground waterfalls.
I’d lose the birds, frogs and the waterlillies though.
But combining the two sounds a good idea.
Julia Gillard promised 1 million Adelaide voters more water in the greatest Socialist wealth shift in Australia’s history from the Riverina + Northern Victoria to Australia’s driest state South Australia.
The MDBA cooked the figures so the Darling part of the Murray Darling would only lose a small fraction of irrigation water and the burden would be on the Riverina and Northern Victoria.
If there was not 1 million urban voters at the end of the Murray River in South Australia, there would be no Murray Darling Basin Authority – this is just a political stitch up which has no remorse in destroying 150 year old Riverina + Northern Victoria river communities to prop up some marginal Adelaide politicians from both the major political parties – SHAME
Can someone give me an example of some names of some of the agitation groups in favor of this so that I might do a little research? I believe I might be able to find some interesting connections. What I am looking for is the names of various “grass roots” organizations that are in support of the madness.
The South Australian Liberal Party. Diane Bell. Jamie Briggs. Alexander Downer. Dean Brown. Kym McHugh.
The Australian Conservation Foundation.
Definitely the ACF
Sarah Hanson Young
Peter R Smith OAM
Jay Weatherill.
Hi Peter from Hay,
The shame is people like you who have no understanding of the River Murray and SA’s reliance on its life giving waters while in your area open channel irrigation is inefficient.
Hi Dennis, you forgot to mane me, shame, please ring me when you get a chance, sorry I did not catch up with you yesterday.
Hi George, I am Peter R. Smith OAM my web address is http://www.psmithersmyriver.com and on that site are my contacts feel free to continue on this blog site or you can contact me at anytime to discuss this issue. I don’t know if the Premier Jay Weatherill or Sarah Hanson-Young will speak to you but I am sure Arlene Buchan-Harriss from the Australian Conservation Foundation will be only too happy to converse with you.
I thank Debbie for putting forward my name and George please feel free to contact me.
Just interesting to note that SA has been a much wetter state over the last 50 years than the previous half century.
You’ll note that the recent drought was nothing like as bad as previous droughts. The worst recorded rainfall deficit shows under average rainfall for seventeen years, certainly a terrible drought indeed.
Of course all of this was entirely natural.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=sa&season=0112&ave_yr=15
Hi George,
http://hurrysavethemurray.com/
http://hurrysavethemurray.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/rlcag-submission-mdba-windsor.pdf
“River Lakes and Coorong Action Group”
One way to inoculate the public to this nonsense is through education of how they are being manipulated. Here is one example:
http://www.fenton.com/FENTON_IndustryGuide_NowHearThis.pdf
This is one of their “playbooks” for advocacy communications.
They have now opened offices in Sydney and Melbourne. A UK outfit called Futerra is a similar organization.
One thing they have been involved in:
So basically everything people hear about those “170 funded projects” in Australia have the message “managed” by Fenton.
OT but might be of interest:
Recent article by statistician Grant Foster Tamino
Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf
it’s absolute nonsense!
If Peter from Hay had bothered to do some home work before shooting his mouth on a political rant off like he has he may fnid some unpalatable facts
What about researching were the highest gross value agricultural product is made …that is… where is the most wealth generated per mL of water used.
According to figures produced in 2001 the worst outcome was from flood irigators in NSW and Victoria who could only produce $300 worth of agricultural product per ML of water…with cotton and rice not far behind ….and the best were vegetable producers at $1800 per ML, and fruit at $1500 per ML.
Now map these figures against the areas in the MDB where these outcomes are produced, and then on top of that, map the way they use the water ..ie do they have covered channels and have they installed salt mitigation faciltites. For Victoria and NSW the answer is mostly no
When you do that, one finds that SA hasnt as profligate and non productive as you think.
…and BTW spare me tthe crap about letting water go into the lower lakes where it evaporates when up stream people flood irrigate to achieve the same thing… humungous evaporation levels.
Oh dear minister,
you have fallen for that ‘snapshot in time’ argument.
The greatest strength of the MDB is actually its diversity.
Check those 2001 figs against the current figs.
You also need to remember that return per ML while valid, is only part of the story.
There is no point in growing fruit and veg if there is no market. That would return a negative per ML. There is also no point in growing fruit and veg if the climate and soil types are not suitable.
I think your evaporation stance also needs a re look.
Water always evaporates. It even evaporates from you. It is part of its natural cycle.
What’s wrong with growing food and fibre while water evaporates?
Think about that one.
You do realise don’t you that the owners of these farms and water entitlements are actually highly capable of making sensible business decisions? They would be long gone if that wasn’t the case.
Your argument here is very narrow and demonstrates a very poor knowledge of the real economic drivers in the irrigation industry. Neither does it recognise the variability of water supply and the market place.
I live in a highly productive irrigation area (MIA ) where a huge range of irrigation practices are pursued. The figs you quote are valid for 2001 they are completely invalid for 2011. The local permanent citrus growers would laugh at you.
Hi Minister for Truth,
I suggest that you spend your summer holidays in the MIA , or at Hillston , or around Cobram ,or Shepparton. They are always short of enthusiastic fruit pickers. Just remember ,no low value milk in your coffee and make sure that the low value grain in your bread wasn’t sowed in ground pre-watered by a low value rice crop.
You can eat the licorice from here though, cause that’ll be high value, I am sure that 60,000,000 people who eat our rice would survive better on licorice and grapes, with chillies on the side.
More to the point, many irrigation pathways utilise pre-existing streams , God forgot to cover them and the wildlife appreciate this greatly.
AND the Murray seems to always be full of water ,( I cross it a lot ). As a healthy Australian inland river ,this should not be so. If SA get their way ,it will need to be almost constantly at minor flood level.
Even now ,around January February, water is pushed down the Mulwala Canal and Edward River to bypass the Barmah Choke and Echuca thereby getting enough water to SA.
One of the grand plans involves a canal ,or such to directly bypass the choke and get enough water to SA.
Ah, what a beautiful, natural river .
It risks becoming a semi-sterile channel,with waterlogged banks.
Of course if the trading of water was completely open, then it would economically gravitate to the areas where a farmer/producer can generate the highest value crops per ML…up to the point where there isnt an over supply for local and export uses.
If the requirements of 60m people to eat our rice are such that they are prepared to pay a price that makes it a high value/ml of water usage, then so be it…but thats not the case is it?
I dont see the point in exporting our water via the low priced commodities we produce..when there are better uses for that water here in Oz…and not just environmental uses.
I most certainly dont see the point in damaging the MDB environmentally, just to feed 60m rice eaters over seas…and the profits form that exercise going over seas as well.Thats an national excercise in terminal stupidity
Hi Neville,
Re, “Just interesting to note that SA has been a much wetter state over the last 50 years than the previous half century” the average flow into SA in the last 60-years was 6221-Gigalitres.
Re, “You’ll note that the recent drought was nothing like as bad as previous droughts” whilst I am not saying you are wrong but during the Federation drought the River Murray was empty, my relations (now deceased) told me how in 1945 they walked across the River Murray between the bridges at Murray Bridge. It is nearly impossible as after that drought the Locks and Barrages were constructed, the Barrages being a trade off for the construction of Mulwala.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “There is also no point in growing fruit and veg if the climate and soil types are not suitable” I hear you but it does happen.
Hi Ian,
Re, “If SA gets their way, it will need to be almost constantly at minor flood level” wrong just ensure, as much as possible, as much water is keep in the Rivers, below Lock 1 there is no need to let the River over the banks into floodplains and backwaters. Below Lock 1there is too much lost in areas that don’t need to be inundated, it is about wetting and keeping damp and this can be done by better management, or another flow restrictor below Murray Bridge.
Re, “Even now, around January February, water is pushed down the Mulwala Canal and Edward River to bypass the Barmah Choke and Echuca thereby getting enough water to SA’ the enough could be less with better management but the levels above Lock 1 are being held at the same level as when paddle steamers plied there trade and there is no need for that.
Re, “It risks becoming a semi-sterile channel, with waterlogged banks” it’s all about management.
Hi Minister for Truth,
The low value rice (not true) is grown using the water which once inundated the areas where it is grown. Now stored upstream.
Pushing that water to ‘high value ‘ SA is not feasible .
The shocking lack of understanding of how the MD system works is amazing. Or should I say worked before it was regulated.
Find Booroorban on a map – in one of the early flood years a farmer returning form Melbourne could not get past the Murray. He took a train to Narrandera, bought a horse and rode it home.
There was a sea of water from Deniliquin North to there. A paddle steamer was stranded , on what is now dairy country, near Picola – when the water went down. And NO, that water did not go to SA.
That is the water we now use and don’t dread.
Peter,
It is the management of the amount of water being requested that is a problem.
Are you aware that major tourist developments at Deniliquin and Tocumwal have been put on hold, not because we are to lose irrigation, but because the rivers are expected to be permanently over the beaches and too dangerous for recreation. I am not exaggerating .
During the period I mentioned before ,the canal and the Edward shift more water than the Murray.
The Murray already being at capacity.
Please ask for a nice big multimillion dollar pipeline from the North Coast.
You often mention the lock levels as a factor in all this. That is not a supply problem, it is a management one and the easy management option is take more from here and fill them all up.
May not make sense , but may just happen.
Oh dear Minister,
Now you’ve fallen for the ‘free water trade’ argument.
That assumes that water can just merrily flow wherever it’s needed for it’s higher value (so called) output and all will be happily ever after.
I think you need to educate yourself on isues such as storage capacities, delivery constraints, delivery losses, private property rights, public infrastructure like roads and bridges, who pays for expensive permanent infrastructure and a whole host of other practical and logistic details that combine to enable the DELIVERY of productive water to what ever agricultural enterprise can produce a return in whatever area. Remember your 2001 figures are not relevant in 2011…the fruit and veg growers would guffaw at you.
When you’ve eductaed yourself on these very important issues….and then factor in the absolute variability of the system as Ian has highlighted here…THEN and ONLY THEN can you factor in the REAL COSTS of doing what you think sounds so economically sensible.
You may find once again that your argument is missing some extremely important variables that are actually all about variability.
I understand that on paper and in the modelling what you are arguing here appears to be perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately it assumes that there is nothing that would restrict the easy movement or redistribution of water. Unfortunately that all works on ‘long term averages’ and the MDB system has never ever had respect for long term averages.
MDB irrigation enterprises and market drivers also have never had respect for long term averages.
The reason for the long term success is actually its diversity and adaptability.
Everyone and everything suffered in the drought….but plenty have managed to survive it…..albiet rather bruised and battered:-)
The arguments you are favouring want to shut that diversity and adaptability down.
Is that really a good idea?
The arguments you are favouring assume that a centralised bureaucracy can control the system better than even nature can….that is an extra ordinary conceit don’t you think?
BTW Minister,
In the interests of further opening your eyes to this problem might I also direct you to this article?
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201112/s3385678.htm
This article can also lead you to the CEWH (Commonwealth environmental Water Holder) discussion paper which clearly indicates that there will be nothing “FREE” about the water trade/ market…because they are now the largest entitlement holder and they have already manipulated the water market in the oddest ways imaginable. 🙂
Peter from Hay, the reason the Darling can’t deliver much to the Murray is because it never has. Buying water for the Murray in the northern basin is uneconomic due to the losses incurred, in excess of 80% in most cases. To deliver a ML of water from the Macquarie, gwydir or Condamine- Balonne river systems to the Barrages will cost up to 20x that of buying Murrumbidgee water as a combination of water value, reliability and conveyance losses.
That’s absolutely correct Rojo,
So therefore…
The point of the MDBP is?
Peter may have understated the value of the water due to conveyance etc….but instead of looking at that….what is his main point?
We have a political problem here and many are trying to argue that it isn’t a political problem it is an ‘environmental problem’ and we therefore have to redistribute the water for ‘the environment’.
Which environment would that be do you think?
Here’s a hint from your own very correct point in your post.
Buying water for the Murray in the northern basin is uneconomic due to the losses incurred, in excess of 80% in most cases.
They can even use long term averages and economic modelling that completely ignore your very valid point to further claim that water needs to be re distributed…..to where?????
Can you see the classic irony in these arguments?
George has spotted it….I’m guessing you may have spotted it too?
“You may find once again that your argument is missing some extremely important variables that are actually all about variability”
Debbie,
Variability of supply and all the other factors you refer to, should show up in the price that is paid/ml by the buyer …as is the normal practice.
You seem to be suggesting that the market doesnt determine the price…if so then fails the important caveat I made.
Ian Thomson,
“The low value rice (not true) is grown using the water which once inundated the areas where it is grown. Now stored upstream. Pushing that water to ‘high value ‘ SA is not feasible”
Are you saying that in the pas,t before the rice fields intervened, not one drop of water that fell in those fields had ever caused more water to appear in NSW…Vic…and then SA. If so, what evidence do you have for that claim.?
Oh dear Minister,
Now you are using rhetoric to try and twist what very practical minded people who actually live and work in the MDB and have generational knowledge of its vagrancies, are trying to patiently explain to you.
What SHOULD happen and what DOES happen and what is PLANNED to happen are all chasms apart from each other.
Of course the curent market value SHOULD determine the price.
Your argument however is using figures that have been outdated by 10 YEARS and have no relevance to current market values.
When water is scarce (as it was during the drought) and permanent planters, towns and cities, stock and domestic users had to pay those inflated prices….there was virtually no broad acre irrigation…. for 2 important reasons
1) there was no volume GS water available and
2) there was no return for the price water was selling and broad acre irrigators didn’t need to buy it because their crops are annual.
Despite what you seem to be arguing, they actually do make their decisions based on the current market….they always have and they always will. If they didn’t they would be long gone.
What’s more, they have unlimited choices about the crops they will grow….unlike the permanent plantings and permanent stock enterprises that you seem to favour as ‘high value’.
When the market works against them…they have no choice and they can lose big time.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that BTW….I was just pointing out the flaw in your argument when it gets tested against REAL data not the modelled data sets you are using.
When the seasons run like they are now…the ROI on water for broad acre irrigation is perfectly fine. The broad acre irigators are actually having a better season than those supposed ‘high value’ crops from 2001 that you are fond of quoting.
As I said before….the fruit and vegie growers from here (MIA) would be laughing at you.
As I said before it is diversity and variability that is the strength….not ‘snapshot in time’ value judgements or ‘long term averages’.
Your last refutation of Ian’s argument looks to be all about SA and how much water gets to SA.
Is that what you think is the important driver?
Ian tried to explain something else entirely…he also gave you evidence….it was first hand experience, generational knowledge and primary source historical evidence.
Is there something wrong with that type of evidence?
Peter I don’t see the point you are trying to make? The Federation drought wasn’t in the 1945 period you mention but a few years either side of 1900.
Did you look at the BOM rainfall graph of SA for which I provided a link? The period from 1922 to 1938 had rainfall every year below average or 17 years in a row. That’s an incredibly dry period and a vicious drought for SA.
My Grandparents and Father walked across the Murray a number of times in the years before the big storages were built.
Watch out Neville,
Minister for Truth will ask you if you have any evidence for that claim 🙂
Hi Ian,
Re, “Pushing that water to ‘high value ‘SA is not feasible” do you mean letting that water FLOW INTO to ‘high value ‘SA, DON’T WE DESERVE THAT ‘HIGH VALUE’ WATER ARE OUR NEEDS ‘LOW VALUE?’ BE CAREFUL!
Re, “The shocking lack of understanding of how the MD system works is amazing. Or should I say worked before it was regulated” I think you mean over-regulated, and if you are referring to me, no printable comment!
Yes, I understand the tourism problem/perceptions.
Re, “Please ask for a nice big multimillion dollar pipeline from the North Coast” I think you may find the construction costs would be massive so therefore the cost of the water prohibitive.
Ian, I agree most problems are management problems.
Hi Minister for Truth,
I have read that article and many others and, “CEWH” with Penny Wong’s (a South Australian we have disowned) help certainly have manipulated the market!
Hi Rojo,
Your right and for a change I agree with Debbie!
Hi Debbie,
I agree we at this time do not have an environmental problem but re, “Which environment would that be do you think?” but the answer to that question is the environment of the entire Basin when needed.
Hi Minister for truth,
The problem circumstances and the CEWH create willing sellers meaning stranded assets.
Hi Neville,
A slip of the finger sorry, 1915.
Debbie
The figures I used were all I could get my hands on in the time available.
If there is more recent data then sure that would be nice but it doesnt invalidate my basic principal that the water available for irrigation etc should be used for its highest value product.
Of course no amount of water is going to make all land areas equally productive with same products and that it is a horses for courses thing …but inside that there are many options available as you yourself discuss.
And I am not talking about the variations in ROI between years because of other market based factors etc and yes I do acknowledge variability and diversity within.
The prinicpal remains namely if water was allowed to be freely traded it will migrate to those regions and products that produce the highest value.
I hope that if the Fed Govt does sell water back into the MDB producers that it is sold at public auction to the highest bidder.
SA btw needs to look after itself but it would seem to me that they have done everything right .Reduced their damand on the water, put in salt mitigation schemes in the riverland years ago, covered the supply ditches and produced high value GAP/ml…whilst suffering the same vagaries that you go on about.
I also dont have any issue with Neville I am a fan of his writings ..so your silly attempt at sarcasm fell short..
There is a sound ecological reason for allowing a river that has natural dry cycles to draw down: It is vital in order to maintain the drought adaptation of the species on that waterway. If a waterway naturally goes dry or nearly so, then it is best to maintain those cycles because the species that inhabit that area are adapted to it and it is required to select out the less drought adapted specimens of that species. They must maintain that adaptation. If you do not do that and allow abnormally high or abnormally consistent flows of water, they will loose that adaptation and if for some reason you have an extremely severe drought that prevents those flows from being maintained, the result will be much worse. It does not do those species any favor in the long term (both plant and animal species, by the way) to artificially maintain unnatural flows. You can not take a mean water flow, for example, and attempt to maintain the flow at the mean. You are doing damage to that waterway ecosystem if you try to do that.
Don’t “save” those species to death. They are evolved for drought stress and if you want to maintain that ability to survive drought, you must allow things to dry out a bit from time to time (and it is probably best done on a somewhat irregular basis, too).
Peter,
I do mean pushing the water. IT DID NOT FLOW and has to be forced down the river.
That is my point . HOW THE HELL are you blokes going to get your wishing water down the river ? Without the Mulwala Canal ,you would not get it now.
It is always full now and apparently it is ‘stressed’
The water went to dry lakes and floodplains , not SA. People live on these floodplains.
Minister for Truth ,
Go to the Deniliquin public library and find the ‘Flood History’ put together by some ( I think ) schoolkids.
It has clippings from one of Australia’s oldest newspapers , the Pastoral Times.
Bugger me, the silly buggers made it all up a hundred years ago, cause it isn’t on a computer model.
Go for a drive, mate. I did today , crossed the Edward, Billabong Creek, Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Willandra and countless creeks in between -including the river/lake north of Wanganella at Black Swamp , which has not been evident for decades and will NEVER flow into the MD.
The problem minister is you have made assunptions that imply that generational farming enterprises in the MDB do not understand the market value of their crops or their water.
That demonstrates you have no practical knowledge to back up what you have assumed and you have used outdated data that does not reflect the current situation.
I am a ricegrower a wheat grower an oat grower a canola grower a sheep farmer a barley grower and a corn grower. Depending on the season and water availability we make our decisions. Some of my friends and neighbours grow cotton and citrus and vegetables and grapes and nuts and hay crops and the list goes on and on and on. They too make market based decisions. Your arguments with 10 year old value judgements are truly ridiculous. People pushing the redistribution of water argument are using those same ridiculous value judgements. They are based on unrealistic ‘snapshot’ economic modelling.
You do not understand the MDB if you assume that 10 year old data would still apply today.
SA is not the only place that has put in salt mitigation schemes years ago.
NO Salt. . . NONE has made its way back to the rivers from the MIA for many many years. NONE! ! !
Once again you appear to be relying on information that is outdated and therefore not related to the current situation.
I apologise for my sarcasm but you did ask Ian for evidence when he had already supplied it. Neville had supplied similar evidence albiet primary source historical evidence of crippling drought in the MDB, not the flood evidence that Ian was supplying.
It is after all the land of drought and flooding rains.
Re CEWH. Did you notice the irony in their pisition?
Also, do you honestly believe a bureaucracy in Canberra will be able to successfully run that program?
Hi George,
That is the point exactly we have changed the River’s ability by keeping the pool level so high in many places and now after so long a drought much of the re growth, especially Redgums, are now drowning, have we learnt nothing?
Yes, “Don’t “save” those species to death” a great comment referring to the lower River Murray!
Hi Ian,
I take your point but is it nit about management?
Its time I went for a long drive from my home in Mannum again, I will do so as soon as possible.
Hi Debbie,
Regarding salinity if we in SA managed our River properly allowing water into back waters and flood plains with proper management we could raise and lower pool levels to over a period of years get rid on a great deal of the salinity that accumulates in those areas and also cut back on the breeding of European Carp.
Re, “Also, do you honestly believe a bureaucracy in Canberra will be able to successfully run that program?” I don’t know anyone who believes that can happen!
Peter,
I think you need to read George’s comment again.
I don’t think you will be quite so ready to agree with his conclusions.
Ian also has pointed out that SA’s ‘environmental water’ claims are not substantiated.
They are agreeing with this particular post of Jennifer’s that says a natural healthy system would mean less water for SA….not more.
My point is, and I will use what has happened where I live as an example, various “environmentalists” demand that river flows be maintained year-round at “mean” levels without any thought to the natural cycle of those flows. So we now have farms that can not get water allocations from reservoirs because courts have ruled that flows must be maintained on these rivers in a period of the year when some of them had very little or no flow at all before the reservoirs were built.
For example we might have a river that gets a lot of mountain snow runoff in the spring. The natural cycle was for tremendous spring floods. Then we go into a period of about five months without any rain at all. Precipitation during that period averages pretty close to zero. Without any dams or reservoirs the river would draw down to either no flow at all, or a few spring-fed pools here and there with a relative trickle of water running through it. In other words, they go from a torrent in spring to being able to wade across them in summer.
So now we construct dams for flood control so we do not have massive destruction of property and life during the worst of the floods. The water held by these reservoirs was allocated to farmers in various irrigation districts and agriculture flourished. Now come some “enviro” “activists” who demand that the water be let down the river in the summer months to “maintain” habitat because the summer dry season causes a loss of fish in the river. A judge somewhere agrees and so now we have a situation where water is captured in the wet season, and is then released over the dry season maintaining unusually high water flows for that time of year in order to “save” species from experiencing what they had experienced naturally for millions of years.
At the same time, the farmers’ water allocations are cut so that water in the reservoir may now be flushed to sea.
Basically many of the the fish migrate as the water levels drop. Also, species of drought-tolerant annual plants sprout on the dry riverbeds and banks providing a unique ecosystem for migratory birds that come through that time of year. Now the river has unusually high flow year-round. The fish migrate because over time those that DIDN’T migrate died and those with a propensity to migrate survived. As a result, the character of the species was to migrate. Now with high flows year round, sure, there are more fish, but if we should get a drought so long that these flows can’t be maintained and the rivers drew down to their natural dry season flow, the fish kill will be a lot WORSE than it was before. Also, those annual species that populated the dry river banks and beds do not grow. The birds must now change their migratory pattern and go someplace else.
What I am saying is that these “environmentalists” often do more harm than good. They get so interested in “saving” things that they don’t also realize that death and changes of habitat to very harsh conditions is a NECESSARY process to maintain the adaptation of species to that environment. You don’t want more fish if in the process you are changing the nature of those fish.
It is my personal opinion that the flows on these rivers should be fairly close to what they would naturally be. So in the dry season when there is no precipitation, the dam should NOT be releasing water to maintain flow to any higher rate than would normally be seen there in the normal dry season (which would be little to none in this case). The water held behind the dam should then be used for agricultural purposes in order to draw it down to accept the next rainy season’s excess. At no time should water ever be released down that river to mitigate river flows for extended drought. If the dam was not there, the river would still experience that extended drought and that is the way it should be. In a period of extended drought (which we can and have had for nearly a decade at a time) it might well be that both the river flow AND the farmers will have to suffer because there simply isn’t enough water. But what would that river flow be in a period of such drought if the dam wasn’t there? It would probably be dried up so there is no sense sending water down that river to create an unnaturally high flow.
Then comes the problem of when to use a mean and when to use a median. In places where the precipitation history can be punctuated with years of extremely high precipitation levels, the mean can be abnormally high compared to the median. Means are fine for estimating catchment capacity because a reservoir is going to, over a period of time, see the collection of the mean water flow. But for purposes of agricultural allocation and river flow maintenance, the mean should be used for planning. Using a mean means that you will overestimate annual flows most of the time. If you attempt to maintain flows at mean levels, you will most of the time send too much water down that river and over-allocate to agriculture because the mean is greatly impacted by a few years of unusually high rainfall. In other words, in most years you will run short of water. If you use the median to set expectations, then you are just as likely to have more rainfall than less. For example, for one place in Queensland in the 1950’s the mean rainfall during a wet period was 782mm and the median was 713mm with standard deviation of 273mm from the mean. This means that “normal” is anything between 1055mm and 508mm! That is quite a spread. It also means that rainfall would have been below expectation 7 years using the mean but only 4 years using the median.
The point is that when river flows are managed by politicians and judges lobbied by “activists” the result is likely to be bad for the farmers AND for the rivers (though probably very beneficial for the “activists”). Environmental “activists” are generally engaged in a marketing campaign. I don’t doubt their sincerity but I believe they are more emotionally driven than science driven. Yes, rivers DO dry up in places that experience severe drought and just because you have some water in reserve behind a dam doesn’t mean that you are doing that ecosystem any favor by releasing that water during a drought. That ecosystem is meant to experience that drought and it evolved to what it is today through that experience. Mitigating the drought means you are changing the nature of that ecosystem, you are not “helping” it, you are possibly damaging it over the long run.
So in that case, you are better to give that water to agriculture and not attempt to artificially “save” the river species. They have evolved experiencing both flood and drought and severe die off of those species is natural selection pressure to kill off the weaker, less adapted lines and ensure the species stays well-adapted to that sort of event by selecting out all but the most drought tolerant specimens.
“But for purposes of agricultural allocation and river flow maintenance, the mean should be used for planning.”
That should be “median” not “mean”
Means (averages) only make sense where there is storage capacity to hold a “mean” amount over years. Means make no sense for allocation to agriculture because a farmer generally can not store water year to year. Medians make better sense in that case because the farmer can more reliably receive their full expected allocation each year and it causes less disruption of that industry. Falling short of water can be a disaster and result in the loss of a crop so if expectations can be set more accurately, then there is less chance of losing a crop.
We also know that climate varies on natural cycles. We have things such as ENSO that when they dominate negative, we get a dominate precipitation pattern in one direction and when the cycle is dominate in the other direction we get the opposite precipitation pattern. I have a hunch that the median precipitation during ENSO positive, ENSO negative, and ENSO neutral years are different. So by knowing where we are in that cycle, we can more accurately set allocation and river flow levels to more accurately match natural cyclical climate variations and again provide advance notice to agriculture of what their water allocations are going to look like over the next few years so they can plan accordingly. If they are told that we are about to move from a dry cycle to a wet cycle and that their allocations for the next 20 years or so are likely to change, they can make adjustments so they make the best economic decision based on conditions and continue to be productive and profitable when conditions change.
In other words, it probably makes no sense to maintain rivers at “mean” flow levels set during an ENSO negative period when we go to ENSO positive conditions. The flows should be adjusted. When we go into long dry periods, the flows should be decreased by an amount commensurate with the amount of precipitation actually received. In no case should we artificially increase river flows to “help” it during a dry year by diverting water from agriculture. That does NOT “help” that ecosystem in any way and, in fact, likely damages it. In dry years, the river should go dry.
Hi George,
Re, “My point is, and I will use what has happened where I live as an example, various “environmentalists” demand that river flows be maintained year-round at “mean” levels without any thought to the natural cycle of those flows’ we have changed the natural flows so much it would be nearly impossible to reverse what has been done without lowering the pool levels dramatically.
Re, “What I am saying is that these “environmentalists” often do more harm than good” yes 100%.
Re, “It is my personal opinion that the flows on these rivers should be fairly close to what they would naturally be” if only especially below lock1. Maintain a pool level that doesn’t spread into backwaters and floodplains therefore keeping the water IN the River.
Well, there probably is some sense in allowing a river to flow out of its banks when the rainfall of that year would have seen it flood anyway but moderated to some extent as to not make it so destructive. Flooding is also a required event to maintain the ecosystem through aquifer recharge, rinsing salts from soils, mixing up of sediments to redistribute nutrients, etc. But again, if there would not have been adequate rainfall some year to flood the area naturally, you are not doing it any service by flooding it artificially. What ends up happening is that you create an artificial ecosystem that over time increasingly diverges from the natural one and eventually REQUIRES that constant management because the ecosystem has adapted to the management!
I believe that nature and agriculture can live together. I also believe that politicians and courts of law are not the best people to set that management policy. Nor do I believe that “environmental activists” are the best advocates for the environment, they tend to be very good advocates for collecting donations and grants and are very good at making careers for themselves. The notion is that you create the notion in the minds of the general public that there is some crisis and then use their natural desire to help in order to direct cash where you want it to go. In the end, environmental activism is more about cash than it is about the environment.
George,
Thankyou for expanding on what you have observed and discovered.
As a resident of the MDB and also as the wife of a 4th generation irrigator I can absolutely agree that nature and agriculture can live together. Farmers and nature have been learning from and adapting to each other since the first sod of earth was turned for agricultural purposes.
We have sometimes made mistakes, but in the big picture, the development of inland Australia has been a success story for both rural development and the environment.
I have been living and working in the MIA for over 30 years and I have NEVER seen anything like what is happening now.
Native flora and fauna that we have been told by the environmental activists (or as you point out, the environmental cash activists) are endangered and some of them we were told have gone forever….are here in plague proportions.
Could that possibly mean that our native flora and fauna actually knew something that our environmental activists didn’t?
Maybe that’s why they seemed to disappear and why they are now back in spectacular fashion?
Maybe they know that the natural wetland environment in the MDB is actually ephemeral and they have adapted to that eons ago?
You seem to have very cleverly spotted the anomoly that the ‘environmental activists’ are now facing. It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the notion in the minds of the general public that there is some terrible crisis in the making.
The only place where they are getting much traction at the moment is SA.
Our natural ephemeral environment has just proved in a spectacular manner that it is no more the ‘environmental activists’ friend than it is anyone else’s.
In fact the Australian climate has just proved how bloody uncooperative it has always been.
It is just flatly refusing to match up to those incredibly expensive projective models….and CEWH are starting to look quite silly because they have all this water that is jamming up the storages and supply networks and they have no idea what to do with it!
Even SA….despite all their bleating…..don’t want it at the moment.
They just want it kept in the dams….just in case they might need it later.
I think maybe SA needs to start campaigning for some ‘just in case’ storages and stop pretending that the rest of us have created an environmental disaster for them.
I think maybe SA needs to start campaigning for some ‘just in case’ storages.
Completely out of left field and never going to happen, but why not dredge, deepen either
one or both lakes?
Times like this they could have been filled easily.
At a depths of 20 + M far more storage, the water stays cool and less evaporation.
Mark A,
There are soooo many ways that SA could have more of that ‘just in case’ water.
I actually agree that they need some more secure access.
Your idea here is definitely another good one.
However, they first need to stop bleating about their so called ‘environmental disaster’ that they are claiming was caused by the rest of us….and therefore the rest of us have to give them more…..just in case they might need it.
They need to come clean and admit they have outstripped their development aspirations.
Actually…that’s what we all need to do!
Then we might be able to move on and get it sorted before we are all faced with the next inevitable dry spell.
Under current storage and infrastructure capacities…..next time we are faced with a prolonged drought….those lakes will still be unprotected….that’s because the recent drought has just taught us that there isn’t enough storage available to supply all critical needs, permanent plantings, stock and domestic … AND…. SA’s fresh water environment 🙂
There was barely enough to keep the rivers running.
Jamming up the dams with ‘just in case’ water in seasons like we are having now will not change that problem…it will only interfere with our ability to produce in the irrigation areas….nothing else.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “The only place where they are getting much traction at the moment is SA” once again it is always SA’s fault.
Re, “I think maybe SA needs to start campaigning for some ‘just in case’ storages and stop pretending that the rest of us have created an environmental disaster for them” once again it is always SA’s fault.
Hi Mark,
Re, “Completely out of left field and never going to happen, but why not dredge, deepen either one or both lakes?” we (in SA) could seek to have the Menindee Lakes dredged but know it is not possible without massive damage to the water table.
RE, “At a depths of 20 + M far more storage, the water stays cool and less evaporation” refer to the above!
But Peter,
I actually agree you need more water…..I just don’t like the way your state is going about it.
Every time someone comes up with a perfectly workable solution….you disagree…or claim it is ‘impossible’.
It appears the only action you’re in favour of is to jam up the current storages and current supply networks with water for SA…just in case SA might need it?
When people like me try to point out that could result in endangering the viability of upstream communities…. your reply is basically…so what?….SA has suffered so you need to suffer too.
You then justify those comments by saying it is a ‘whole of basin approach’ ?
Of course the Menindee Lakes also need to be looked at….why would you use that as an excuse to have a SA hissy fit?
It is another glaring anomoly in this stupid parochial political nonsense.
You also need to qualify your comment about ‘massive damage to the water table’. It sounds suspiciously like an ACF unsubstantiated comment.
You are aware aren’t you that water engineers know how to work with water tables? We are long past making those sort of errors when we reconfigure storage options.
Did you read the article that exposed the ACF’s 90% of wetlands in the MDB that I referred you to in the last post?
Hi Debbie,
I am sorry but dredging Lake Alexandrina has been put forward many times before and it is no brainer for many reasons one huge problem is acid sulphate soils that have to be covered by water and for the best results fresh water and if that soil was dredged where could the spoil be put? As I said I am sorry it is not feasible it’s a bit like persons telling us we should be piping water from the Ord, cost approximately $65-Billion and the water would need to dell for about $20 plus per kilolitre!
When the Federal and State Governments agree to dredge Menindee Lakes I will put pressure on those same Governments to begin dredging Lake Alexandrina, OK?
No problem with the water table is that as the bottom of Lake Alexandrina lowers it would then reach the water table which is already saline, I am certainly not pushing the ACF barrow, though I have some good friends who work of the ACF but we agree to disagree!
Re, that reading not yet.
There is some negativity here that is disturbing.
Problems always, always have solutions, some are impractical and costly at first glance
but upon closer examination other better solutions can be found.
Other nations build land from the dredging of the sea bed, we bicker about not real, not even potential but imagined hazards.
Absolutely amazing.
With attitudes like some have, if mirrored by the relevant authorities, there never will be a negotiated agreement, never!
Hi Debbie,
The problem is that these people are not about “solving” problems. There is nothing to be gained from solving things because it puts them out of a job. The idea is the perpetual “management” of the problem. Now just exactly what problem were they trying to solve with the river? If you build a dam, allow it to fill up part of the way with some allowance for catching a flood rain, then you release amounts of water commensurate with the amount of precipitation received so that the river has some resemblance of flows experienced before the dam was built and divert the excess to agriculture, everything is fine.
The problem comes in when they attempt to create wet weather flows in dry times. If you get five years with little rain, yes the river is going to draw down. That doesn’t mean you have to cut off flows to ag except in the most dire of circumstances and in those times the river should be dry anyway. In fact, it might be worthwhile to create set aside a certain amount of the catchment that can only be used for agriculture and may not be diverted for flow maintenance. The notion here being that if you are tempted to get into that agricultural water, in you didn’t have the dam, the river would probably be dry at that point anyway. Let it go dry.
Australia is different from where I live but we do have some things in common. The Western US is basically mostly desert and the water availability can vary by a large amount from one year to the next. It is also my experience in life that periods of extremely dry weather are often immediately followed by unusually wet periods.
Yes, these ecosystems have experienced extreme drought but the native species find ways of dealing surviving in. The area where I live is experiencing over the past few hundred years one of its wettest periods in the past 10,000 but our policy makers have come to regard this period as somehow “normal”. If you go 30 meters down into some lakes in the Sierra Nevada you will find trees that were growing on the shoreline of that lake 1000 years ago. Lake Tahoe lake level was below its natural outlet for centuries at a time. If we were to experience today what is actually the “normal” precipitation pattern for the past few thousand years, our political leaders would call it a “crisis” and probably attempt to blame it on “climate change”. Of course they would be correct, because climate changes all the time and there’s nothing they can do about that for any amount of money. But that “megadrought” would be perfectly normal for our ecosystem and our forests would survive it. There are giant Sequoia trees that have lived through several such episodes and so did the salmon and the trout even though the rivers ran completely dry from time to time.
“Environmentalists” are often to an ecosystem what “cat ladies” are to animals (do you have “cat ladies” in Australia, the ones who hoard a large number of cats in order to “take care of them” but end up doing them more harm than good?). They don’t do it to “save” the environment. The environment has been getting along fine for millions of years before they arrived through larger droughts and floods than they can possibly imagine. They do it to make themselves feel better or to use the environment as a mechanism for central economic control.
George
What you are saying is so self evident and sensible there should be no contrary argument.
If only it had been followed from the day the first dams were built, we wouldn’t have these futile arguments.
Capture excess water, use it for our purposes and when it’s gone wait for more!
But no, we had to use it to alter the flow of rivers, water otherwise dry wetlands,
create artificial situations that eventually become “normal”, what insane outcome.
Truly insane!
We also need to realise they weren’t built or desogned to do what they’re trying to do with them.
If they want to alter flows, water otherwise dry wetlands, create artificial situations etc…..Then maybe they should build some more storage and infrastructure to do that?
That way…the ones we have currently can do what they were designed to do 🙂
Ok, so tell me. Is there some resort area or some politically connected developer at the end of the river that needs that flow in order to operate some sort of business or land development down there? Happens all the time here in the US. Some major politically connected developer has plans for a project and one of the main marketing points of the project is this wonderful nearby river and he doesn’t want it drying up into marsh as then it might smell a little funny and make it hard to sell those homes. So he dumps several thousand dollars or maybe tens of thousands of dollars into some green PR outfit to start banging the drums to get more water to flow down that river. When he gets the assurance that the river will be kept flowing, the value of that land he just bought when the river was a swamp just increased 10 fold and he makes millions.
I don’t know how Australian politics work, but I might have a look at any recent land transfers in the area and see if some politically connected so-and-so has recently been buying up land.
Yep,
Google: Hindmarsh Island 🙂
http://www.southaustralia.com/info.aspx?id=9002612
Add these two with Mannum Waters approved during the drought.
http://www.mannumwaters.com.au/
http://www.wellingtonmarina.com.au/
Hi Mark,
I am sorry but it is not an attitude problem it is a problem that according to independent scientists and engineers is not possible.
As I said we have a massive acid sulphate soils problem in the Lower River Murray!
Hi George,
Stick to talking about the States as you don’t know the Murray Darling Basin or my area in South Austral. Read as much Murray darling Basin History that you can find and read the MDB Authority plan and maybe then you can comment!
Hi Mark,
Re, “Capture excess water, use it for our purposes and when it’s gone wait for more!” well now we know why George was talking out of his hat, it is in America!
Hi Debbie,
Re, “If they want to alter flows, water otherwise dry wetlands, create artificial situations etc…..Then maybe they should build some more storage and infrastructure to do that?” I suppose you are talking about SA again why
Don’t you stop the SA bashing?
Hi George,
That may happen in the good old USA and maybe it happens here but this is not the case.
Hi Debbie,
As for you, are you accusing the Hindmarsh Island developers of dishonesty because if you are be careful as I know many people who live on Hindmarsh Island and the developers and as far as water is concerned they only want water and if freshwater were not available they would happily accept sea water and for that I have had many unpleasant discussions with some of those people but we are still friends. Don’t malign anybody unless you have proof!
Hmmm. Americans seem to be leading the way in re-visiting aging 1930’s concrete dams and dismantling them to improve ‘river health’.
http://www.nps.gov/olym/naturescience/elwha-ecosystem-restoration.htm
George. I enjoyed reading your recap very much.
Check out the website http://www.lakesneedwater.org and the blog for historical stories from this time frame.
Hi, Susan
I think the problems that Australia faces is much like we face in the Western part of the US. We have a rather unique situation here compared to the rest of our country and they don’t understand how water could be such a major issue.
Yes we are removing some dams here in the States but most of those were for hydro power and were built the better part of a century ago. Many have gone into disrepair or have silted up behind the dam and are of little use. In those cases the government is paying to have them removed and the habitat restored. In fact, I am quite a fan of moving populations back from rivers that have a flood history and would just as soon remove a hydro dam and replace it with a nuclear plant. Allowing room for rivers to spread out, lose their energy, and drop their silt can reduce flood damage, improve soils for agriculture and recharge shallow aquifers. There ARE ways to work with nature rather than against her. But in areas such as Australia and the Western US where precipitation can vary tremendously, we do have an opportunity to catch excess water so to limit damage downstream and use that as an agricultural resource. I’m not really a fan of the hydropower dams to be quite honest as they are now being used more for revenue generation. The government knows they can make money selling power, they currently need money, so they keep the flows through the turbines going to generate cash and the result is an abnormally high river flow in the dry season and less water available for agriculture. It seems every decision they make is intentionally designed to cause maximum economic damage to the people and to benefit the government. They have even gone so far as to stage “mock floods” in dry years in order to stir up sediments on the riverbed in order to mimic floods. As a result the lake is drawn down and agricultural allocations are cut. Well, floods don’t happen naturally EVERY year. Why not wait until a wet year to stage your “mock flood” when the river would naturally be in flood anyway? It’s this sort of nonsense that drives me batty and I see that it isn’t only in the States where people don’t seem to think straight sometimes.
When they stage one of these “floods” it is in all the papers and on the television and probably gets them votes from millions of city dwellers that offset the few thousand farmers whose votes the lost. You have people that can’t tell a bean field from barley deciding the livelihoods of families that have been on these farms for a century or more. I think we have a lot of common ground. These policies get a lot of support in the urban areas where people have no idea where their food comes from.
We can catch excess water and use that for agriculture but taking it from farmers and using it to create an artificial perpetual river where the environment is is adapted for ephemeral wetlands is criminal. What’s next? Knocking down a mountain range? Completely destroying a natural environment in order to “improve it” crazy but I see it done all the time. We have salt evaporation ponds that are being returned to marsh but it takes 15 departments and 1000 people to “manage” that transition. It’s just crazy.
I’ll go quiet on this subject now as I don’t really have anything to add on the subject of the Murray itself.
Peter
“accusing the Hindmarsh Island developers of dishonesty”
Nobody is accusing anyone of dishonesty, but are you trying to say that developers do not have commercial interest?
“be careful as I know many people who live on Hindmarsh Island ”
Is that supposed to be a threat?
I live in Australia and my Email address is genuine. Not hiding behind a proxy!
Farmers and developers all have commercial interest in water management, sometimes those interest do not clash, most of the time they do. Does not mean they are dishonest.
Have you ever been a politician Peter?
You seem to have the double talk, obfuscation, avoiding the questions, mastered extremely well.
And no, I don’t mean it as a compliment.
Thanks George,
I enjoyed your input too.
You are right, it is a very similar situation, right down to those press releases that claim those city votes.
The hydro power conundrum has also caused us heartache. Jen posted several articles on this last Dec and into this year at this blog.
I hope we see further posts from you.
A different perspective with similar issues is much appreciated.
Hi George,
Along the western side of the US though, you will not find a single estuary that has a dam cutting through it. In fact a dam that controls over 90% of the original estuary.
It would be like damming up San Francisco harbour so you could farm in the Delta.
Or maybe damming up Tomales Bay so you could have a couple of dairy farms and canal housing estates.
These ‘Lakes’ here only average 2.9 metres…10 feet deep. A ‘dam’ freshwater’ source, basically for farming, on the coast.???
South Australians have a beautiful coastline, one that can be protected and enhanced by the restoration of their estuaries. Only people, like Peter, have to learn what they are missing out on. What they currently have with a freshwater, artificial ‘lake’ is just a fraction of the beauty they could have if the ‘Lakes’ were restored to their former estuarine nature.
Correct, we do not have such a barrier here in the Western US but they are considering them for the East in order to generate power. As the tide flows in and out, they would generate some tiny amount of power that would not be worth the damage it does to the fish. It seems they think these things up just for the sake of doing them without any thought to the longer term consequences. In your case it was apparently done in order to create fresh water lakes but I can’t believe they intended for those lakes to be full all the time considering the meteorological history of the region. They must have known that they would get periods of severe drought. What I am hearing in this case is that they want to divert water from productive use in one area in order to enhance the esthetics of another area. Mad.
Here in the US the farmers are simply quitting the occupation. Government regulations are driving all but the industrial scale farming operations out of business. They were even attempting to regulate the dust one could generate plowing a field until our Congress intervened last week. 30% of our farmers are past retirement age and the average age of the American farmer is 58 years old. They are quitting the business in droves. I wonder what those greenies will think when they can’t get their cream in their latte because we’re all out of milk and all out of soy.
In SA the Lower Lakes are so shallow as to not be any use to generate tidal wave power, unless new technology comes along. And the tidal range is very small since the lakes are really part of a gulf.
However, the West coast of USA has its salmon, but Australia has its Mulloway. A fish angler’s prize, and yummy to boot. Mulloway used to come into the ‘Lakes’, they need an estuary to complete the life cycle, but since the barrages block all the sea flows, they don’t anymore.
Reports clearly show that the barrages have totally wiped out the commercial catch of mulloway, or ‘butterfish’ as it’s called in SA. It’s documented by ‘the science’.
You can only catch mulloway in the Coorong (the remnant estuary) and the off coastal areas. But mulloway used to be caught by the 100’s of tonnes in the Lower Lakes. Just a return of recreational fishing for mulloway would justify the change from freshwater lakes to estuarine in a flash.
Some information here: http://www.lakesneedwater.org/facts/mulloway-in-the-lower-lakes-and-coorong
What is extremely ironic is that it is the farmers of the Lower Lakes, parading around in environmental clothing, demanding water for the environment, who are winning the battle for water.
All one has to do is to call their bluff, and say, ‘okay it goes out the Murray mouth, you just can’t use it’ and this silly debate would be over.
It’s farmers vs. farmers, north vs. south, and the environment is caught in the middle with a historical twist.
Hi Susan,
It’s good to have you back and once again knocking SA again it always gives a better picture when people’s phobias emerge!
Hi George,
To start with do you know and understand the Murray Darling Basin and Lakes Alexandrina, Albert and the Coorong? Oh yes you’re in the USA. I am not asking you to butt out as I enjoy uneducated comment.
We are not going to remove restrictions and certainly not going to opt for nuclear power plants.
From the headwaters of OUR Murray Darling Basin there is (accept in the Great Divide at the head waters of the River Murray) no hydro generation as, in case you didn’t know the fall right from the headwaters the fall is I believe about 1-mm per kilometre.
Moving people back from the Rivers, Ha Ha?
We need to keep our River Murray within the banks moving as rapidly to transport the 2-tonnes of salinity through to flush into the sea and I can assure you salinity, “improve soils for agriculture and recharge shallow aquifers”.
Re, “an abnormally high river flow in the dry season and less water available for agriculture” our River in many places is held, ‘abnormally high’ which is a management issue changing seasonal flow!
“Mock flood” another load of crap!
Re, “I’ll go quiet on this subject now as I don’t really have anything to add on the subject of the Murray itself” yes but go quiet because you don’t know our system.
And George the River Murray NEVER runs dry because of storage and over regulation but I am thankful for that.
Hi Mark A,
I AM not accusing anyone of being dishonest and no I don’t threaten but don’t like insinuations aimed at those who are part of the Hindmarsh Island development.
I am not accusing you of anything and I certainly don’t know your email address but if you wish to contact me go to my web site http://www.psmithersmyriver.com
Re, “Have you ever been a politician Peter?” yes and no but only at Local Government level.
Hi Debbie,
You would appreciate George’s input as even though he doesn’t understand the MDB but agrees with your thoughts
Hi Susan,
Our Lakes, Alexandrina and Albert are not very deep but like Menindee Lakes which are both man-made but just SA bashing is not helping.
Re, “A ‘dam’ freshwater’ source, basically for farming, on the coast” crap, what about water for human consumption and stock look at the amount taken from the River below Lock 1 that keeps this State alive.
And yes, “South Australians have a beautiful coastline, one that can be protected and enhanced by the restoration of their estuaries” and I have fished most of it including near the Rivers’ mouth but the Government is stuffing up some places with desalination plants.
Never, “estuarine nature” but tidal.
When are people like you going to stop bothering about fish and there is 36 licensed fisher persons work in and around the Lakes and they all seem very happy with their lot also good Mulloway fishing in Salt Creek.
The web site you advertise is just about removing the Barrages, a no brainer!
Re, “What is extremely ironic is that it is the farmers of the Lower Lakes, parading around in environmental clothing, demanding water for the environment, who are winning the battle for water.
All one has to do is to call their bluff, and say, ‘okay it goes out the Murray mouth, you just can’t use it’ and this silly debate would be over.
It’s farmers vs. farmers, north vs. south, and the environment is caught in the middle with a historical twist” what a joke you are sounding like.
Peter R Smith,
Just had a look at Jennifer’s May 24th,2006 post, Fudging Figures on Murray river Salinity:More Shame on CSIRO.
The claims you make about flushing and river salinity seem to be somewhat exagerated and self serving.Wouldn’t it be better to make all the environmental improvements that can be made without taking water out of production? There are seven billion of us on the planet and one billion are malnourished.Production for human need has greater moral virtue than sending fresh water to the sea,don’t you think ?
Good grief Peter!
You are seriously ranting here.
Most people at this site are just looking for ‘common sense’ solutions.
We recognise that the environment must be cared for but many of us seriously question why water must be taken away from production in order to achieve that goal.
I believe that we can achieve 100% positive outcomes if we only had the political will to do so.
I know you don’t think so….but the arguments you continue to advance are negative and are all about a mindset that wants to ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’.
Every time someone comes up with a solution related to extra storage or reconfiguring available storages….(which to me is the obvious thing we need to fix if we’re claiming we’re short of water)…..you immediately carry on with arguments that claim that they are IMPOSSIBLE….usually based on ACF type alarmist environmentalism…..and always, always. always with an SA needs more and deserves more xenophobic attitude.
Peter…..ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE IF WE ARE PREPARED TO APPROACH THESE PROBLEMS WITH A WIN/WIN MINDSET.
The solutions you favour seems to want to make everyone suffer like you perceived SA suffered. You seem to think that SA was the only state that truly suffered during the drought.
That is so not the case….and I’m very tired of you saying so.
SA keeps whining and whinging and when sensible people try to offer solutions SA still keeps whining and whinging and only wants to consider more fresh water for SA by removing it from upstream production…..that’s THE ONLY SOLUTION….as far as you seem to argue.
How about you stop trying to throw water (excuse the pun) over every other possible constructive solution and start trying to have an open mind?????
At the moment….in my view….you are wanting to be part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
Hello, Peter, always a pleasure.
Now I never commented on the Murray specifically, my comments were of a more general nature of the stupidity of using averages to allocate flows and the stupidity of (and damage done by) attempting to create artificial river flows. I have to assume that things like mathematics and statistics work the same in the Murray river basin as someplace else, but maybe they don’t and that is why things are done differently there; because the math works differently there.
I never implied you should, I was stating a personal preference of mine not shared by many even here. A modern plant such as those the Chinese are building along with the recycling of spent fuel into new fuel eliminates the waste disposal problem and the proliferation issue because it “poisons” the reprocessed fuel with P-240 which is fine for fuel but poison for a weapon. It also allows the conversion of natural uranium into fuel without having to move highly enriched U-235 around. The Chinese are also using them for water desalinization. They are going to be years ahead of everyone else in being able to provide reliable, cheap electricity to a huge population without relying on foreign sources of energy and may someday be a net exporter of coal once they get their nuclear electrification project far enough along.
I neither said nor meant to imply that it did. What I did mean to say was that if you have a dry year, just because you might have water in storage doesn’t mean it should be used to maintain river flows artificially. If the river flow would naturally drop if the water were not stored, it should also be allowed to drop and the stored water left alone and used for its originally intended purpose
What I find interesting in all of this is that you seem to engage in a rather common tactic of attacking the messenger when you don’t like the message. My comments were on a general approach to management of water in a more generic sense and not specifically the Murray.
The general notion being that stored flood control water should not be used to artificially regulate river flows because doing so is destructive to that environment. That would apply to any river on the planet. And just because a condition is new in the context of the duration of human population in the area doesn’t mean that it is a “new” or “unprecedented” event over geological time. The point is that these ecosystems experience prolonged drought at times and it is absolutely vital to maintaining the unique adaptations of that ecosystem that they do experience those periods of drought. If you attempt to mitigate that drought, you cause a change in the adaptive selection of those species and begin to change their nature. What were the populations of salt tolerant flora in those lakes before the barrages were built and what has replaced it? I am willing to bet that the plant life around those lakes completely changed once it went from brackish to fresh.
That holds just as true in the Murray river basin as it does in the Salinas river basin or the Merced river basin or the Sacramento delta.
I agree that removing the barrages and managing the river flows to something resembling natural flows would probably be better for the river, but it may not be better for the people and that is something they have to decide. But generally it tends to boil down to which constituency on the issue has the most votes and the most money. That also tends to work the same pretty much everywhere.
Hi Dave,
The figures are correct and re, “Wouldn’t it be better to make all the environmental improvements that can be made without taking water out of production?” yes if that were possible!
Re, “There are seven billion of us on the planet and one billion are malnourished. Production for human need has greater moral virtue than sending fresh water to the sea, don’t you think?” not if the damage to the Murray Darling Basin created is irreparable!
Hi Debbie,
It’s always good to hear from you Debbie even if I don’t agree your posts are always entertaining.
Re, “Storages” I do not and have never relied on the ACF to be my guide as I do not always agree with them even though I know many who work for the ACF and as I have said many times I do not believe there is anywhere in SA we could construct a worthwhile storage.
Re, “The solutions you favour seems to want to make everyone suffer like you perceived SA suffered. You seem to think that SA was the only state that truly suffered during the drought. That is so not the case….and I’m very tired of you saying so” and I’m tired of listening to you saying so and I don’t really care what you say the most disadvantaged area in the Basin during the decade of drought was downstream of Lock 1 and especially Lake Albert which is still experiencing an EC level over 5,000.
Debbie, come of it, “SA keeps whining and whinging and when sensible people try to offer solutions SA still keeps whining and whinging and only wants to consider more fresh water for SA by removing it from upstream production…..that’s THE ONLY SOLUTION….as far as you seem to argue” who are these sensible people and what extensive knowledge do they have of the Lower River Murray?
Re, How about you stop trying to throw water (excuse the pun) over every other possible constructive solution and start trying to have an open mind” remind me again what, “possible constructive solution. At the moment….in my view….you are wanting to be part of the problem instead of part of the solution”.
I have as well as driven for nearly four hours driving spent five hours discussing the problems in Lake Albert and then seeking support for a major upgrade of the Barrages. My time my money and there is nothing in this for me but I CARE!
Peter,
‘If that were possible’ is just another way to say ‘impossible’.
This is just another negative rant.
There is nothing I can respond to because you are not interested in solutions. You are only interested in claiming there is only one solution.
You also dont care if that solution spells disaster for my area. I care way more about what happens in your patch than you care about mine. So do all the others who have tried to offer suggestions.
Hi Crosspatch,
Our River Murray is rather unique, in the top ten most regulated and the top ten most degraded rivers in the World. The first plan was to construct 26 Locks/Weirs along its length from its source in the mountains running up the East of Australia –the Great Divide – that plan was altered and only 11were constructed and the Barrages at the mouth of the River.
If I am seen as attacking the messenger it is not intentional and re, “My comments were on a general approach to management of water in a more generic sense and not specifically the Murray” as I said it is unique as the fall from the head waters of the MD Basin is gradual and the Basin must flush the accumulated 2-million of contaminates/salinity that presents to the mouth per year.
We have changed nature by keeping the levels high during times when without the regulators those back waters/flood plains would have been empty.
Re, “What were the populations of salt tolerant flora in those lakes before the barrages were built and what has replaced it? I am willing to bet that the plant life around those lakes completely changed once it went from brackish to fresh” I’m not 100% sure but there is no evidence of an estuarine eco-system prior the Barrages being constructed.
Re, “I agree that removing the barrages and managing the river flows to something resembling natural flows would probably be better for the river, but it may not be better for the people and that is something they have to decide. But generally it tends to boil down to which constituency on the issue has the most votes and the most money. That also tends to work the same pretty much everywhere”.
Just removing the Barrages will not achieve, “something resembling natural flows” because of the regulatory constrictions upstream of the mouth.
Re, “natural flows would probably be better for the river, but it may not be better for the people and that is something they have to decide” therein lies the dilemma those living in our Eastern States and many upstream of Lock 1want the Barrages and most Australians do not understand or care as long as their OK.
As I said therein lies the dilemma but changes must be made, especially in management, before our next drought arrives and is not a question of it not arriving it will and we must be better prepared with robust management in place.
Peter,
The Murray is not that unique. It has its own special features but it is a working river just like 1000s of others around the world.
It also does have a tidal/ estuarine history. It has a mouth that empties into the ocean, just like 1000s of others around Australia and the rest of the world
You seriously need to look further than WWF and ACF and the Wentworth Group for your information.
They, like you, operate from flawed assumptions that are extremely romantic but have no basis in reality.
Peter R Smith,
The water you wish to take from upstream users is currently used to produce stuff humans cannot live without,that is food and clothing.Given the one billion malnourished humans actually exist,how can you demand less production Peter ?What would you and the ACF and the Wentworth group say to the relatives and friends of those who don’t get fed as a conseqence of your demand ?
Peter you haven’t mentioned “Lock Zero”
“I have forwarded to some of the people above an e mail re The Marina Hindmarsh Island their submission re th TemporaryWeir to the Dept. E&H in S.A.
I wrote the whole submission but lost it when I was sending it. A precis reads :- They mentioned the Lakes during the period 1880 to 1940. The Pomanda Island not only expensive to construct but because of the lack of foundations will be expensive to maintain over the ensuring years. Lack of access through the weir for boating and believe this will have a cosiderable detrimental effect on the recovery of boating in the Goolwa and Murray Lakes region. It’s expensive to construct, expensive to maintain and will in fact reduce the economic and environmental activities of the Lower Lakes and Goolwa region and a fish way should be included. We therefore suggest the construction of a permanent structure downstream from Tailem Bend, which could be termed “LOCK ZERO”. This would be a permanent solution. It would provide for the future issue which will confront the ongoing management of the lakes. The possibility of increased sea levels should global warming in fact prove to be a fact will render the barrages impossible to maintain”.
What some of us down here don’t want is only being unable to sail or boat from the Murray Mouth up to Pomanda Island, we want to go as far as Yarawonga before we have stop.
Are we to be held to ransom because Lake Albert is at 5000EC even after substantial flows to the mouth? Or are Lake Alberts EC levels being selectively used given Lake Alexandrina has an EC of less than 400 at the moment.
Albert has connectivity issues at the best of times, least of all having been isolated from Alexandrina lately. Of course connectivity would have been naturally poor without the lower lakes being held 75cm above sea level by the man-made barrages.
I’m a bit nonplussed about the 2 million tonnes of salt argument. Even at the current modeled average outflow of the river Murray of 5100GL would only need to carry a load of 550EC at the mouth. Positively fresh against the 55000EC of the sea.
NB, back of envelope calculations involved. Feel free to correct.
“Before the barrages were built in 1940 scientists agree that the lakes were part of a vast estuarine ecosystem connected with the Coorong.”
http://www.lakesneedwater.org/barrages
But there is one thing I am sure you do not want under any circumstances, the unique character of your river notwithstanding. You do not want the issue decided by politicians on the basis of which side of a marketing campaign gains the most traction with voters. Such campaigns distort issues on both sides and tend to engage in “catastrophising” the issue where things are blown out of all proportion.
And since this river spans two states, the federal government would have to get involved. I believe a good way to approach this is for some sort of meeting of minds where at the very outset each side agrees that they all have valid viewpoints and that the meetings NOT be public and are possibly done under the Chatham House rule. There should be a few that represent people with backgrounds in the life sciences but so much the better if they also have some background in civil engineering. The farmers need to be represented and civil engineers need to be present, too, to make sure that any proposal is within the laws of physics and realm of possibility.
This speaks again more generically about how to solve problems around the world. We can’t go deciding issues based on slick advertising campaigns. This leads to a gross distortion of the issues as each side tries ever harder to persuade the public and soon ends up in the realm of pseudoscience. In the end it simply confuses people. If you are going to be a republic, act like one. You need a collection of people who are going to decide to take the best interests of all to heart, get together, and try to find a solution that addresses to the extent possible the needs of everyone AND (most importantly) the option to do nothing must also be a valid choice. Doing something just for the sake of doing something is usually a bad idea. The option of saying “we can’t come up with an effective way to change things that is worth what it would cost to implement that offers much improvement over the current situation for all involved”. THAT concept is also not weighted highly enough. People go into things with the notion that they ARE going to change something just for the sake of changing it and end up spending a shipload of the people’s money for very little improvement of making things worse. Doing nothing or making small peripheral improvements must be an option.
I cannot believe that the Murray is among the top 10 degraded rivers on Earth.
What sort of ‘CSIROED’ figures listed a river teaming with wildlife and with potable water in such a list ?
George is right on the nail about rivers needing “rest”. That is what I and others who know our inland rivers, are claiming and that is what will not happen if the current system is used to get the water to SA.
The Edward currently gets to “rest” at a low level during the winter and what a beautiful, peaceful sight it is. However , that MUST end to get SA’s water down there. The same applies to the Murray, although it already seems to rarely drop over recent years.
While these rivers used to dry up entirely and it is good to keep a ow level water source running, that is a far cry from using them as SA’s personal , permanent, supply canals
Thank you, Ian you seem to have got my point. When you convert a river from a river with some flood control structures whose buffer is used for ag into what amounts to a water supply canal whose flood control infrastructure becomes flow maintenance, you no longer really have a living river. You have basically turned it into a zoo.
Zoo…. 🙂
That’ a good way to say it.
Peter,
Your arguments for the lower Murray and your spurious and completely unsupported claims about degradation are very zoo like.
Those degradation figs and statements come straight from the same WWF/ACF sites and completely ignore the fact that the MDB is naturally an ephemeral environment.
One of the unique features of the MDB is in fact that its rivers did stop flowing from time to time.
Of course we no longer want that to happen…..but your arguments are totally bi polar if you take the time to think about it…..maybe you need to research where those ‘degradation’ statistics’ came from? One of the links I gave you at the last post may help you to understand.
Your solution involves using the Murray like a water delivery channel that never has the opportunity to dry up….or even go into rest and low flows…..like it would have done naturally.
Once again…we no longer want that to happen…..but…..and this is very important Peter….your ‘environmental claims’ and your ‘only one possible solution’ about the lower Murray are mostly nonsense.
It may turn your patch into some type of romantic utopia but it will be at the expense of the rest of the system both in productive supply and the natural health of the river.
Your own bi polar arguments about the environment are easily turned back on you.
You need to start opening your eyes and realising that dumping extra water out to sea is not a solution for anything….not even the vulnerability problem you certainly have in SA.
For goodness sake Peter….the Murray has had the biggest flush for over 20 years in the last 12 months and according to you there is still a very worrying salt problem…. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU??????
I might also add….the places where your solution wants to acquire water from solved their salt issues many many years ago AND IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH FLUSHING!!!!!
Flushing will not solve the salt issues you have in SA…..you need to look at options that will actually solve that problem and stop pretending that upstream caused it…..they didn’t…..they actually solved part of it.
Hi Debbie,
The River Murray is unique in that it has many Locks/Weir that open from the top (along a by world standards not that long), its flow is normally minimal and it has Barrages retaining as much freshwater as possible in times of low flow.
Re, “You seriously need to look further than WWF and ACF and the Wentworth Group for your information.
They, like you, operate from flawed assumptions that are extremely romantic but have no basis in reality” WHILST I HAVE MANY FRIENDS AT THE ACF AND WITHIN THE WENTWORTH GROUP I DO NOT RELY ON THEM FOR MY INFORMATION.
Hi Dave,
Come of it Dave as I am not, “demanding less production’ what I seek is maximum efficiency and as much as it may not please you we have to ensure our ability to remain OUR standard of living.
Hi Sean,
Lock Zero was also discussed at length and is still on the agenda along with two other items that need to be looked at so we now have to prioritise them in order. Send me an Email or ring me for further information.
Re, ‘Lock Zero’ yes between Tailem Bend and Wellington and re, “The possibility of increased sea levels should global warming in fact prove to be a fact will render the barrages impossible to maintain” one of our other projects is to totally upgrade the Barrages and MAYBE raise the level?
Re, “What some of us down here don’t want is only being unable to sail or boat from the Murray Mouth up to Pomanda Island, we want to go as far as Yarrawonga before we have stop” I agree I like to be able to go along the River as far as I can.
Hi Rojo,
We do believe that Lake Albert is basically being written off and it is not the EC level that signifies the salinity that is carried down along the river. Look at my web site http://www.psmithersmyriver.com and contact me and I will explain the points that we believe will lower the EC level in Lake Albert to about 1400 -1500EC.
Re, “Before the barrages were built in 1940 scientists agree that the lakes were part of a vast estuarine ecosystem connected with the Coorong” even the scientists disagree, I spoke to one last night and will happily discuss that with you.
The web site lakesneedwaternow want the Barrages removed, they want is for continued water any water.
Hi George,
Re, “You do not want the issue decided by politicians’ you are spot on about that the Murray Darling Basin Authority MUST BE TOTALLY independent, no political interference with a specially appointed Ombudsman so other than politicians can seek redress!
The River Murray 3 States and the Murray Darling Basin 4 States and a Territory and of course the Federal Government.
Re, “I believe a good way to approach this is for some sort of meeting of minds where at the very outset each side agrees that they all have valid viewpoints and that the meetings NOT be public and are possibly done under the Chatham House rule” we don’t have a Chatham House rule but trying to find (whilst it should not be impossible) “
There should be a few that represent people with backgrounds in the life sciences but so much the better if they also have some background in civil engineering. The farmers need to be represented and civil engineers need to be present, too, to make sure that any proposal is within the laws of physics and realm of possibility” it would be neigh impossible therein lays the problem.
Yes, “You need a collection of people who are going to decide to take the best interests of all to heart, get together, and try to find a solution that addresses to the extent possible the needs of everyone AND (most importantly) the option to do nothing must also be a valid choice” an independent body set up like our Reserve Bank Board – no political interference.
Re, “Doing something just for the sake of doing something is usually a bad idea’ whilst I agree this situation has been dragging on since Federation in 1901 and we need legislation and a plan to be the guide to work with.
Hi Ian,
Re, “I cannot believe that the Murray is among the top 10 degraded rivers on Earth” yes I did not believe it until I read it in an article by the UN but then as they are a useless waste of money group it could be seen as incorrect.
Are aren’t suggesting that SA doesn’t need as much water as we believe and if so how much (i.e., gigalitre)
Should we be allowed?
During the height of the drought the River Murray pool level below Lock 1 dropped by as much as 3.6-metres.
Re, “While these rivers used to dry up entirely and it is good to keep a low level water source running, that is a far cry from using them as SA’s personal , permanent, supply canals” could you please explain, “SA’s personal , permanent, supply canals?’
The MDBA must be totally independent?
That is so ironically ridiculous!
They are working from a completely impractical and completely political Water Act 2007.
The Water Act directs them to justify taking productive water away from irrigation for some completely unrealistic and romantic notion of the “Environment”.
We directly asked the MDBA technical team if they had modelled any broader options like sourcing more storage, other workable options to help SA be less vulnerable and reconfiguring delivery options.
Their answer was …..word for word…..”No we haven’t done that because the Water Act does not allow us to look at those options.”
SO PETER?????
How would that fit into your idea of a ‘politically independent’ MDBA?
The whole process is political and nothing but political!!!!!!!
Hi Debbie,
I agree that the 2007 Water Act is, “completely impractical and completely political” but it is changeable and I critised the SA Premier when he signed but with the right people pushing it is as I said changeable.
Re, “That is so ironically ridiculous!” well thanks just dismiss it out of hand we MUST have the Basin managed INDEPENDENTLY other it will never work, but don’t just dismiss it without some thought and discussion!
Hi Rojo,
Did you see the map overlay at LakesNeedWater.org yet? It is an overlay of a map from 1844 placed over the top of a modern Google map.
http://www.lakesneedwater.org/maps/Lower-Lakes-South-Australia-1844-Map
In 1844 there would have been no significant agricultural uses along the river, no weirs, no extra dams to even out flows. If you are to believe the ACF and others, this map should show a Lake brimming with freshwater, and no brackish bits or salt swamps.
It looks to me like an estuary. Where fresh and sea water meet.
People are jumping to solutions and not identifying the problem, and the barrages are a very big 7.6km long problem for the environment of the Lower Lakes and Coorong.
We should be able to ask questions, why were the barrages built, why do we still have them, should they be refurbished, should they (the barrages) go, are they still useful; all these questions need to be asked.
Susan, the barrages were built in the late 30’s at a time when river extractions were about 3000GL. This would suggest there were problems then with salt water intrusion, and logically there will continue to be problems even if 4000GL were acquired for the river today. Even the green lauded 7600GL would only return the extractions back to those of the 30’s.
I would also guess that the barrages were not a spur of the moment decision, and that salt water was a significant problem well before their eventual construction.
My view is the govt is spending $10+ billion primarily for the lakes/Coorong/mouth to keep them permanently fresh and keep the mouth open with drinking qualiy water when nature never did. And they will fail.
I don’t have a problem with the barrages themselves, they could be retained as storage for when there is excess fresh water ie most of the time. There will be approx 600GL held above mean sea level, enough to supply the recommended 2GL flow to the mouth for most of a year. With some modification flows could be timed so the Murray water doesn’t fight the incoming tide, reducing the 2GL a day requirement for fresh water.
There also needs to be some determination that when there is no freshwater available enough gates can be opened to allow the natural tidal prism do it’s work keeping the mouth open. Not have the farce of potential acid sulphate soil exposure happen again.
Peter,
I think JH has listened to some of us down here at Goolwa. The barrages have to alterred in some way e.g. Opening and closing gates. We have seen through the winter and autumn period sea water intrusion into the Goolwa Channel with high tides and strong winds resulting in salt levels on 40,000 EC which caused a fish kill. This is why we push for Lock Zero below Tailem Bend to protect the pool from the Murray Mouth up to below Lock 1. The Marina Hindmarsh Island said it in their submission above, plus others down here have discussed the salt water intrussion into the Lower Lakes from the sea that’s right FROM THE SEA not what is suppose to be flowing down the River.
“Completion of the Coorong Barrage network in 1940 converted 89% of the original estuarine
habitat of Australia’s most important river into permanently impounded freshwater.”
http://coorongfishery.com/media/documents/TheBarrages.pdf
Peter R Smith,
You ARE demanding water be taken out of production which means LESS production.
If efficiency gain worked the way you seem to think then the more water taken away from production,the more production!
Hi Susan,
I really don’t know about 1844 and of course back then there was no need for the major irrigation we need today.
Re, “It looks to me like an estuary. Where fresh and sea water meet” but did it have to be an estuary could it not have been a tidal affect wetland?
Re’ “We should be able to ask questions, why were the barrages built, why do we still have them, should they be refurbished, should they (the barrages) go, are they still useful; all these questions need to be asked” I will supply some answers but of course you won’t believe.
In the first plans for our River Murray there was going to be 26 Locks/Weirs (but only 10 built) the last one in SA was going to be downstream of Wellington but instead of that, in a trade off for the construction of Lake Mulwala the Barrages were constructed.
Re, “why do we still have them” well it is pretty simple really as if they were not there the sea water would contaminate the River to Lock 1 and if the Barrages were not there during the drought there would have been no potable below Lock therefore no pumping stations and all potable water needs from the Lower River Murray would have had to given alternative supplied. The plans were drawn up for bottled water to be supplied to thousands of South Australians’ West of the Lower River Murray.
Re, “why do we still have them” it is pretty obvious to forward thinking people.
Re, “should they be refurbished” yes and plans to do that are being investigated.
Re, “should they (the barrages) go” pretty obviously NO.
Re, “are they still useful?” of course.
Re, “People are jumping to solutions and not identifying the problem, and the barrages are a very big 7.6km long problem for the environment of the Lower Lakes and Coorong” that’s crap!
Hi Rojo,
The reason the Barrages were constructed is in the above addressed to Susan.
The 2011 extractions totalled 13000-Gigalitres compared to 8500-Gigalitres in 1970
Re, “My view is the Govt is spending $10+ billion primarily for the lakes/Coorong/mouth to keep them permanently fresh and keep the mouth open with drinking quality water when nature never did. And they will fail” I don’t think the $10-Billion is correct but they will fail as it takes 6000-Gigalitres to remove 2-million tonnes of salinity.
Re, “With some modification flows could be timed so the Murray water doesn’t fight the incoming tide, reducing the 2GL a day requirement for fresh water” that is correct it’s about management!
Re, “There also needs to be some determination that when there is no fresh water available enough gates can be opened to allow the natural tidal prism do its work keeping the mouth open. Not have the farce of potential acid sulphate soil exposure happen again” allowing any sea water to invade Lake Alexandrina would create a disaster and you are correct acid sulphate soils in the Lower River Murray.
If you wish to contact me do so my contact information can be found at http://www.psmithersmyriver.com
Hi Dave,
I am not demanding anything I am like so many thousands of other people seeking the correct answers for our Murray Darling basin and the River Murray.
Re, “If efficiency gain worked the way you seem to think then the more water taken away from production, the more production” no that is not what I am saying, we must become ultra efficient and produce what we produce now with less water!
Peter, why on earth would seawater entering alexandrina be a disaster, it wouldn’t be the first time. I’m beginning to wonder how much you really know about the system. You write with such authority but little to back it up. For instance EC is the measure of salt load, convertable to ppm and consequently weight.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/salinity/basics/units.htm
Why does it take 6000GL to flush the salt, what is so different from the current 5100?
Extractions according to the MDBA “Review on CAP implementation 2010-11” says 6177GL. Whom to believe.
What is the amount of money, if not 10 billion, allocated for Murray reform?
Acid sulphate soils are fine as long as kept inundated, but govts would rather have the acid than seawater it seemed when they
let the lakes fall well below sea level.
They will fail, but it won’t be by setting a 6000GL flow, as the basin plan is to send an additional 2000GL out to sea, a total average outflow of 7000GL. Yet we know the mouth only needs a baseline flow of 700GL/year and about 3000GL to keep lake salt levels to about 1000EC or less. Referring to my envelope.
I’ll have a look at your site shortly but see no real need to conduct a private conversation. I’m sorry I just don’t have that sort of time.
Cheers.
We agree on management it seems, as I’ve been telling the MDBA it’s not all about water volume.
Hi rojo,
That environment has been freshwater or at approximately 1000-1300Ec since the Barrages were installed and I am sorry I know a hell of a lot about the Lower River Murray from Blanchetown to the Southern Ocean as I have lived in the area and spent countless weeks visiting the area and fishing the area.
The figure of 6000-Gigalitres is the amount as put forward by scientific information and the average flows into SA for the last 60 odd years (including the drought years) is 6221-Gigalitres!
Re, “Acid sulphate soils are fine as long as kept inundated, but Govts would rather have the acid than seawater it seemed when they let the lakes fall well below sea level” as freshwater is the best to cover acid sulphate soils (information from CSIRO) though at the height of the drought serious consideration was given to allowing some seawater to invade into Lake Alexandrina.
If that have occurred most of the freshwater below Lock 1 may have become contaminated and that is when plans were being put together to supply bottled water to many communities, especially those relying on the pumping station at Tailem Bend.
I am not flushed with time either, just trying to help.
Re, “We agree on management it seems, as I’ve been telling the MDBA it’s not all about water volume” the management of the Basin especially during the drought was appalling, I mean why keep the pool level between the Locks in SA at the artificial which was the same as when paddle steamers plied there trade?
NO Peter,
You misunderstood me.
There is nothing politically independant about the MDBA.
They are a centralised Govt Bureaucracy directed and completely constrained bt the Water Act.
That is why I found your statement ironic.
They claim they are independant….they are not.
Looks as though my comments around 12.15 pm today weren’t news worthy.
Hi Debbie,
Sorry if you mistook what I mean but unless we have a body set up similar to the ‘Reserve Bank Board’ with an ombudsman to deal with private persons problems within the decision making process nothing will happen as the MDB HAS to without political meddling!
Hi Sean,
I don’t think that anyone in SA is listening to JM who is financed by sections of the irrigation industry who are dead set on the Barrages removal.
The Barrages must be modernised, the boards (i.e. gates) need to be replaced with metal sheets/pieces of material to stop the seawater leaking into the Lakes, the new gates need to be opened from the top, the gates need to be altered so as to open from the top and computer operated and maybe the height needs to be raised to stop high/king tides washing in over the top.
Re, “The Marina Hindmarsh Island said it in their submission above, plus others down here have discussed the salt water intrusion into the Lower Lakes from the sea that’s right FROM THE SEA not what is suppose to be flowing down the River’ whilst there is some seawater either entering through the gates (which the Government told us they had fixed – that’s crap) the 2-million tonnes of salinity so frequently mention is that transported from throughout the Basin.
Peter,
The Goolwa barrage gates are a disgrace. They consist of idivdual concrete sleepers 30m wide x 0.500m high ( there are about 3 various heights ) and they are lifted out by a very large earth moving shovel that has been converted to a sling which can only lift one sleeper at a time. This year we had a storm on a weekend when they still had sleepers out to allow for the extra flow over the barage and being on a weekend ( staff don’t work on weekends ) allowed the sea water in thus 40,000 EC salt level and fish kill. It happened again just recently but fortunately it was a week day less sleepers were out as they were trying to raise the pool level between the barrage and d/s of Lock 1. Talking about Lock 1, I see they have modernised that locks gates system to with a smaller machine and a special frame, they no longer need to skindivers to guide the sleepers into the chamber slots.
Bad luck we can’t attach a photo.
Others
I have noticed people have not commented on The Marina Hindmarsh Island’s submission to S.A. Government’s Dept. of E&H on the temporary weir.
Hi Sean,
Re, “The Goolwa barrage gates are a disgrace’ I agree as I said when we spoke earlier today. We need to put pressure on the Federal Government in whatever way possible (in a submission to the MDBA Plan) to ensure the upgrade as soon as possible!
Temporary weir NO WAY!
Peter, you don’t look like you predate the barrages, so living near there means what exactly?
So no more water is required as 6000GL is enough, and it’s been a 6221GL for the last 60 years. Problem solved then. Flinders Uni in it’s submission suggested 2000GL was enough. Interesting. I still think 3000GL would work better.
I can’t quite comprehend the revulsion at having seawater return to the lakes as it once did during low Murray flows.
Hi rojo,
No I don’t predate the Barrages and as to where I live at Mannum and have been on or associated with the River most of my life and have also travelled to most parts of the MDB and have spent days & weeks visiting and fishing from Lock 1 at Blanchetown to the ocean and in the ocean especially around the South East of SA.
Re, “I can’t quite comprehend the revulsion at having seawater return to the lakes as it once did during low Murray flows” yes it did before the Locks and Barrages and other infrastructure was completed.
If sea water were to invade into Lake Alexandrina it would contaminate the Lower River Murray to Lock 1 which would mean most of SA’s water pumped from pumping stations at Tailem Bend (2) either side of the River, Murray Bridge, Mannum and Swan Reach would have to be de commissioned.
It would also mean no irrigation below Lock 1the death of a massive amount of vegetation and fish, yabbies, shrimps etc, etc.
The reason you don’t understand my, “revulsion” is you quiet plainly don’t understand the Lower River Murray, Lakes Alexandrina, Albert and the Coorong.
You need to check those salt figures Peter.
2 reasons:
1) where you think it’s coming from &
2) why you think flushing fixes it.
We used to have salt problems here. It is now fixed.Flushing did not not fix it. Flushing actually made it worse.
This area is targetted for the biggest cut yet we dont contribute ANY salt at all.
You have had the biggest flush for decades in the last 12 months. . . A way bigger flush than upstream storages could ever deliver.
Why have you still got a salt issue?
Maybe there, like here, flushing is not the solution?
Even the MDBA conceded that at our meeting today.
They know. Why dont you?
I’m sorry, for someone who has lived there for so long you should realise that the scientific view is that the lakes were fresh 97% of the time. That means NOT always. I can’t make you accept that it was perfectly natural for salt water intrusion into the lakes, but if you deny this there is no point continuing our conversation.
Maybe you missed the proposal for the wellington weir, I thought it may have made the news down there.
Please Peter, I’ve been reading up on the lower lakes for years after visiting them in 2006.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2007/03/remove-the-barrages-for-the-coorong-a-note-from-rojo/
I won’t be bluffed by the “I’ve been here for years” argument from someone lacking in substantiated claims. Evidence Peter, evidence.
Guys; you forgot, I get to use your water first and so can add a little as my need arises.
Also; as your No1 anti dam campaigner it grieves me to see people so dependent on developing great barren bodies of water for their particular solution re natural ebb and flow.
But on another bend, we do need to hold and clean all which we are likely to drink cause it’s impossible to regulate the harmfull bacteria and the helpful traces such as flouride in a muddy soup.
Only a brave Minister gives all a fair go so get off your asses and read the whole science story.
Jennifer; you can pander to the Cockies as much as you like with a history of pastoralists and stocking rates but I say it is very unwise for them to ignore the demands of ever growing numbers of people in both the ACT and SA where city folk way out number our country neighbors.
Income from cities such as Adelaide, even Canberra too depending in part on fresh water availability must be weighed up by all our Governments as this new water plan unfolds. Our growth comes naturally at the expense of your irrigators after the old haphazard inland settlement schemes roll over.
Gavin,
Although I am totally appalled at your attitude, at least you have named this problem for what it is.
At it’s core it has used the ‘good vs evil’ idealogical argument in an attempt to nationalise water. We are watching a fed vs state vs local bureaucratic battle and they have locked on to the emotional environmental argument to wage it.
The good is apparently ‘the envorinment’ the evil is apparently ‘agriculture’.
As you so rudely say here….the cannon fodder is the irrigation cockies because they don’t have the political numbers.
You probably won’t live long enough to discover that is a very bad attitude Gavin. History teaches me it will be my children who will have to pay for this stupid contrived idealogical batttle…..they will have to repair the damage that is being wreaked on inland Australia….in the name of an idealogy.
It is an extra ordinary conceit for ANYONE to believe that a centralised bureaucracy can administer nature better than nature can.
It is also doomed to fail because nature is no more inclined to co operate with the federal government than it has been inclined to co operate with state and local administrators. All that is going to happen is that it will cost you more and it will cost us more.
DOES EVERYONE READING THIS REALISE THAT THE FED GOVT HAS ALREADY BECOME THE BIGGEST WATER HOLDER IN THE WHOLE SYSTEM……DO YOU ALSO REALISE THEY HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT A PLAN?
THEY HAVE DONE IT WHILE WE ARE ALL ARGUING ABOUT A PLAN.
The part of your argument however that is totally ironically ridiculous is to claim that Jennifer is pandering to the cockies and also implying along with Peter and others such as Marc A that Jennifer should be dismissed because she is funded somehow by ‘big irrigation’.
DO YOU THINK THE ACF AND NUMEROUS OTHER PARTY MECHANISIMS AREN’T FUNDED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS GROUPS SOMEHOW?
Even if it were true…and you’re implying that Jennifer is backed by this huge irrigation representative group…..how would that be any different to what everyone else is doing?
BTW….Gavin and Peter and Marc A and et al….it certainly isn’t true.
Jennifer has the guts to run foul of the different irrigation organisations just as often as she runs foul with the HEAVILY FUNDED environmental organisations.
She is way more interested in stating the facts and backing up her personal position with evidence and common sense.
One of the biggest problems we have out here in the basin is that we’re not an organised funded and/or political lobby group DESPITE YOUR INSINUATIONS OTHERWISE!.
The ‘cannon fodder’ in this debate are easy targets for the likes of you and yours because we are made up of 1000’s of small family generational businesses. We are not a unionised workforce like the public service or general motors, we’re not a mining giant like BHP and we’re not even a marginal seat in South Australia.
It has been way too easy to turn irrigators into the idealogical ‘villians’ in this battle.
It’s complete and utter nonsense and at least you pointed it out for what it is.
It is a battle to ‘nationalise’ water….it is a political battle…..and shame on all of them…..and shame on you for being so incredibly rude and disrespectful of rural communities and generational family businesses….when it is quite obvious here that you know exactly how that works.
Oh debs, you do get carried away!
“Jennifer is pandering to the cockies” by not telling them how it is. It’s my water in the first instance and if I want to wash my cars with it before it gets to you, so be it.
Now you just think about those poor bums down round Adelaide for a minit.
“such as Marc A that Jennifer should be dismissed”
You are losing an ally here Debbie, where did I say anything like that?
Gavin,
The Lower Lakes already have new pipelines both for potable and irrigation water. Instead of being pumped out of Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert they receive the potable water from Murray Bridge, Tailem Bend pump stations plus the self sufficient Myponga Reservoir ( no River Murray water) and the irrigation is pumped from the new pump station at Jervois. Both Governments put in $94 million and the irrigators $13 million it appears farmers around the lakes didn’t get connected, they get their supply from the potable pipeline which has increased their operating by $50,000 per year. That problem of supply has been resolved by shifting it further upstream.
Put Lock 0 below Tailem Bend where they were originally going to do in 1940 before building it at Goolwa and as Jim Marsh ex Superintendant of the Goolwa Barrage said in an interview September, 1999 the Government were thinking of shifting it back to Wellington but the cost of supplying new pipelines they probably woudn’t take the political risk. The Lower Lakes are now piped just as Jim Marsh had mentioned at that interview.
Lock 0 helps to protect Adelaides water supply by providing a pool level 0.75m back to below Lock 1 at Blanchetown. Eliminates having to have a pool level from the Goolwa Barrage back to Lock 1. This pool then protects the Murray Bridge and Mannum pump stations which supply all of Adelaide’s water through series of piplines to all of Adelaide’s Reservoirs e.g. Murray Bridge supplies Adelaide Hills and then piped into the Onkapringa River to top up Mount Bold and Happy Valley Reservoirs. The Tailem Bend pumps to Keith in the South East and Lower Lakes, Swan Reach pumps to Stockwell ( Barossa) and Yorke Peninsular.
Let’s not forget the pump stations at Morgan which supplies water in one pipeline towns through Mambray Creek under the Gulf to Whyalla and the second to Port Augusta, Kimba and Woomera. The 1850 GL supplied under the RAMSAR has done nothing for the Coorong, as Dr. Paton mentioned on 891 radio the other day 99.9% of the River flows out the Mouth. One listener even got him to admit that Coorong starts at the Mouth and runs south to 42 Mile Crossing. The only water it gets from the River is the small amount that comes out Tauwitchere Barrage turns right and flows out the mouth. Let us donate the 800 GL that’s evaporates in the Lower Lakes back up above Lock Zero.
Oops….sorry Marc A….wrong Mark.
I humbly apologise….very humbly.
I know you are a champion for common sense!
I truly am very sorry.
With a huge apology to Marc A again, (sorry!)
Gavin,
So even though you know the answer is new storages for the increasing demands….you’re an anti dam campaigner and happy to advance the political environmental debate?
Maybe you just like being a rude and sarcastic stirrer?
It’s not a good look.
You have indeed pointed out the problem….so why so rude?
“History teaches me it will be my children who will have to pay for this stupid contrived idealogical batttle…..they will have to repair the damage that is being wreaked on inland Australia….in the name of an idealogy”
Debbie; “my children” really pulls the chain.
After being on the phone for hours and searching everywhere for the right clues to help my numerous grand children make their transition into adulthood, I come back to a simple conclusion, all kids are in need but we can’t easily fathom what it is for every case. My last session on Facebook revealed one youngster we used to know has seen a lot of trouble since he left home.
My teenage grand children including triplets are likely to breed a lot more because it’s in their genes. I expect most will have to leave home, even go interstate for further education or a job. Also; their first pairing is unlikely to be their last. I tell them often about their most likely competition, overseas students- not hanging around but aggressively seeking their opportunities.
I try to keep up with what those foreigners are here for too. Our water, like our gas and land is anyone’s to grab at the moment. Yours is only one storm in a teacup.
Is the sea barren?
It grieves me that we’ll spend $10 odd billion, cut production by roughly a billion dollars a year and cut billions from the value of infrastructure and housing in basin communities when nature is capable in many ways of looking after itself. 2/3 of the water Recovered is planned to flow out to sea. $6 billion replacing that natural ebb and flow, for the dry years only. Lucky The city taxpayers can help out i suppose.
I’m not saying water shouldn’t be recovered but let’s make sure it’s all really needed.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “We used to have salt problems here. It is now fixed. Flushing did not fix it. Flushing actually made it worse.
This area is targeted for the biggest cut yet we don’t contribute ANY salt at all” I didn’t realise your area was targeted for the biggest cur but, “we don’t contribute ANY salt at all” that’s hard to believe.
Re, “You have had the biggest flush for decades in the last 12 months. . . A way bigger flush than upstream storages could ever deliver. Why have you still got a salt issue?” just in case you don’t realise it one flush doesn’t get rid of the salinity that is transported down through the MDB each year.
Re, “Maybe there, like here, flushing is not the solution?” yes another way is salt inception schemes, do you realise how much water that would require?
Re, “Even the MDBA conceded that at our meeting today” it must of been good as Knowles stirred up you lot to SA bash..
Re, “They know. Why don’t you?” I would like to know where they said it came from because at the meeting last Friday at Murray Bridge he acknowledged the salinity problem.
Hi rojo,
Yes, the Lakes were fresh 97% of the time and as for, “I can’t make you accept that it was perfectly natural for salt water intrusion into the lakes, but if you deny this there is no point continuing our conversation” wake up that was prior to the construction of the Barrages and Locks.
As I have tried to explain if sea water were invade Lake Alexandrina with NO flow over Lock 1 that sea water would contaminate the Lower River Murray to Blanchetown (Lock 1).
Re, “Maybe you missed the proposal for the wellington weir. I thought it may have made the news down there.
Please Peter, I’ve been reading up on the lower lakes for years after visiting them in 2006” no of course I didn’t miss our previous Premier’s stupid idea to construct a temporary weir downstream of Wellington which over $20-million was wasted on before it was scrapped. If you looked on my web page http://www.psmihersmyriver.com you would see the proposal for Lock Zero. I am the independent spokesperson for the proposal.
Re, “I won’t be bluffed by the “I’ve been here for years” argument from someone lacking in substantiated claims. Evidence Peter, evidence” regardless of what you believe/think if you have evidence that shows I am wrong I am prepared to discuss this with you, as just visiting every now and again don’t add mush.
I have been today to Goolwa today to discuss serious situations re Lakes Alexandrina and Albert the Barrages and Lock Zero.
I do know about the Lower River Murray and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert and the Coorong.
Hi Debbie,
I can’t be bothered replying to Gavin but honestly good V’s evil, what a joke!
Re, “repair the damage that is being wreaked on inland Australia….in the name of an ideology” we have been repairing the damage from previous generations and trying to improve OUR lot.
Re, “The part of your argument however that is totally ironically ridiculous is to claim that Jennifer is pandering to the cockies and also implying along with Peter and others such as Marc A that Jennifer should be dismissed because she is funded somehow by ‘big irrigation’” and of course JM is in no way funded by any from the irrigation industry, right?
Re, “Even if it were true…and you’re implying that Jennifer is backed by this huge irrigation representative group how would that be any different to what everyone else is doing?” I have never received funding from any other source than my pension or when I was working my wages and I resent being accused!
Re, “Jennifer has the guts to run foul of the different irrigation organisations just as often as she runs foul with the HEAVILY FUNDED environmental organisations” oh Debbie how naive are you, JM runs foul of irrigators in Sa but not too many in the Eastern States!
Re, “She is way more interested in stating the facts and backing up her personal position with evidence and common sense” get in the real world and take off the rose coloured glasses.
I have never, “It has been way too easy to turn irrigators into the ideological ‘villains’ in this battle”.
Hi Gavin, Thank you!
Hi Mark A,
Also thank you!
Hi rojo,
The ebb and flow of the tidal prism was removed prior to 1940 and without a massive amount of pain it can not be reversed and if there is to be pain it must be SHARED!
Hi rojo,
I have just read your article at, http://jennifermarohasy.com/2007/03/remove-the-barrages-for-the-coorong-a-note-from-rojo/
We have certainly moved on since then in 2007 when the stupid 2007 Water Act was passed.
Re, “Before European settlement the northern lagoon of the Coorong was dominated by tidal input of marine water. Marine flushing also strongly influenced the southern lagoon but less frequently or to a lesser extent.
At no time in the 300 years before European settlement has the Coorong been noticeably influenced by flows from the River Murray” until the Barrages were constructed now the Coorong is managed by Tauwitcherie Barrage.
I can assure you the Southern Lagoon is always more saline than the Northern Lagoon and the Southern Lagoon is a present hyper-saline and the SA Government is considering pumping it out into the ocean.
Re, “The report also states that “the extended presence of marine diatom taxa in Lake Alexandrina suggests the tidal prism regularly extended into Lake Alexandrina throughout the last 6000 years”, which I take to mean long periods of low flow where the mouth evidently did not close but rather was flushed by the sea” TIDAL PRISM not ESTERINE, thank you.
Check your evaporation from Lakes Alexandrina and Albert then compare with Menindee Lakes, Macquarie Marshes and open channel irrigation.
Re, “what the Coorong needs. It needs to be flushed by the ocean and this would be facilitated by the removal of the barrages” is to be pumped out.
Re, “There is currently a proposal to build a weir on the river at Wellington which is upstream of the lakes” yes there was a proposal to erect a Temporary Weir at Pomanda Island and after wasting over $20-million that idea was scrapped but we are still seeking an Impact Statement into Lock Zero.
The couple of irrigators still operating from Lake Albert are now getting their water from the Tailem Bend pumping station the cost of that water has increased by 50%+ as Lake Albert is still at about 4,800EC.
Wrong, “If we don’t get significant inflows the weir at Wellington will be built, the lake levels will fall and the irrigators won’t be irrigating anyway.
Re, “But the situation at the Coorong will not improve unless the barrages are removed or opened” CRAP!
Peter?
One flush?????
Are you serious?
You have had over 12 months of flushing….OVER 12 MONTHS…and you’re in for even more very shortly as the Northerm MDB is back in flood….we’ve also just let another whack of supplementary flows out of here.
ONE FLUSH????? Give me a break!
It also Millions of ML more than the storages could ever hope to deliver…..EVER!!!!!
Also….the MIA is a closed system….we have not contributed any salt or any drainage into the system for over 15 years….and look it up…we’re the biggest target….followed closely by the NSW Murray irrigators and also the Golburn system.
If you don’t know that…..then you are not as well informed as you present yourself.
One flush????????
That has to be the most one eyed statement you have made.
OMG!
Seriously Peter?
Also…..you need to research your information about Jennifer and irrigation organisations.
She has most certainly run foul of the Eastern State rep groups…..but that is her call….not mine.
I too have not received a cent….I suspect that also runs true for a lot of people who are speaking up.
You have every right to speak up….but that does involve being shot down…..you need to get over that…..I have.
My latest blunder was to refer to the wrong Mark!
Sorry Mark A 🙂
“On flush” I don’t know what you are going on about, I must of missed something, but do you only flush your toilet once a year?
Re, “Also….the MIA is a closed system….we have not contributed any salt or any drainage into the system for over 15 years….and look it up…we’re the biggest target….followed closely by the NSW Murray irrigators and also the Golburn system” of course when referring to salinity it is not just salt but other contaminates also but if you say so, “we have not contributed any salt or any drainage into the system for over 15 years” sorry if I don’t believe that!
With reference JM I really don’t care what she says or believes when she is prepared to visit my/this and converse with her detractors I will give her the respect you say she deserves!
I will continue to speak up and am not afraid of being shot down by anyone but if anyone wants to ruin Lock 1 to the ocean I will do what I can to stop them.
Did you attend the meeting at Griffith and if so I hope you enjoyed yourself SA bashing!
Toilet?
I guess that’s appropriate for your ‘flush’ mentality.
Peter. . . Why aren’t you listening? We solved our salt issue, we could help you solve yours. Flushing had nothing to do with it.
Flushing was not the answer, it actually made it worse.
When we stopped flushing and managed the problem locally, it was fixed.
Over 12 months of flushing is not one flush.
The upstream storages could not possibly deliver the amount of flushing you have had in SA over the last season.
Yes I was at Griffith. No, SA was not often mentioned. The politics and the total disregard for inland communities was the major topic.
There were over 10.000 people there. . . There are only about 4,000 irrigators total in this Murrumbidgee community. They were not all there as many of them are still harvesting.
It was a community meeting.
It was actually Burke and Knowles who most often mentioned SA.
BTW Peter,
just because you dont believe the MIA has not drained into the system for many years does not mean it isn’t true.
You can look it up here:
http://www.mirrigation.com.au
🙂
We are also the biggest target.
Did you ever read the link I posted at Jen’s last Murray post?
Peter,
Dr.Paton admitted on 891 radio the other morning that 99.9% of the river flow goes out the Murray Mouth, he also told one listener who rang in asking him to tell everybody that the Coorong runs from the Murray Mouth back towards 42 mile crossing and doesn’t include the Goolwa Channel of the Lower Lakes which he did. Tauwitchere Barrage only looks after about 15 km of the Coorong from Pelican Point to the Mouth. The RAMSAR 1850 GL agreement has been little benefit to the Coorong, only the Lower Lakes ( evaporates over 800GL/Yr.)1650 GL and 200 GLof that is for Adelaide’s water supply.
I wrote another reply earlier on today re Gavin’s and Adelaide’s fresh water re just how much S.A. as well as Adelaide relies on the Murray for it’s water supply. A similar thing happened a couple days ago but appeared later in the evening.
Hi Debbie
Re flushing out the salinity from Lakes Alexandrina and Albert (though Albert needs radical repair at the entrance to the Lake) is a process that is always ongoing. I would like to hear if we managed the salinity problem better we would have more success.
Re, “It was actually Burke and Knowles who most often mentioned SA” so they are the culprits for instigating the SA bashing.
Re, “Did you ever read the link I posted at Jen’s last Murray post?” no what was the link?
No worries Debbie, I thought something like that happened, just couldn’t recall any other MA?
Anyway, I find using one’s employment or association against them as an argument a sign of desperation and in poor taste.
As to having lived in the same place for a long time means nothing.
If only age brought wisdom automatically! We wish.
There are a lot of extremely bright and observant young people.
Peter has no valid arguments, he regurgitates the same lines over and over again.
He cleverly misquotes people leaving out the important, inconvenient bits he can’t refute.
Waste of time responding to him really.
Of course the politicians and their pet bureaucrats are the culprits!
Haven’t you worked that out yet?
They’re all battling over the ownership of water and they’re using us and you as the ‘cannon fodder’.
While we continue to battle under their terms of engagement, we are going to lose.
That’s one of the things that horrifies me most about the arguments you advance.
You are playing straight into the hands of this stupid and unproductive environment vs agriculture and state vs state political nonsense.
No one here is bashing SA Peter…..we are patiently trying to explain that in low inflow years….SA like the rest of us….will not be able to sustain the current status quo.
I have also tried to patiently explain that SA’s suffering was not unique. We all suffered badly during the drought.
It was not however caused by bad management…..it was because of the management that the rivers at least kept flowing….even through the worst 2 years of the 10 year nightmare.
If it wasn’t managed that way….SA, quite frankly, would have been (you know what!).
That’s because you are highly vulnerable at the bottom of the system. That’s why there was 3 YEARS worth of critical supply SA water stored in the upstream dams. They kept the lock pools at those levels to help manage the critical supply water. If they hadn’t done it that way….the river would have stopped flowing and dried up altogether. You don’t seem to truly understand the logistics of getting water to SA under those type of critical situations.
The management of the Barrages and the bloody minded behaviour of your Govt to let those soils be exposed are part of this problem….
And Peter….flushing is not the answer to your problems with salt and contaminants.
If you keep arguing for large scale flushing…and someone actually believes you…..your salt and contaminant problems will be WORSE not better.
Think about it Peter.
As you have often claimed….the MDB is like a drain.
If we start continually flushing stuff down the drain…..Where does it end up?
Let’s use your toilet comparison.
When we flush our toilets….where does that end up?
Just because we flushed it out of our toilet does not mean it disappeared.
Seriously…you really don’t want all of us upstream areas to start just ‘flushing’ again…..that will cause you huge problems.
FLUSHING is NOT the answer and it never was!
For the link…go back to Jen’s last post on the Murray.
Peter R. Smith OAM
Hi Mark A,
Thanks Marc A.
But I will continue to listen to what others say, I will observe my area and listen with interest to points of view from around the MDB but I will not continue to advocate for the upgrading of the Barrages and at no time will I advocate for there removal as the Lower River Murray (Lock 1 to the ocean) water is far to important to not only SA but Australia.
If people are not prepared to understand what others say and advocate well good bye!
Hi Debbie,
Re, “Of course the politicians and their pet bureaucrats are the culprits!” is correct and whilst I thought the Reserve Bank was free from politicians I read in today’s paper, “RBA can bank on a fight from the PM” is nothing free from our Prime Minister?
Debbie I understand your views but I am not trying to alienate any group or put the environment against the irrigators.
I realise that during time of low inflows or drought we cannot, “sustain the current status quo” but allowing seawater to invade into Lake Alexandrina without infrastructure costing approximately $1-billion!
Re, “It was not however caused by bad management” is not totally correct as the weirs pools in SA were maintained at the same levels as when paddle steamers traversed the River Murray.
Re, “If it wasn’t managed that way….SA, quite frankly, would have been (you know what!)” not totally correct as many scientific groups advocated for the weirs pools to be lowered to no avail and I realise there was water in the major storages for, “critical supply water” though I reiterate the weir pools were kept to high weirs are not supposed to make lakes but manage flow.
I understand, “the logistics” but what I fail to understand is the politics accept for we know they really are all about themselves and getting re-elected.
As for the River drying up, well that is impossible accept for management though I will admit we were in natures’
Hands not knowing when the drought would break but we know it would.
Re, “The management of the Barrages and the bloody minded behaviour of your Govt to let those soils be exposed are part of this problem” please put in the Federal Government and the MDBA forward as it was not solely a SA Government decision!
I realise where the flushing finishes up and I know about salt inception schemes but they are also a problem as at ‘Stockyard Plains’ where the salt inception scheme water is pumped is now a problem as the more that is pumped in it will (via underground) finish up back in the Murray.
Our recent meetings are about making alterations and what needs urgent attention is Lake Albert 1480EC, the Barrages upgrade then our seeking of a “Impact Statement” re Lock Zero.
We are not living in the past but move ahead with some caution as we have to get it right and the disappointing thing for many of my colleagues is the way things are going we are not going to get of home base as if this plan does not get into parliament after changes after the consultation period do we have to start all over again.
If that is the case some people may be quite happy as I may expire before it is put forward again.
Gavin,
In case you didn’t know, people who hate farmers and graziers call us cockies.It is generally not a term of endearment.It is a bit like calling someone bitch or nigger.While you may not mean it to be demeaning or disparaging that is usually how it is meant and how it is taken.
However name calling does have its place.My pet hate is consumers of food and fibre who disparage and denigrate producers in order to achieve acclaim and influence or power and money.I call such parasitic hypocrites Greenies and it is not a term of endearment!
Peter,
You say this:
Debbie I understand your views but I am not trying to alienate any group or put the environment against the irrigators.
Now go back and read what you have said over many posts regarding this topic.
You most probably don’t realise it but that’s exactly what you have been doing.
Your arguments have been basically lifted from unsubstantiated, airy fairy, ACF claims.
You have been advancing the ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ argument non stop.
You have also tried to argue that the only way to solve the problem….the only way….is to flush extra water down the river and to store it in upstream dams ‘just in case’ the lower Murray might need it.
You have also continued your ‘poor SA everyone is picking on us’ argument, right up to the last post.
And I’m sorry to say so….but it was SA’s call regarding the exposure of those soils in the drought. The management of those barrages is ultimately SA’s call.
I am horrified that you along with your government are continually bleating that your problems during the drought were a result of greedy upstream management.
That is so completely false and completely parochial.
You obviously have no idea or you are refusing to recognise the sacrifices that were made upstream in order for SA to have those 3 years worth of critical supplies.
Of course you want to protect your area…..but if you keep insisting that the ONLY way it can be done is to seriously interfere in the productive capacity of my area, then you are most definitely part of the problem…..not the solution.
Think win/win Peter.
Hi Dave,
Well said Dave what is required is an understanding between producer and consumers. I never ceases to amaze me how those who don’t understand the bush or are maybe jealous of people who they see as better off.
What is lost on those within our community is the fact of how much work has gone into turning virgin land into good producing land and the need for water is to feed the population.
Hi Debbie,
If you believe I am, “basically lifted from unsubstantiated, airy fairy, ACF claims” you are not understanding my point or I am not conveying my point very well.
It’s not about, “You have been advancing the ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ argument non-stop” it’s about agreeing on what is best for us all in the long run.
I can understand your point about losing any entitlement as we feel the same about our entitlement and of course we only with draw 7% of the Basins’ water.
I am sorry but I can assure you that is how we feel, “You have also continued your ‘poor SA everyone is picking on us’ argument, right up to the last post” and as if we didn’t and re, “You obviously have no idea or you are refusing to recognise the sacrifices that were made upstream in order for SA to have those 3 years worth of critical supplies” that’s crap and I regret to say it again but SA especially the Lower River Murray was the most degraded during the drought and the loose of primary producers (totalling over 120 and the associated infrastructure/reliance’s) and now maintaining the ‘stranded assets’ and the water required was critical human needs ONLY regret was no stock water in that water.
Debbie, SA alone could not because of signed agreements make those decisions alone.
Re, “I am horrified that you along with your government are continually bleating that your problems during the drought were a result of greedy upstream management” did I say anything about upstream management it was the Government public servants who made decisions which were agreed to.
The weir pools in SA should have been lowered!
And your last point, “Of course you want to protect your area…..but if you keep insisting that the ONLY way it can be done is to seriously interfere in the productive capacity of my area, then you are most definitely part of the problem…..not the solution” but you are OK with interfering with our PRODUCTIVE CAPABILITY is your PRODUCTIVE CAPABILITY more important than ours?
Also Debbie what is the maximum EC level at which your area can function successfully?
Peter to protect your end of town we must build Lock Zero first so we can have the pool level of 0.75m back to Lock 1 at Blanchetown. This will help to eliminate the River bank collapses they had. Secondly we change Lake Albert from a blind lake into a transit lake into the Southern Coorong. Thirdly we must alter the South East Drainage Scheme by turning the drains around to flow back towards Kingston SE and the Southern Coorong not out to sea as they are still doing. Fourthly we must change the Goolwa Barrages which at the moment has approxitmately 115 chambers that are just like a retainer wall. They have a converted earth moving machine to lift 1 sleeper 30m wider x 0.500m high ( about 3 different heights ) at time. When they opened the barrage to allow the extra flow there were about 4 sleepers per bay sitting on the top which is 460 sleepers. We had a storm arrive one weekend ( they don’t work weekends ) which caused a backflow over the barrage which rasied the salt level at the Hindmarsh Island to over 40,000 EC and a fish kill. We need automatic gates on the barrage then the Superintendant only has to walk out his house and press a button on a weekend. It has happend a few times this winter, fortunately the latest one was a working day.
Hi Sean,
Re, “Lock Zero” we believe the pool level should be at about +0.50-metres above AHD we need to stop all the backwaters and floodplains below Lock 1 filling, that will be enough stop bank collapse.
At our meeting yesterday it was pointed out that connecting Lake Albert to the Coorong is not an option.
As for re-directing the South East drains, the costs outweigh, and my create another problem, the advantages.
I agree the Barrages must be totally upgraded and the height raised.
All the gates need to be computer operated and opening from the bottom. During a major upgrade the Barrages can be stopped from leaking.
Peter!
“but you are OK with interfering with our PRODUCTIVE CAPABILITY is your PRODUCTIVE CAPABILITY more important than ours?”
Simple answer…..NO!!!!!!!!!
You are still retreating behind your ‘only one answer that will mean someone has to miss out’ position.
Think win/win Peter.
You are STILL thinking win/lose.
Also your EC level question makes no sense.
I’ve pointed out that more flushing won’t fix your salt problems….I also pointed out that we have fixed ours here BY NOT FLUSHING. Our system functions very well because we had enough sense to deal with our salt problem at a local level…..which is the only way you can fix a problem like that.
Are you trying to tell me that we are part of the reason you have a salt problem. That is simply not the case….how could that be if we contribute zero salts and etc back into the system?
Or maybe you are trying to say that we have to suffer somehow because you have a salt problem?????
I actually can’t see the point of your question at all.
Seriously Peter….where you’re situated in the system…..the last thing you want is for all of us to start flushing….that will only make your problems worse.
The weir pools were a way to store water closer to SA in the depth of the drought.
Despite what you seem to believe, trying to just send it from the upstream storages would have incurred unacceptable losses. You don’t seem to understand the logistics of getting stored water to SA.
The Murray is NOT a well constructed, efficient, delivery channel. It is extremely restricted, leaks all over the place and is incredibly inefficient. That’s one of the reasons why it would naturally dry up in droughts.
Those weir pools may have looked wasteful but it was the best option in a row of poor choices. Much more precious water would have been wasted when we could not afford to waste a drop.
Also….just saying crap and then making sweeping unsubstantiated statements about the ‘most degraded’ is more of the same.
“Most degraded’ compared to what? I could supply figures that look just as bad as you have supplied here….that doesn’t prove anything other than we all suffered badly through the drought. It was not a unique problem for SA….SA suffered too….we know.
SA has problems and we have problems. They were glaringly obvious during the drought. We need to come up with win/win solutions to fix the problems and stop arguing that someone is getting a better deal than someone else.
WE ALL COPPED A BAD DEAL!
What you’re saying here looks and reads like a petulant child arguing with a sibling.
I repeat….and I also agree with Mark A….whom I inadvertantly insulted (sorry!)….that there is probably no point in continuing this conversation…..BUT PETER…..while you continue to argue in this manner you are in fact part of the problem and not part of the solution. You are playing into the hands of the Politicians, the ACF etal, and their pet bureaucrats.
It should not be about SA vs Upstream and it also should not be about ‘the Environment vs Irrigated Agriculture’. The only result we will gain from that approach is yet another clueless bureaucracy…..as if we don’t have enough already!!!!!
A simple question,
Would the Green loonies who are splashing around ,having a ball at everyone’s expense agree to the Barrages being built today ?
Imagine the TV coverage of weeping ‘activists’ picking up MILLIONS of dead mulloway.
What a cynical bunch they really are and the people who are using their weight for political gain , at the expense of the Nation, are really just as bad.
I mean, now there is a pipeline from the MD (Goulburn River) to Melbourne, how about we propose turning Port Phillip Bay into a fresh water lake . The Thompson Dam would be a great help in this ,with all that water just being wasted on people – not the environment.
The Greens would ,of course applaud the barrages involved.
Peter & Others
Aren’t the backwaters what the environmentalists want to fill ? What is the difference between your backwaters and the Lower Lakes ?
The Lower Lakes are now fully piped that Jim Marsh said a Government would not do for political reasons and they have shifted their pump stations have been shifted from Lakes Alexandrina and Albert up to Jervois and Tailem Bend. So are we now filling the Lower Lakes just to satisfy the RAMSAR agreement and Adelaide’s water supply. A RAMSAR site does not have to be and can easily be changed.
Below are some notes I have made :-
Refer to :- By pool you mean the back-up ?
In the drier years, like 1982, we supplied up to 90% of Adelaide’s water. Without the Murray and the pipelines, that would not have happened.
Was this the year that led to the S.A. Government to start thinking about the RAMSAR agreement that it signed in 1985 and the guarantee of 1850 GL by the MDBA to S.A.
The SA Government why are they still thinking of the fresh water solution?
The SA Government wants to keep the status quo in order above else. If they talk about making the Lower Lakes an estuarine system, then the basis for the 1,850 Gigalitre allocation goes out the window and they may have to work very hard on alternative water supplies to keep everybody happy. Even though the body of evidence is overwhelming that a fresh water solution is not sustainable, our Government is paralysed with fear at the consequences of changing management strategy to anything else. There is no science in this, despite the perception that there is.
The RAMSAR agreement was this the cheapest way for the SA Government to build a new 200 GL reservoir for Adelaide’s water supply without using any concrete?
Hi Debbi,
I am not, “interfering with our PRODUCTIVE CAPABILITY is your PRODUCTIVE CAPABILITY more important than ours?” to answer NO but “I” am NOT interfering with your, “PRODUCTIVE CAPABILITY” all productive capabilities is being interfered with and if the area below Lock 1 had not already sold over 60-Gigalitres of water when deserting the area during the drought we would be getting hit a lot harder!
RE, “Also your EC level question makes no sense” the reason I asked on we are expected to get by with EC levels of over a 1000 and in places 1500 and in Lake Albert as high as 4800.
Once again I ask what is YOUR solution to the problem? And also what are your solutions for our salinity problem if flushing won’t work?
Re, “Our system functions very well because we had enough sense to deal with our salt problem at a local level…..which is the only way you can fix a problem like that” OK but our salinity problem is imported so I suppose we should ask/seek water over Lock 1 that is Zero EC.
Re, “The weir pools were a way to store water closer to SA in the depth of the drought” at pre paddle steamer level, give me a break, it was purely a decision that there had be a sacrifice let it be below Lock 1.
“You don’t seem to understand the logistics of getting stored water to SA” are they the logistics that require 720-Gigalitres of dilution and transmission flow?
THE MURRAY WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED WELL NOT BY WHITEMAN!
And whilst I am not against water for critical human needs, stock and domestic and irrigation, though some industries must be forced to re-use, “That’s one of the reasons why it would naturally dry up in droughts” no it’s not we removed more than the system could supply at some times.
Re, “Those weir pools may have looked wasteful but it was the best option in a row of poor choices” not entirely correct there was no need to have the weirs pools high enough to keep the back waters and flood plains nearly full!
Re, “Also….just saying crap and then making sweeping unsubstantiated statements about the ‘most degraded’ is more of the same” did you visit this area during the height of the drought and see the massive banks collapsing and the cracks 100’s of metres long and many metres wide which took thousands of hectares out of production and much is still unusable?
I am not trying to just go on about what happened the suffering and the suicides were absolutely horrendous throughout the Basin but the North and the South West took the hardest hit.
Re, “What you’re saying here looks and reads like a petulant child arguing with a sibling” it’s about understanding and being Australian, we are all in this together and we must work out the problems together so we all come out on the up-side.
Playing into others hands, like you our community’s are also fighting for the future!
Bottom line as Australians’ we are in this together and if we have to make the changes that may be wrought upon us well so be it but the Basin/Country must pay their monetary share.
Hi Ian,
Re, “A simple question, would the Green loonies who are splashing around, having a ball at everyone’s expense agree to the Barrages being built today? NO, we could have done things differently but re, “Imagine the TV coverage of weeping ‘activists’ picking up MILLIONS of dead mulloway” but I am sick of hearing about fish the Lakes fishery is going well, it isn’t about FISH it’s about our future!
Re ,that pipeline, I even heard people saying it did not come out of the MDB.
And the Greens may do what they like, they are in my opinion just a waste of space and money messing with a democracy.
Hi San,
When I spoke to the Environmental Water Holder he agreed that none essential flood plains and back waters maybe should not be filled the water as much as possible should remain in the main channel.
Re, “By pool” the +0.75-metres above AHD.
Re, “In the drier years, like 1982, we supplied up to 90% of Adelaide’s water. Without the Murray and the pipelines, that would not have happened” it would still be well possible with pool held at +0.4/0.5 above AHD.
Of course another problem is population growing and requirements.
The cap of 1850-Gigalitres plus our dilution/transmission flow was not the RAMSAR water.
The State Government is yes, “still thinking of the fresh water solution” I put it to them 1000EC at Wellington is what we should be aiming at!
Whilst the State Government wish to, “keep the status quo in order above else” it would be in their best interests to come to the table with an open mind.
I am not sure re, “If they talk about making the Lower Lakes an estuarine system, then the basis for the 1,850 Gigalitre allocation goes out the window” if that is correct our cap in the agreement is 1850-Gigalitresa and that would have to remain, as I said the population is increasing.
“in case you didn’t know, people who hate farmers and graziers call us cockies”
Well, heaven forbid; it seems Iv’e upset Dave who I asume is a cocky. Lets get this right now. Im here to ruffle Deb who I think could be a crow. Btw I don’t hate anyone or group, least of all Jen’s mob.
Dave; yours truly has a lot of experience around farmers and many other types of producers based in rural areas. Lets say though imo there growers and growers. It’s your irrigators that want to suck and suck without a hint of putting it back.
You see; I am the recycling king. Yesterday I finished salvaging most plywood from an interior door that had been roughing it out in my carport for years. One piece fixed the back of a silky oak dresser that had to have it’s borer riddled pine interior removed.
But on a more comercial note I was often engaged in monitoring various water treatment operations for big biz so its your cycle or lack of that interests me in retirement.
On another stream I noticed a comment that 99.9% goes out to sea. I hope it was all salt.
Aqua blue is my color too.
On suicide; I must have faced about a dozen lots of folk after the event so it’s all too common.
A few weeks back, I asked the NT Cattlemens Assn to fill me in on why they were so dependent on live trade with Indonesia. This follows loggers and woodchip, export butter and the EC, fishermen and quotas. Also wool and the rag trade. Fickle markets require flexibility at the growing point. Producers can expect bumpy supply too.
Banks are always going to be on top so avoid them.
Debbie, SA salinity problems are not imported, the Murray delivers water through Mildura at approx 200EC, and even in Lake Victoria levels have not exceeded 240EC in the last year. Of course flows are well up on the drought induced lows, but even in 2008 after horrendously low inflows salinity at lock 6 was less than 300 and by lock 1 It was 50% higher.
http://riverdata.mdba.gov.au/sitereports/a4261093/mdba_a4261093_site_report.html
http://www.waterforgood.sa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/rm_report_20jun08.pdf
While SA irrigators apparently extract 7% of Murray water, SA only contributes about 4% of inflow to the system. Interestingly SA has used close to 20% of the Water extracted from the Murray early last decade.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/569770beee255ea3ca2572c6001d5a9d!OpenDocument
I wholeheartedly agree this shouldn’t be SA vs upstream, we’re all users of the system and fairness should exist for all. In theory that is what the MDBA is there to sort out. We’ll see.
Hi Gavin ,
I seem to remember your location is Canberra. Whether it is ,or not, I see they got another whole new Govt Dept last week. Water supply must be becoming a problem up there too, given the short sighted approach to the problem in other Capitals.
That aside, the point being made by myself and others is that most ‘sucking’ is only the metered return of stored water ,which , before the storages were built, inundated the irrigated areas.
I note , incidentally, that the Murray is flying down and the ‘Bidgee is at a rather risky level of environmental flow , given the weather forecast.
Yep,
crossed the bidgee, the Edwards and the Murray yesterday. Also passed agricultural land in full production. As well as that the native flora and fauna is flourishing. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about Gavin.
We had a drought. Thankfully its over.
SA and the lower Murray has been thoroughly flushed.
If there are still problems down there it appears they need to be solved in SA.
If the Murray is below 300 EC at Mildura & Lake Victoria. . . What does that tell you Peter?
You need to look at what is happening there and where that salt etc is coming from.
When you figure that out you may then be able to manage the problem like upstream has.
It is not coming from upstream.
The argument about upstream causing SA salt problems is SO last century and also discredited.
I agree it is about people. So why have you allowed the ACF to argue otherwise in SA?
SA’s arguments are bi polar.
Rojo,
That ABS link is very revealing . The Lake Victoria levels show where environmental flows go – (yes,we had them during the drought ). Am I misreading it all,or was SA’s metro use higher during some drought years , while upstream towns had water restrictions ? Some while they were flooded.
Rojo,
theoretically yes.
Unfortunately the MDBA is completely hamstrung by that totally inadequate water act.
At its core it is a contrived idealogical commitment to redistribute water from production into the ocean via the Murray river.
It is the federal government attempting to nationalise water by the back door using environment and international treaties as their justification.
They are therefore pretending to solve the wrong problem.
Unfortunately, inland communities are the ‘cannon fodder’ in this contrived idealogical battle.
There are some problems that need solving. This very painful process is a complete sideshow and is not solving anything.
The only result is yet another water bureaucracy. . . as if we needed another one! ! !
Gavin,
Well,why don’t you buy a farm from one of those “suck and suck” irrigators and show us all how it should be done ?That would be better than attempting to belittle and villify people who are obviously not as wise as you are,wouldn’t it ?
Hi Ian,
We South Australia had water restrictions during the drought and I wouldn’t be surprised if Adelaide recorded a high level of use as they seem (or many) seem they have the right to water when they like. It must also be remembered our irrigators were restricted to 47% until the middle of this year, what stupidity, watching water travel down the River Murray and not being able to use said water!
Hi Dave,
Re, “Gavin” whilst most are looking for co-operation and conversation with all stakeholders some have nothing better to do than belittle, they will get theirs!
Debbie,
Todays S.A. salt readings :-
Morgan Pump Stn. 332 EC, Swan Reach Pump Stn. 385 EC, Mannum Pump Stn. (wharf) 419 EC,
Murray Bridge Pump Stn. ( Long Island ) 352 EC, Wellington ( ds fe.rry ) 404 EC, Milang 494 EC, Hind. Isl. bridge 528 EC.
Lake Albert’s 3 stations, 4563 EC,5109 EC, and 4993 EC as you can see it still hasn’t recovered from the Narung Bun, believe they are still having problems removing the dirt. Some boats in a race between Meningie and Goolwa had bumping problems going over the old bun.
My figures show that Milang has recovered from a high of 5,860 EC, Meningie 11,330 EC and Goolwa Hind. Isl. Bridge 32,720 EC.
Peter,
We saw the water going down ,but here, there was no allocation. AND some SA politician , on a fact tour described a farm he visited near Jerilderie as ‘stealing water’ . When it had not seen any for yonks and the ” high value” grapes had died.
He got away with it there too !
Peter , A PIPELINE.
Why not ? UMMM Greenies ?
Hi Ian,
I think I know the politician, please accept my apologies as he was talking out of, “this will help me get votes” I have already told him he should pull his head in!
Re, “pipelines” there was two pipelines constructed at the height of the drought one to the wine region at longhorn Creek and that pipeline was direct from the River at Wellington straight River water.
The other pipeline was constructed from the Tailem Bend pumping/filtration Station to service around Lake Albert but for irrigation water the cost is prohibitive.
To receive supplies through that line for an irrigator the cost of the water is between 50% & 60% more expensive than pumping from Lake Albert and for dairies that cost is not covered by the wholesale price of milk.
The Greens and Greenies agreed with the construction of both pipelines but being a cynic I feel that was about retaining votes!
Ian,
My comments to the Adelaide Now web site when they announced the new pipelines :-
To Adeliade Now
Times are getting very interesting as past ideas of just ten years ago even before the current drought and water crisis were known are now coming to fruition.
Alexandrina Local History Archive
Jim Marsh Barrage Superintendant at Goolwa in September 1999
“One of the positions being considered is to abandon the barrages and let the lakes return to natural estuarine condition and rebuilding the structure at Wellington. It would entail quite significant capital expenditure because they would have to build distribution works down each side and all the people who now pump out of the Lakes would have to be supplied from a large pipeline. The political ramifications of shifting the barrages would be too hot for any government to try”.
Ten years later a new pipeline with filtered water from Tailem Bend to properties in the districts of Raukkan, Narrung, Meningie and Poltalloch Peninsular, Point Sturt have to wait until September has been constructed. Langhorne Creek connected to Strathalbyn, Milang and Clayton pipeline. The irrigators $12.5 million and thanks to the Commonwealth and State Governments putting in not less than $94 million will have their separate pipeline from Jervois to Langhorne Creek through to Currency Creek by October, 2009, the reliance on the Lakes no longer required. It has moved a pumping station closer to the Lakes and salt water with a weir being built in a position not suitable in the late 1930’s was switched to Goolwa.
Sean,
Why was it piped and not channeled to the users ?Isn’t piping much more expensive ?
Hi Dave,
To move water through channels is far too inefficient so whilst more expensive the savings in loss of water soon pay for themselves.
Transporting water through pipelines and metering from the pipeline ensures what you pay for is what your entitlement actually is!
It must also be remembered that the pipeline to the wine producing area is direct from the River Murray whilst the pipeline to, Raukkan, Narrung, Meningie and Poltalloch Peninsular, Point Sturt is filtered water from Tailem Bend so therefore more expensive.
So. It seems we return to the beginning – the stuffed up , rushed in , Water Act.
Suppose it was revisited ( flushed ) , and a new one was written which included right to farm provisions, including converting the SA entitlement to a piped supply, at wholesale prices.
Scrap the ridiculous bureaucracy which is blossoming around the Act and halt the buy backs. The money is there to provide for all SA’s needs , billions of dollars of it.
The money saved from overgovernance would provide on going support for a fair SA water supply price.
The only way this could happen is if the SA State Govt went after it. The Feds on both sides want to own the water and sell it to someone.
Well said Ian,
Exactly!
That knee jerk, woeful water act is at the bottom of this nightmare.
SA would be wise to say so as well.
The last thing we need is to waste more time & money on this useless process. All we’re doing is helping to justify the existence of another bloody water bureaucracy.
Like that would solve anything!
Dave,
The channels dug for the pipes are probably smaller than what is required for the open channels and water flows more efficiently through pipes, no soakage and evaporation problems and as Peter says everthing is now metred and costing farmers about an extra $50,000 or more per year to operate as they are now paying the same price as ordinary househols for the water.
I thought that was what the Victorians and NSW were supposed to be doing putting pipes into their channels and covering them with dirt for a more effecient distribution of their water.
Dave; since I have avoided “farming” thus far it would be inconsistent to go in now only to prove a point but I do meet both growers and families often enough. Re MDB “facts” it’s almost as likely I would meet a guru from the ABS, BRS or a foreign diplomat promoting trade. Why they are in Canberra would be my first question.
My assessment is the whole MDB is that it’s not much of a trout stream although we can have buckets in excess in parts like last night. What others want to do with the increasingly murkier waters further down is hardly my natural concern but I will always challenge views like Deb’s who imo only sees the middle.
Reports today indicate bird numbers have increased and that must be good for all. Good science must include all situations so everything is kept in the picture.
I have no problem with piping as long as it doesn’t squander the renewable resource of gravity.
Too much of this ‘water efficiency’ debate results in doing just that.
In much of the areas that need piping, bigger pipes would solve that problem. Instead we have govt & engineering companies replacing gravity with electricity. That does not make sense!
We need to remember the best bang for our buck is that both water and gravity are renewable and they have always worked well together, always, always, always.
Also, open channels that don’t leak are not worth piping. Evaporative losses in efficient gravity fed irrigation systems with soil types that do not leak are not a major problem.
Gavin,
You really and truly have no idea….NONE!
You base your judgements and your comments on centralised bureaucratic ‘reports’.
Did you need to read a ‘report’ to believe that bird numbers have increased?
I guess in your world it can’t be true until someone whom you consider worth listening to puts it in writing?
However….thanks for the compliment….I do in fact see the ‘middle’….it’s called the ‘middle ground’ and it will be where we all need to go if we ever hope to move ahead.
We can easily increase productive capacity in the MDB….supply the ever increasing human, town and cities demands AND be environmentally responsible…..all at the same time.
Hopefully there will soon be a report for you to read ,written by someone whom you think should be taken notice of, that says exactly that.
Until then….your rude and sarcastic comments are completely laughable.
You obviously think they make you appear superior and supremely knowledgeable….
I will let you into a little secret……
They don’t 🙂
Yes, the 2007 Water Act is a bloody mess and the SA Premier should never have signed it.
Re, “Suppose it was revisited (flushed), and a new one was written which included right to farm provisions, including converting the SA entitlement to a piped supply, at wholesale prices” our SA’s entitlement is 1850-Gigalitres and that can’t be pumped as the River needs the water to flow. The costs would be totally prohibitive but if irrigators were to be supplied with River water i.e. straight from the River at the same price as they used to pay for the pumping of the water from its source those irrigators would be more than competitive, but sadly that will never happen.
Hi Gavin,
Instead of putting forward crap why not stop being rude to others and come up with your solution.
Hi Debbie,
Spot on re Gavin.
Gavin,
What is that “point” you wish to avoid proving ?
Debbie,
Your point about water and gravity is well made.The evaporation (of fresh water) saved by allowing seawater into the lower lakes would be much greater than the little bit from open channels.
Hi Dave,
Allowing sea water to invade Lake Alexandrina WOULD contaminate all fresh water downstream of Lock 1 at Blanchetown for which the ramifications would be a disaster!
Dave, my point would be we can’t all grow on MDB diversions. My second point would be we can’t all have total water security. My concern remains that irrigators fall into line on a value/Glt basis when compared with other industry and consumers generally.
Two groups on the fringe are the ACT and SA. State by state consumption for agriculture over a couple of years show interesting trends.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4610.0
Hi Gavin,
When are you going to get on the same planet as the rest of us?
How can you put SA into the fringe group category and not include Qld, NSW, ACT and Victoria aren’t the four mentioned on equal footing as SA, as I thought we were all Australians?
Irrespective of your continued, “State by state consumption for agriculture over a couple of years show interesting trends” are you suggesting that all irrigation be decided on a value by megalitre use?
If you are the changes for ALL irrigators’ will ensure Australia cannot feed its population during the period of moving probably 90% of irrigation to other areas?
We have established some of, if not the best, irrigation practices in the world name where irrigation is more successful and in the main more efficient.
We would like to live in a perfect world and continue to wear rose coloured glasses, but really.
Peter,
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOUR LOCK ZERO PLAN ? IS IT YES OR NO ?
“Allowing sea water to invade Lake Alexandrina WOULD contaminate all fresh water downstream of Lock 1 at Blanchetown for which the ramifications would be a disaster!”
IF WE BUILD LOCK ZERO AS YOU SAY WE SHOULD then all fresh water would be contaminated below this lock to the barrages. The wine growers and farmers will be okay as they will have fresh water supply from Tailem Bend and Jervois above LOCK ZERO. Then we have Hindmarsh Island and Goolwa that get their water from Myponga Reservoir ( doesn’t use River Murray water ).
The area between Lock Zero and downstream Lock 1 should be fresh water just like yesterday Murray Bridge Long Island 352 EC, Mannum The Wharf 419 EC and Swan Reach 385 EC.
Guys; the facts may be startling but you do need to read a little more than Jennifer’s column but note I’m building your foundation and not destroying your argument for irrigation since it must have a place in the overall scheme of things MDB.
In the above link –“APPENDIX – AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES” we find a 5% increase in land irrigated from the previous year but still well down from peaks a decade ago. I know it’s not a MDB or climate doc but its fair to say it reveals the need for considerable re adjustment of irrigator expectation and demand.
On the question of cotton v rice, dairy, fruit & veg etc, I know a place where the cows can graze all day all year and there is not a river to wet your boots. Debs; gravity is no help either but seaweed abounds. Horses for courses hey.
Hi Sean,
Yes, Lock Zero would protect from Blanchetown to Lock Zero but at this stage it is only an idea for which we are seeking an “Impact Statement!”
Hi Gavin,
As I asked before do live on the same planet as the rest of us?
Also I read a lot more than, “than Jennifer’s column” and don’t take a lot of notice of what she writes.
Peter; I’m only trying to get you all examining a body of work that imo in its entirety cuts across much of the regional rhetoric associated with the MDB saga. As previously suggested in forestry debates here, imo similar work eventually got us out of the woods.
On another note; I have a certain admiration for Jennifer’s tenacity in keeping old arguments running.
Hi Gavin,
No Gavin your post referring to SA as a “fringe group” was certainly inflammatory when we in SA are working within our limits to examine the MDBA plan and accept change.
I read widely about the MDB and will accept change based on the best available information.
As for Jennifer’s suggestion’s re the Lower River Murray, Lock 1 to the Southern Ocean, I totally reject them!
Peter; “Fringe group” = groups on the fringe of irrigation like the ACT if you don’t mind
Well Gavin,
There you go again….quoting bureaucratic reports written by people who have about as much of a clue as you do.
Even Knowles and Burke have conceded that the ABS and ABARES work is inadequate because it uses linear calculations and because it doesn’t recognise what happens at the micro level.
The saddest part of all that work is that it assumes there is NO WAY to become smarter at sourcing more of the renewable resources of water and gravity. It is all designed on linear models that assume that nothing can be changed and we therefore have to go backwards.
Despite your rude and sarcastic comments…..the development of inland Australia has been largely a huge success. Inland Australia is populated by reslilient and productive communities who actually control way more than you would ever care to admit. They actually know FROM EXPERIENCE how irrelevant Canberra Bureaucrats actually are.
Despite Peter’s litany of ‘impossible’, what we should be doing is MORE of what we know works and actually fix up the mistakes….instead of constantly whining and whinging about the mistakes and listening incessantly to ‘small pie’ thinkers.
Peter,
It amuses me that you are offended by Gavin’s comments from the ACT…he is behaving the same as you….just at the other end of the southern connected system. He actually did pick that one quite well.
And Gavin,
The ACT has no skin in the game at all. As you correctly point out….as long as you can wash your cars and water your lawns etc….Canberra really doesn’t give a damn! (and definitely not a dam!)
Canberra is way more interested in discussing nefarious ‘high level principles’ and competeing for political kudos…..it actually suits the politicians that there is an ‘idealogical battle’. If it ever got solved, they would become rather unimportant….and they would have no reason to keep creating more bureaucratic departments.
Just imagine if those $Billions got spent on doing something positive and measureable????
That’s obviously not what the political elite want to spend it on.
Peter,
It has been an idea since at least 27th. September, 1999 according to Jim Marsh, Barrage Superintendent at Goolwa and revised again by Professor Tim Flannery article from The Australian July 12th. 2008 “Heroic action” sought for Lakes, I believe he was told to bite his tongue by another Govt. funded body after this article. They both mention that the Lower Lakes would have to be supplied with an alternative water supply, well this has been achieved with the new potable and irrigation piopelines.
Peter you have got it wrong Jennifer now says point 3 of a petition :- Adelaide’s water supply can be secured by buildinga a Lock downstream from Tailem Bend.
Hi Gavin,
Your comment was, “Two groups on the fringe are the ACT and SA” why would you refer to SA as a ‘fringe group’ do you honestly believe that SA is a ‘fringe group’re irrigation?
Hi Debbie,
Re, “It amuses me that you are offended by Gavin’s comments from the ACT…he is behaving the same as you….just at the other end of the southern connected system. He actually did pick that one quite well” if you think I am not prepared to change and look ahead you are just living your own little world.
I am the first to admit we all must make change and as the Australian spokesperson for ‘Lock Zero’ we are attempting to find out what are the possibilities of constructing another regulator in the Lower River Murray but until we are successful in getting an ‘Impact Statement’ into Lock Zero we will not entertain allowing sea water to invade Lake Alexandrina.
We NEED this statement to look at all options at our end of the Murray Darling Basin/River Murray and we need support for an ‘Impact Statement’ and that ‘Impact Statement’ must look at what HAS to be done to repair Lake Albert woes, the total upgrading of the Barrages and Lock Zero.
Regarding Lock Zero that proposal was Emailed (prior to the last Federal Election) to all Federal Politicians, every Council/Shire in Australia and most major media outlets in Australia and that was a lot of work so please don’t degrade our efforts.
And re ACT they will lose no water and have already stated that if they want more they will get it.
Re, “wash your cars and water your lawns” I am not in that group either as my lawn has nearly died and the only water my garden (lawn) may get is from my 8 tanks – total storage 12,00 gallons i.e. 53,472 litres which I have to use for all water needs.
Well done Peter,
For once you’ve actually focused on where some work needs to be done rather than blaming others for the problem.
Maybe you could also focus some attention here?
http://mail.caesars.net.au/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56ZUc3X8CN0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwQsBzYCrUo&feature=relmfu
Did you ever read that other link I gave you?
SA seriously needs to stop blaming upstream for mistakes made in SA. That would also include your salt problem.
I totally agree that SA is extremely vulnerable but it is time to stop pretending that no one cares and that SA has been shoddily treated by the Eastern States.
SA needs to recognise that many sacrifices were made upstream during the recent drought to make sure that SA was not left stranded. The upstream storages had 3 YEARS of critical supplies for SA in the depth of the drought.
SA also needs to recognise there was nothing that could be done about those Lakes under those conditions. There were just as many other iconic sites that had to go without water just as they would have done NATURALLY in a drought like that.
It had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with irrigation extraction….WE HAD NO WATER EITHER…..and a frightening amount of businesses went under…..just like in SA.
To pretend that one State suffered more than another is just absolute rubbish and completely parochial.
Unless we face the fact that more needs to be done about storage and infrastructure, the next drought will be just as devastating for the human dependant water assets…..SA will remain just as vulnerable.
This silly idealogical commitment to re distribrute water from production to the ocean via the Murray river will do NOTHING to protect SA in the next drought….it will only succeed in interfering in the productive capacity of inland Australia when there is no need to do so.
The problem is we have outstripped our tired and dated storage and infrastructure systems.
They need improving, upgrading and expanding.
We are more than capable of doing that AND being environmentally responsible.
To pretend that we have an environmental problem and working from an Act that assumes it is the fault of Irrigation will not solve anything.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “For once you’ve actually focused on where some work needs to be done rather than blaming others for the problem” you are so full of yourself you can’t see the forest for the trees, I do not blame anyone or if I did I would be blaming Governments and I have been focused on what I believe should happen, on behalf of the Basin, all of my life!
Maybe you could also focus some attention here? Very interesting but things are different than then!
Re, “SA seriously needs to stop blaming upstream for mistakes made in SA. That would also include your salt problem. I totally agree that SA is extremely vulnerable but it is time to stop pretending that no one cares and that SA has been shoddily treated by the Eastern States” I can’t stop what other people do just you can’t and how much longer are you going to keep denying the fact that 2-millions of salt is transported from the far North and East of the Basin down to the Murray River’s mouth?
Re, “SA needs to recognise that many sacrifices were made upstream during the recent drought to make sure that SA was not left stranded. The upstream storages had 3 YEARS of critical supplies for SA in the depth of the drought” I am sorry for you if you believe that no sacrifices were made in SA.
Re, “SA also needs to recognise there was nothing that could be done about those Lakes under those conditions” did I ask for something to be done, yes I did I asked that the weir pools in SA be lowered not East of the border.
Re, “It had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with irrigation extraction” did you have an allocation during the drought? We didn’t as it was not deliverable.
Re, “To pretend that one State suffered more than another is just absolute rubbish and completely parochial” of course it is, even if it is fact.
Re, “The problem is we have outstripped our tired and dated storage and infrastructure systems” is that including inefficient delivery systems.
Re, “They need improving, upgrading and expanding” they certainly do!
And yes, “To pretend that we have an environmental problem and working from an Act that assumes it is the fault of Irrigation will not solve anything” the 2007 Water Act is stupid but there is still an environmental problem in the Lower River Murray as the Coorong’s Southern Lagoon is HYPER-SALINE as our indigenous Australians’ continue to remind us as they did at a meeting I have just returned from!
When has the southern lagoon ever not been hyper saline?
Hi rojo,
In 2000/01 prior to the drought.
Peter,
You obviously havent looked at those links.
The problems re the Coorong have almost nothing to do with upstream and NSW VIC &QLD.
Look to the SE of SA.
Please look at the information supplied to you.
Also, look at where salt starts to become an issue. Also precious little coming from the north. None comes from our patch, yet strangely that is the area with the biggest target on its back.
Wake up Australia. I have told you many times that the real problem with the Coorong has been the South East Drainage System. The only contact the Coorong has with the River Murray is Tauwitcher Barrage where fresh water flows over the barrage at Pelican Point turns right and goes out the mouth approx. 15 KM. All go back to Myths of the Murray and you will see POINT No. 1 “The man-made South East Drainage System currently drains directly to the Southern Ocean. This should be changed back to how it was before farming with water draining into the Southern Coorong near Salt Creek, assisted by pumping. Dr. Paton has confirmed just recently on 891 Radio that 99.9% of the River Murray flows out the Mouth to the sea. As you can see now the Lowers Lakes are not part of the Coorong therefore the RAMSAR agreement does not help the Coorong hardly one little bit, just photo shoots for politicians.
Debbie “The problem is we have outstripped our tired and dated storage and infrastructure systems.
They need improving, upgrading and expanding”
Our new dam wall is behind schedule now because of rain. Actew spends $250,000/day just to cover standby so the whole project is about to run over budget and we may not catch much of this wet. Now guess who pays for this extra ACT water when or if it ever eventuates then say how you do likewise in capture security.
Deb, gravity only prevails when we let it go
Tonight I read the latest ABS energy report and noted we arn’t so hot on conserving those resources either. More dams = more work = higher costs somebody has to pay. As you noted we did hold back enough water for Adelaide during the last drought as required under pre-existing MDB contractural arrangements. Recall, I got involved briefly in discussions re the Dartmouth proposal in Victoria. In fact we got a delay after proposing changes to high country management and in hindsight that probably increased final costs and as I recall, improved the deal for SA -1850 Gl/y see Chowilla v Dartmouth debates.
Sean; given the Coorong dune landscape is from Middleton to Kingston Se our RAMSAR aggreement should cover all of that low lying sometimes fresh water hinterland
Hi Debbie,
I did look at those links.
I am not blaming NSW, VIC or QLD I am saying the Coorong’s Southern Lagoon is still hyper-saline.
There are many reasons for this and as I told the SA Minister for the River Murray today (21st) that spending $30-million to drain water from the South East is a total waste of our money as that water is already over 2000EC.
Re, “Also, look at where salt starts to become an issue. Also precious little coming from the north. None comes from our patch, yet strangely that is the area with the biggest target on its back” where does the 2-million tonnes of salt come from?” give me a break are you trying to tell me there ground water from your area is reaching any rivers or tributaries.
As that is not the case can you tell me where the salinity (i.e. the 2-million tonnes comes from?)
Sean and Debbie, the only solution is to pump out the Southern Lagoon?
Peter,
Not only did we not have an allocation in the drought, we got put in negative allocation retrospectively.
You need to stop whining. We all suffered.
We need to look at solutions.
GROUNDWATER? From the MIA?
Are you kidding?
If our groundwater was salty, we wouldn’t be using it.
Please at least check the facts before you make such sweeping accusations.
If its groundwater that is causing your salt problem then I would suggest you look at the SA groundwater.
In particular I would suggest you begin looking at groundwater intrusions where the salt readings begin to rise sharply. I would also suggest you check drainage points directly upstream from those sudden sharp increases in the EC levels.
Gavin,
I’m soooo grateful for your amazingly insightful observation about water and gravity. It never occured to me, an irrigator in a gravity fed system, that it doesn’t happen until the water starts to move. What a revelation! ! ! !
FOLKS :-
Restoring Balance in the Southern Coorong Lagoon.
Being essentially a separate ecosystem the Southern Lagoon has unique features that distinguish its problem from the other systems. However the fundamental problem is the same as elsewhere in the diminished flows of fresh water into the system have led to hyper-saline conditions which are compromising the environment. In the past, fresh water flows from the land diluted the saline waters of the Southern Lagoon in winter, bringing with it a flush of activity in the Spring as organisms took advantage of the ideal growing conditions to thrive. Frequent visitors to the area will note the prevalence of the distinctive rotten egg gas odor formed by the hydrogen sulphide. This is an indication of the biological activity endemic to this area. One suggested solution to the problem is to increase the amount of fresh water entering the system. In the past a drainage scheme that connected agricultural land inland from the Coorong collected water over the winter and temporarily stored this water before being discharged via Salt Creek. This system according to Moody may have increased fresh water inflows into the system and so this may be an example of how this micro-environment may have been helped by man’s engineering efforts. Of probably greater significance is the effect that the South East Drainage Scheme may have had on inflows from the southern reaches of this area in the past.
The Southern Drainage Scheme was commissioned in the last quarter of the nineteenth century to change the face of S.A.’s south east. Until this time the geography was that a series of ossified sand ridges that ran parallel to the coast.
Making Sensible use of the South East Drainage Scheme.
Some of the recent thinking into “fixing” the Lower Lakes and Coorong includes an idea to divert some of the water from the South East to bring it as far north as the Southern Coorong Lagoon. The large lakes that essentially line the coast from Mt. Gambier to Kingston SE could be joined together by canals and end in a massive unnatural lake on the eastern side of sand dune ridge north east of Kingston SE. From here it could flow slowly north westerly and end up in the existing system that feeds Salt Creek and thence the Southern Lagoon. Along the way this vast amount of water could be used for some farming purposes as well as providing a pleasant amenity a navigable waterway that gently undulates across the farmland on its way towards the Coorong. Perhaps we could end up with kilometres of extra canoe-able waterways that not only did some good economically but ecologically as well. By continuing the discharge of fresh water to the sea is a silly waste in a era of heightened general concern over water.
Hi Debbie,
As I don’t know where you irrigate or from where you source your irrigation water I need to ask some questions.
So obviously you are 100% efficient irrigators so as you know it all where does the 2-million tonnes that is transported through the Basin originate?
I have now read as much as I could afford in time about the subject in hand and find that there a some conflicting claims made.
“Allowing sea water to invade Lake Alexandrina WOULD contaminate all fresh water downstream of Lock 1 at Blanchetown”
——————————————————————-
This conflicts with an earlier claim that the lakes were fresh prior to the barrages being built.
The available literature also confirms that while not ALL the time, most of the time it was true.
How come that now it would be different? Specially so far upstream?
‘—————————————————————–
When has the southern lagoon ever not been hyper saline?
—————————————————————-
According to one of the links provided, the salinity increased greatly not because of the drought but the changes made in the drainage system. Most if not all of the saline water, at present, enters both Lake Albert and the SL as GROUND water!
Also Lake Albert, due to its situation in the chain always had saline pools, the movement of water is restricted and the incoming fresh water merely dilutes it.
There is no exchange of water to speak of and evaporation only adds to salinity.
I found the study “Identifying groundwater discharge into the Coorong” by R Haese, L Gow and others particularly interesting.
Peter,
EC is measured at many, many places along the system.
As previously stated….start looking in the places where the levels do a sharp rise….. As water always runs downhill you can make a sure bet that the salt is entering directly upstream from those points.
Look there for your answers.
Sean has also given you some excellent info about salt as has Mark A.
It isn’t a mystery Peter.
Hi Mark A,
Re, “Allowing sea water to invade Lake Alexandrina WOULD contaminate all fresh water downstream of Lock 1 at Blanchetown” what has to be understood, “This conflicts with an earlier claim that the lakes were fresh prior to the barrages being built. The available literature also confirms that while not ALL the time, most of the time it was true. How come that now it would be different? Specially so far upstream” we are basically talking about two systems the first prior to the completion of the Dams, Weirs, Locks and barrages and the second since those constructions being completed.
Prior to the regulating of the River Murray sea water was recorded as far upstream as Blanchetown, but this was during extremely low inflows.
Since the regulating of the River Murray there have been no significant sea water inflows into Lake Alexandrina. If the sea water were flow into Lake Alexandrina (1Litre of sea water contaminates 11 litres of fresh water) the sea water would contaminate the fresh water and the wind seiching that mixes the water just downstream of Wellington would over time destroy the Lower River Murray and it is predicted that Lake Alexandrina would become hyper-saline within two years.
The other problem we would then never have enough flow to completely purge the area of the salinity.
Re, “When has the southern lagoon ever not been hyper saline” put it this way it has not always been hyper-saline but at the present time the average EC level is 55,000 and in pockets greater than that.
Yes, “Most (some) if not all of the saline water, at present, enters both Lake Albert and the SL as GROUND water” and is compounded because of evaporation.
Re, “Also Lake Albert, due to its situation in the chain always had saline pools, the movement of water is restricted and the incoming fresh water merely dilutes it” yes but the average where irrigation water was extracted was bout 1500EC.
Plans to repair (to ensure the exchange of water) the entrance to Lake Albert from Lake Albert have been drawn up and we are waiting a State Government response but we must realise that if Lake Alexandrina became saline the future of Lake Albert would be zero.
Hi Debbie,
I will ask the question this way, is there salinity being transported through the MDB, at the rate of approximately 2-million tonnes per year, and deposited in Lake Alexandrina that must be removed?
Prior to the regulating of the River Murray sea water was recorded as far upstream as Blanchetown, but this was during extremely low inflows.
Since the regulating of the River Murray there have been no significant sea water inflows into Lake Alexandrina.
It means that there is always some water coming down the Murray therefore it makes the claim even more bizarre!
Nothing to do with the barrages then?
The southern coorong cannot be anything other than hyper saline, the narrows and the natural depth ensure that insufficient water exchange with water from the mouth occurs. I doubt that even the water diverted in the SE drainage schemes has any real impact other than how many times it is the strength of sea water.
Peter, Sea water has an EC of 55000, the southern lagoon currently 170000EC. Some accuracy please.
It doesn’t matter how many different ways you ask that question Peter….the answer is exactly the same.
If there is a 2million tonne salt problem…..and you want to know where it is coming from…..and also stop it happening…
LOOK WHERE THE EC LEVELS DO A SHARP RISE IN THE SYSTEM!!!!!
THEN LOOK IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM FROM THOSE POINTS!!!!!!
Those are obviously the places where the salt is coming from.
That’s where the problem needs to be managed….it is not going to be solved by flushing from further upstream….you’ll only partly dilute it…..that is not a solution….especially when water becomes scarce in a drought.
That’s called treating the symptom rather than treating the cause 🙂
Rojo supplied some of that info earlier:
‘SA salinity problems are not imported, the Murray delivers water through Mildura at approx 200EC, and even in Lake Victoria levels have not exceeded 240EC in the last year. Of course flows are well up on the drought induced lows, but even in 2008 after horrendously low inflows salinity at lock 6 was less than 300 and by lock 1 It was 50% higher.’
I’m guessing that you just don’t like the answer Peter?
Peter,
Soluble salt is completely diffrent to what you are referring to. As long as the river continues to flow it is soluble salt eg today the River flows past Wellington d/s Ferry it is 428 EC and as it passes Milang it increases to 517 EC where it finally reaches Goolwa barrage Beacon 20 where it increase to 555 EC flows over the barrage and out to sea.
Hi Mark A,
Re, “It means that there is always some water coming down the Murray therefore it makes the claim even more bizarre! Nothing to do with the barrages then” no it doesn’t as during extremely low inflows the River can stop flowing and is a series of weir pools!
Thank you Sean, yes I realise salinity being the term for a range of nasties many of which are imported/transported from upstream!
Hi all,
Let me put it this way how, Lake Alexandrina and the Lower River Murray going to fare and how is Lake Albert going to be revived if sea water is allowed to invade in through the Barrages? The Barrages were built to protect
SA’s potable water supply and whilst they need urgent re-modinisation of the Barrages are required infrastructure in the MDB.
Whoops, southern lagoon currently 115000 EC near Cattle Island, 170000 was the peak during the last 5 years.
After biggest flows to sea in years no less.
Peter,
a range of nasties being imported from upstream?
Where on earth are you obtaining your info?
Do some proper research please.
I suspect that one you have just used comes from somewhere last century.
Do a comparison and you will notice that ppm have generally improved.
Turbidity is still a major issue but that is often caused by forcing water to SA when narural conditions are obstructing.
Let’s also not forget the other elephant in the room: European Carp.
I am just old enough to remember how the turbidity levels radically changed when the MDB became more heavily infested with Carp.
Once again, the culprit is not necessarily upstream management and extractions.
If you try and solve the wrong problem you will inevitably use the wrong resources to do so.
As others have clearly pointed out, allowing the ocean to flush will actually REDUCE the salinity in those hyper-saline areas.
Yes you must protect potable human supplies. Extra flushing and storing ‘just in case’ water will not do that in the next severe drought. All that will do is radically interfere with inland production when it is not necessary to do so.
That is not a good solution for anyone Peter.
SA needs to campaign for sensible technical solutions and stop fueling this unproductive, parochial, political ‘environment ‘ argument. It is getting us nowhere and wasting precious time and resources.
The Murray river is a dreadfully inefficient water delivery system. If you truly want to manage the intrusion of salts etc you need to manage at the intrusion points. Extra flushing only dilutes the problem, it doesn’t solve the problem and it is also incredibly wasteful and inefficient.
It also contradicts your ‘SA is the most efficient state’ argument.
Hi Debbie,
A range of impurities i.e. aluminium, cadmium, arsenic, sulphuric acids and others are present in Lake Alexandrina and also Lake Albert these must be removed as the build up over time as we were made aware during the height of the drought. The problem in Lake Albert is an EC level is close to 5000 and not changing because the Government will not agree to make the necessary alterations to the narrows.
Re, Lake Alexandrina even though, I know you will never agree, must be flushed through the Barrages and Murray Mouth.
We have a major salt inception scheme pumping the slurry into Stockyard Plains and this is now becoming somewhat of a problem because of the spread and buildup and we maybe should be looking at the long term affect, what we do must ensure we don’t leave other problems.
Re, “SA needs to campaign for sensible technical solutions and stop fueling this unproductive, parochial, political ‘environment’ argument. It is getting us nowhere and wasting precious time and resources” what a load of crap. What the Murray Darling Basin needs is a MDBA approach to the problems in the Lower River Murray, we are not in this situation all by ourselves.
Yes, “The Murray River is a dreadfully inefficient water delivery system. If you truly want to manage the intrusion of salts etc you need to manage at the intrusion points” what do you suggest more inception schemes and if yes can we have the extra water to manage those schemes as we pump out many Gigalitres out of our entitlement already?
Re, “It also contradicts your ‘SA is the most efficient state’ argument” I am sorry but taking all the irrigators into consideration SA is the most efficient irrigation state, the extraction of salinity is another matter and I have not visited too many of the schemes in the Eastern States.
Peter?
Which is the load of crap?
Just saying that does not prove anything.
The MDBA approach is absolutely woeful.
There is precious little practical management information in all their documentation. Lots and lots and lots of contradictory scientific modelling that STILL uses meaningless long term averages and virtually no practical detail at all. When normal people run their businesses and are commissioning business and management plans….this is not what they’re asking for. In fact I would sack both my accountant and my water manager if they presented something that looked like this….as far as planning and management goes, this mind bogglingly expensive document is almost completely useless.
They are trying to pander to an idealogical commitment (via the Water Act 2007) to redistribute water from production out to the ocean via the Murray river. Your irrigators will have no joy from this either….haven’t you worked that out yet? It will be LESS productive/consumptive water available for upsteam SA….in favour of tipping it out through the Mouth and into the ocean. Is that what you want for your upstream irrigators?
On what basis are you judging the most efficient irrigators?
Efficiency can be measured in many ways. You also need to understand that your delivery system to SA (ie the Murray) is incredibly inefficient and the losses that occur to get water there can sometimes be horrendous depending on inflow conditions. You need to be careful about what it is you’re trying to prove….it is in fact highly inefficient getting water to SA when there is a need to conserve water in low inflow periods. HIGHLY INEFFICIENT!!!!!
I can easily prove that inland broad acre irrigation that uses efficient gravity fed sytems, independent of the river and also double crops on the same water is the MOST efficient. It is also not necesary for that type of irrigation practice to use water when it is scarce as they are annual crops, not permanent plantings. It all depends on what you are assessing or what you’re trying to prove 🙂
However, there is no need for me to go there, because I am also impressed with the systems I have seen in SA…..I think they also work well and there are very good farmers there.
I noticed you totally ignored the issue of turbidity in the system? That is after all the main carrier of the trace elements you are talking about. They bind to sediment, not float in water. Flushing is not the answer there either….otherwise that problem would have dissapated in the last 12 to 18 months in the lake. Extra flushing just creates extra turbidity. Also….don’t forget about what those wretched carp are stirring up and damaging. Once again Peter….if we try to solve the wrong problem we will use the wrong resources to do it and solve nothing.
You obviously didn’t recheck your sweeping assumptions about salt and other trace elements?
I think you may be referring to last century information that is no longer relevant. I’m guessing that once again it comes from the ACF or WWF or the Wentworth Group or similar? They’re notorious for using outdated information for their own purposes.
They’re still saying some very ordinary stuff about the MDB on their websites (and all amazingly similar) that have been thoroughly discredited….and they know it! Did you read the link about that 90% figure….just for a start?
Also what about those SE drainage systems and Sean’s information about the Coorong’s lack of connectivity?
Hi Debbie,
Re, “They are trying to pander to an ideological commitment (via the Water Act 2007) to redistribute water from production out to the ocean via the Murray River” yes they are confined by a stupid Water Act but the comment, “to redistribute water from production out to the ocean via the Murray River” is extremely inflammatory as I am sorry but many people believe the Murray River should flow into the Ocean.
I realise that as far as efficiency is concerned the River Murray and really all Rivers, Streams and other water course are not efficient, point taken but the most inefficient are the man made infrastructures built to move water!
Re, “I can easily prove that inland broad acre irrigation that uses efficient gravity fed systems, independent of the river and also double crops on the same water is the MOST efficient” accept in the movement of the water from the original source.
Re, “I’m guessing that once again it comes from the ACF or WWF or the Wentworth Group or similar? They’re notorious for using outdated information for their own purposes” whilst I read some of their information as I have said many time before I do not rely on them for information like I would never rely on JM.
Re, “Also what about those SE drainage systems and Sean’s information about the Coorong’s lack of connectivity?” I do not believe the South East drains are the answer as I believe it is a waste of the $30-million they intend to spend on this crap.
I spoke to the Minister about this on Wednesday and told him my belief that the Southern Lagoon of the Coorong must be pumped out to the Ocean, then open Tauwitcherie let the Southern Lagoon refill then close Tauwitcherie and pump it out again and continue the process until it has an EC level below sea water.
Peter
“I am sorry but many people believe the Murray River should flow into the Ocean”
You cannot be serious citing that belief as a reason!
“I spoke to the Minister about this on Wednesday and told him my belief that the Southern Lagoon of the Coorong must be pumped out to the Ocean, then open Tauwitcherie let the Southern Lagoon refill then close Tauwitcherie and pump it out again and continue the process until it has an EC level below sea water.”
Now I know that you are not serious, you were against pumping water from the river over a pipeline instead of keeping the lakes sweet, and now you want to pump the lagoon for no good practical purpose?
Would be cheaper and better to just cut a new access from the S lagoon to the ocean!
Peter,
Change Lake Albert from a blind end lake to a transit lake for water being discharged into the North Coorong. The water will be fresh during wetter times, estuarine during dry times. Some of this will flow into Southern Coorong with “the Narrows” reversing the hyper saline conditions that are affecting the RAMSAR site.
During dryer times, the return water will be saline, but of quality near sea water whereas this area is experiencing hyper saline conditions due to low inflows and constrictions of tidal movement across the mouth and Tauwitchere channel. The main benefit from its input here will be the increased flow towards the Murray mouth and the scouring effect along the Tauwitchere channel to help keep flows in this area higher.
Farmers along the shores have been supplied with potable and not irrigation water using the new network of piping from Tailem Bend.
Coorong Vitality Enhanced
If flows across the Murray mouth are returned to historic levels it would lead to an improved marine system in the North Coorong Lagoon. During times of fresh inflow into the Murray some of the water would exit near Meningie.
Some of this will be directed easterly to the Southern Coorong Lagoon, countering the hyper-saline conditions that prevail there. This will help S.A. meet its obligation under the RAMSAR agreement to keep the eco system a dynamic and vibrant one in stark contrast to the slow decline since its declaration due to diminishing water flows and hyper saline conditions.
Hi Mark A,
I don’t know why you believe I am not serious and I am not sure what you are alluding to re, “Now I know that you are not serious, you were against pumping water from the river over a pipeline instead of keeping the lakes sweet, and now you want to pump the lagoon for no good practical purpose” but making the necessary repairs to the Southern Lagoon is what the Advisory Group of which I am a member had put forward.
Re, “Would be cheaper and better to just cut a new access from the S lagoon to the ocean” that is wrong as we looked at all options and cutting an access was more expensive, would take more time, create many more difficulties and was not support by the indigenous inhabitants’ of the region.
Hi Sean,
The idea of a channel joining Lake Albert and the Coorong has been discussed on many occasions and it not supported by the scientific community, the local indigenous community and the local Council.
Peter,
the rivers are far less efficient than the man made structures. Your comment borders on ludicrous. What on earth are you basing that assertion on?
No one denies that the Murray ends up at the ocean. It is the pandering to a false idealogy that is being challenged.
I notice you have retreated to the ‘not possible’ position.
Why have you suddenly introduced the indigeneous argument?
Once again your only solution requires that upstream irrigation including SA upstream irrigation must be somehow sacrificed for the greater good? In your mind it appears to have something to do with a romantic environmental utopia that may or may not have existed at some time previous to the recent drought?
That is false and unnecessary.
Why are you ignoring the information re turbidity from forced flushing and european carp?
Debbie,
That’s right the River Murray ends at the ocean and that’s where the river empties collected/accumulated salts.
I have not SUDDENLY introduced the indigenous argument, we have to consider the indigenous inhabitants of the region and if we don’t we will face more legal challenges.
Re, “Once again your only solution requires that upstream irrigation including SA upstream irrigation must be somehow sacrificed for the greater good? In your mind it appears to have something to do with a romantic environmental utopia that may or may not have existed at some time previous to the recent drought?” by sacrifices do really mean better management of the resource throughout the Murray Darling Basin?
Hi Debbie,
Re, “Why have you suddenly introduced the indigenous argument” it must be understood we have a large Ngarrindjeri population in the region taking in Lake Alexandrina, Lake Albert and the Coorong and those persons were represented on the MDBA Community Committee by Matt Rigney who passed away earlier this year.
We must consider their wishes and if we leave them out of the negations (I am corresponding with their representatives) we will have more problems in our region.
Re, “Why are you ignoring the information re turbidity from forced flushing and European carp” I am not ignoring the problem and whilst the Murray Darling Association have a person dealing with the problem of European Carp I really don’t know how we can rid the Basin of these feral fish!
I know you’re going to hate this Peter,
A good way to get the feral fish out of the lower lakes….where they’re stirring up that toxic sediment…is to let the seawater in. In one fell swoop you’ll rid the lakes of that carp problem.
Turbidity however is not just caused by the Carp….although they are unquestionably a major villain.
Forced flushings down the system in conjunction with a tight water saving program, at whatever cost, is also stirring up the sediment.
That’s why I keep patiently trying to explain to you that ‘flushing’ is not the answer.
“Flushing’ will just make that problem worse at your end of the system…..it used to make it worse here as well…..until we learned to stop doing it.
That also goes for your salt argument. The last thing you want to do is extra flushing….you will just end up with more of a problem because you’re not managing the intrusion points. We had to learn that lesson here last century. Flushing will just dilute the problem sometimes, it will not fix it.
BTW….you don’t need extra water to do that. It is all about management.
Figure out where the salt intrusions are…then manage that problem….and BINGO! you no longer have a salt problem downstream from there.
Also noticed you weren’t prepared to offer why you claimed that the rivers are more efficient than the irrigation systems???????
The introduction of the indigenous argument looks suspiciously like a desperate grab at obfuscation to me. It was not relevant to what is mostly a solution orientated discussion….but I guess it will help you to block any other solutions other than the ONE AND ONLY you are advancing.
It could be used as another way to make it all look too hard or ‘impossible” ?????
We have learnt that when European Carp encounter salt water i.e. sea water they immediately head for fresh water I know they are dumb but not that dumb!
Re, “The introduction of the indigenous argument” I was prepared to give then little thought but as they were at Wednesday’s meeting and the Minister informed the meeting that their wishes would be listened to I then realised that they do have a role to play as they are going to seek an amount of ‘cultural’ water in the MDBA Plan.
I feel we must work with them not against them.
Who’s working against them Peter?
It sounds more like someone is attempting to use them.
Your explanation sheds no light on why you have suddenly included the indigenous position.
Also….no one said Carp were dumb…..actually none of the species whether introduced or natural are dumb. They are mostly far more adaptable than we are.
However, seawater would immediately remove the problem at your end.
We have to use other management tools….some which work and some which don’t.
Specialised native fish breeding and releases seems to work the best. There are also professional carp fisherman who sell it for pet food….you have them in SA too.
Nearly all the spectacular return of our native fauna and flora had absolutely nothing at all to do with the frightening amount of tax payer money that has been spent…supposedly on their behalf.
Just another example of the bi polar, political and parochial argument that is solving nothing and costing us all a lot of time and money.
Hi Debbie,
You didn’t read what I said, “I was prepared to give then little thought but as they were at Wednesday’s meeting and the Minister informed the meeting that their wishes would be listened to I then realised that they do have a role to play as they are going to seek an amount of ‘cultural’ water in the MDBA Plan” so I am certainly not in your words, “It sounds more like someone is attempting to use them” I am not giving what they say more consideration.
You also didn’t read what i said about the European Carp, “We have learnt that when European Carp encounter salt water i.e. sea water they immediately head for fresh water I know they are dumb but not that dumb” yhey will just swim upstream away from the sea water.
Regarding professional fisherpersons catching European Carp the State Government have been trying to sell the two European Carp licenses with no success for about 6 or more years.
Catching European Carp in the River Murray is not a money making profession.
And what on earth is ‘cultural water’ Peter?
How does one apply for ‘cultural water’?
For what ‘cultural’ purposes shall this water be used?
Where will they keep the ‘cultural water’?
Regarding the carp fishing licences….maybe the Gummint could use some of that money they’re wasting on things that aren’t a problem to assist the carp fisherman to fish out the carp? That would actually achieve a measureable outcome and do much to alleviate the turbidity issues in the MDB. It is actually the great big elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore.
One of the best way to reduce carp numbers is to have low flow regimes for long periods. During the drought Murray Cod dominated the local streams, such as the Wakool River, Murray River, Niemer river, Edwards River and Billabong Creek and decimated the carp population. This is due to the fact that Cod breed on temperature stimulus and don’t need overbank flooding, and carp provided a great food resource for this top line predator.
I thought that carp would be a problem after the summer floods in 2000, as a huge plume of jevenile carp breed in the Barmah Forest and migrated downstream. To my surprise they did not get an opportunity to populate the rivers from this event as they were predated upon by the cod. The cod caught in the rivers after the event were full of carp. One 16 pound cod I caught had 16 carp in its stomach. In the next decade of below average flow flow regimes it was extremely rare to catch a carp and cod dominated the system (not that this information was reported in scientific papers and plans such as the native Fish stragey in 2004 – although government departments were made aware of this during the consultation process).
The rivers need an opportunity for low flow regimes to bring back the balance in favour of cod, and natural ephemeral systems outlined by Debbie in previous correspondance. I realise that overbank flows assist the breeding of other native fish such as Golden and Silver perch, however it must be recognised that sending huge volumes of water to SA via the Murray system will have other consequences not addressed in the plan.
Unfortunately the cod population in lower section of the rivers outlined have been decimated after the 2010 blackwater event and now carp again dominate the fish biomass. The basin plan will not do anything to restore the balance as extended low flow periods are deemed “unnatural” and will not keep the lower lakes artificially fresh.
Hi Debbie,
I do not at this stage know what the Ngarrindjeri are referring to by the term, ‘cultural water’ but I have a meeting with one of the spokespersons in the New Year so will find out.
Rather than being stupid and unless you are an indigenous Australian, “How does one apply for ‘cultural water?’”
As I said before unless we negotiate with, in our case, the ‘Ngarrindjeri’ we could encounter problems.
I don’t believe we are ignoring the European Carp problem but it is a problem that we don’t seem to be able get on top of.
My professional fishermen in Lake Alexandrina tells me he is hardly catching any European Carp.
I did find out, only yesterday, the EC level in the River at Wellington was 400EC near the surface and 620EC near the bottom of the River and as we are having an ‘acid sulphate’ problem in some of our irrigation channels it is something the EPA is going to monitor.
Peter,
Who were some of the early irrigators?
Ref. “A Fresh History of the Lakes” handed out by the Dept. of E&H at meetings at Goolwa in 2009.
1888 Point McLeay Aboriginal Mission requested a grant of 500 pound to set up an irrigation scheme to enable root crops to be grown. Mr Taplin explained that they wanted equipment to pump 30,000 gallons per hour from the lake after raising it thirty feet. He said “ the water in the lake was eminently suited for the purposes.
How is it that “Ngarrindjen” people do not object to the current barrages like they did to the Clayton Regulator because it was going to have steel sheeting in its original construction and getting the Dept. of E&H to change their plans.
” Allan Holmes the day he was made to change his mind on the construction of the Clayton Regulator by the Ngarrindjeri people was the day that he should have ceased with the plan”.
The soil from the construction of the final lagoon in the Hindmarsh Island Marina was used to build the Clayton Regulator and was one of the reasons it took a while to remove it as they didn’t have a place to put the soil. Private property was finally used as the old sand pit was now full.
Hi Sean,
Whilst I have read, “A Fresh History of the Lakes” I can’t find it at the moment but I know it is in my office somewhere but I don’t know who were some of the early irrigators.
Re, “pump 30,000 gallons per hour from the lake after raising it thirty feet’ that I also don’t know about, I shall have to do some reading but that is 133680-litres and how could the Lake level be raised by 30-feet in the 1880’s?
Whether the, “Ngarrindjeri” objected to the Barrages I also don’t know but back in those days they were probably, more than today, were just disregarded, though I was involved in the protests (to no avail) re the regulators at Narrung and Clayton.
I know about where the soil came from and where it was finally deposited.
Peter,
You keep mentioning that the Lower Lakes are tidal not estuarine. The word people are using is ESTUARY which has a different meaning to estuarine :-
Estuary or Tidal
COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY
Estuarine :-
1.Formed or deposited in a estuary : estuarine muds. 2. Growing in, inhabiting, or found in an estuary : an estuarine fauna.
Estuary :=
1. The widening channel of a river where it nears the sea, with a mixing of fresh water and salt (tidal) water. 2. An inlet of the sea. (C16: from latin aestuarium marsh, channel, from aestus tide, billowing movement, related to aestas summer) – es-tu-ar-i-al
Tidal :-
1.Relating to, characterized by, or affected by tides: a tidal estuary. 2. Dependent on the state of the tide: a tidal ferry. 3. (of a glacier) reaching the sea and discharging floes or icebergs.
The River Murray 1915 was it TIDAL or ESTUARY when salt water reached Blanchetown.
I refer to your e mail today re the petition point No. 2
” The estuary should be restored by re-engineering or removing the barrages in part or whole to allow inflows from the Southern Ocean”.
The word is ESTUARY.
Hi Sean,
Thank you for the English lesson.
Re, “The River Murray 1915 was it TIDAL or ESTUARY when salt water reached Blanchetown” it was tidal as because of the drought the tide pushed the sea as far upstream as Blanchetown and I believe maybe further!
Re, “The estuary should be restored by re-engineering or removing the barrages in part or whole to allow inflows from the Southern Ocean” how can a estuary be recreated when Lake Alexandrina was subject to tidal movement/
Call it whatever the affect on the Lower River Murray was tidal and the vegetation was fresh water dependant!
Re, “the Barrages” they need major upgrading but as you know removing them without spending, probably the best part of $1-billion, in new infrastructure will render the Lower River Murray un-potable and any group advocating such madness would be guilty of sheer stupidity!
Hi Debbie,
In the, “Proposed Basin Plan – a draft for consultation”
Chapter 9 – Part – 4 “Indigenous values and uses – page 83.
You will find reference to, “Cultural Water.”
I have to read it a few times before I can enquire about it!
Sorry Debbie Part 14!
Peter,
It wasn’t an English lesson it was just correcting the word just like the State Government and the Dept. of E&H would do at various meetings to me that a weir was the same as a lock. Their weir contained no fishway or boat chamber and that is why we wanted them to change the wording to read a lock.
A weir 1. a small dam built across a river or canal so water flows over it, serving to regulate the flow or to raise the level of water upstream. 2. the water flowing over it in a waterfall.
A lock 5. a section of a canal or river where the water level changes,fitted with gates and sluices so that water can be let in or out to raise or lower boats from one level to another.
We want to get Lock 0 built first then that protects
It appears to be more of the same Peter. Just more impractical fluff. There is no explanation of the why or how.
Hi Sean,
What we need to put together is a paper seeking a number of things which are: –
1. An impact statement into the repairs required for Lake Albert to lower the EC level to about 1500EC,
2. An impact statement into the work required to upgrade the Barrages to 100% efficiency,
3. And the impact statement into Lock Zero.
We (my group) and some others groups/associations will be meeting early in the New Year to put our thoughts on paper before conveying that information to Craig Knowles, Tony Bourke and all other Federal Members of Parliament. It is a huge task but I hope to get it all finished and sent by the end of February.
Hi Debbie,
I agree and I am seeking more information from the MDB Authority.
Peter,
You seem to have all the contacts with the number of meetings you attend. The South Australian Government must have some information re the shifting of the barrages back to Wellington that Jim Marsh the ex Superintendant of Goolwa Barrage talks about in his intewrview 27th September, 1999 ( ref. Alexandrina Local History Archive ).
Hi Sean,
I have spoken to some of my colleagues about any information/knowledge re moving the Barrages but have always been met with, we know nothing about that!
Unfortunately, the MDBA ‘s idea of ‘more detail’ and mine are very very different.
They have absolutely overloaded us all with so called ‘detail’. Most of it is pages and pages of graphs and statistics and models and references and some extremely odd and highly flawed assumptions about the ‘natural environment’
There are also many highly questionable ‘idealogical’ statements and what Minister Burke has chosen to call ‘high level principles’ that have no practical basis and would be almost impossible to implement without major damage to the productive capacity of inland Australia.
The missing detail….and it is a completely glaring miss….is practical/common sense detail.
Nearly all of the so called ‘detail’ is contradictory and emanates from the flawed asumption in the Water Act that our problems are caused by ‘over extraction’ and the only way to solve them is to ‘flush’ productive water out to the ocean via the Murray River.
Adding ‘cultural water’ to that flawed assumption will do absolutely nothing to actually help all of us to come up with some practical, useful technological improvements that can easily incorporate what we have all learned about environmental responsibility.
Also….until the authorities actually recognise what is REALLY causing those salt and toxic sediment problems the lower end of the system will just be in more trouble.
Their flawed assumptions about ‘flushing’ will actually make those problems worse.
They’re still pretending to solve the wrong problem and they’re hell bent on using the wrong resources to do it.
It is not about the environment and it never was.
The ‘environment’ is being used as an excuse….and it looks like they’re ready to start using the indegenous argument as another excuse.
I hope you don’t fall for it Peter.
It is morally wrong to use that argument and the indegenous people in that matter. They deserve much better than that.
Hi Debbie,
After spending most of Christmas reading the MDBA Plan I tend to agree much said about nothing.
Re, “Also….until the authorities actually recognise what is REALLY causing those salt and toxic sediment problems the lower end of the system will just be in more trouble” whilst a great deal of, ‘salt and toxic sediment’ was leached out of the parched soil during the drought I still believe the River Murray needs continued flushing!
Re, “cultural water” I need to find out more detail but of course there won’t be any MDBA staff available until after the New Year.
Peter?
Just because you believe something does not necessarily make it true.
The invasion of carp and the forced unnatural flushings have raised turbidity levels and dangerous toxic sediments. Also, this plan has nothing in it that will protect SA next time there is a water shortage. This plan will only interfere in the productive capacity of inland Australia (including SA farmers) when it is not necessary to do so.
It is based on several flawed assumptions, the worst one being that irrigation is detrimental to the environment and by association that irrigation was somehow responsible for the drought.
There have been record inflows and major flooding events in the past 18 months. You along with many others are claiming that these have not alleviated water quality issues in SA and in some instances they have become worse.
It is time to look past the more water and more flushing argument, if we are truly talking about the health of the system. As this post highlights, a healthier system that recognises its basic ephemeral characteristics would require less water for the SA end of the system at exactly the same seasonal period that SA wants to demand more, mid summer to late autumn.
It is the dishonesty of the argument that irritates us upstream. Your problem has very little to do with the natural environment and pretending that it has will not solve your vulnerability problem.
Hi Debbie,
I see you decided to sign the. “The Rivers Need Estuaries petition to the Environment Minister Tony Burke states” at least by doing so I now know where you reside Farm 1034 which gives me a better understanding of your position within the Basin.
The Murrumbidgee was luckier than those of us below Lock 1 as you had more of your entitlement than us throughout the drought.
As for that position it is a joke and by the places those who have signed reside including many on South Australia it is easy to see that of those that have signed they do not understand the Lower River Murray from Lock 1 to the ocean.
I know the MDBA Plan, “this plan has nothing in it that will protect SA next time there is a water shortage” but what is new we have always been on our own!
Re getting rid of, “dangerous toxic sediments” can I believe only be done in two ways, if it were possible to isolate the sediments they could be removed and dumped but that is not possible so flushing is the only way.
We below Lock 1 will always be, “vulnerable” and as always will have to accept the bad times as we always have the only thing we ask is remember we are all Australians and deserve a fair go!
Peter,
“As for that position it is a joke and by the places those who have signed reside including many on South Australia it is easy to see that of those that have signed they do not understand the Lower River Murray from Lock 1 to the ocean.
I know the MDBA Plan, “this plan has nothing in it that will protect SA next time there is a water shortage” but what is new we have always been on our own!
I thought that you being the spokeperson for LOCK ZERO YOU WOULD BE HILITING THE PROBLEM THAT THE LOCK GETS NO MENTION IN THEIR PLAN.
We below Lock 1 will always be, “vulnerable” and as always will have to accept the bad times as we always have the only thing we ask is remember we are all Australians and deserve a fair go!
Thank the S.A. Government and the Fresh Water people they were against building a lock and allowing sea water in. They didn’t mind pumping 27 GL of water out of Lake Alexandrina into the Goolwa Pool to a height 0.75 m and then approving the use of the Lock in the Goolwa barrage to operate from the October 2009 long weekend right through the end of Easter 2010. I found that very unfair 1. For using the scarce water from Lake Alexandrina. 2. Neglecting Lake Albert as they did. 3. The way they allowed the river and its banks to reach such the poor conditions.
Your e mail to me:-
Allowing sea water into Lake Alexandrina will render as completely useless the Lower River Murray all the way to Blanchetown therefore South Australia’s main source of potable water will be gone.
I beg you all, we know we have problems, but please do not support this rubbish instigated by someone who lives in Rockhampton!
I have fought hard to get point :-
3. Adelaide’s water supply can be secured by building a lock downstream from Tailem Bend.
Thankfully we now have people from other States now signing the petition which must help us to hilite LOCK ZERO and yes I was one of those that has signed the petition from S.A. because I finally convinced that someone who lives in Rockhampton that LOCK ZERO MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE PETITION.
Lock Zero has to be buit first
The Goolwa Barrage must be re-engineered with automated gates.
Peter,
We had no access to our entitlement. In 2007 we were in negative allocation. Nobody was particularly lucky unless they had allocations like S&D or HS. Interfering with entitlements now and in seasons when inflows are OK will not change the problem.
You can’t seem to get past the idea that SA suffered more than others. I dont think there was a degree of suffering or any way to measure who suffered more or less. The drought was incredibly tough on many in the MDB & far too many did not make it through.
I have never said anything other than SA is vulnerable because of its position in the system.
Sean is right I think. SA needs to campaign for a solution that protects potable water supply and also recognises that we cant keep those lakes at optimal levels with fresh water next time we are in drought. Upstream storages cant do it and neither can the Murray River via the storages and delivery regimes.
Why isnt Lock 0 in the MDBP? Why isnt the MDBA actually recognising the real practical issues that need to be addressed?
You said you have read the guide. There really isnt any good practical help for SA is there?
Hi Debbie,
I know you believe that, “You can’t seem to get past the idea that SA suffered more than others” but sometimes the truth is a little hard to accept but that’s fine. Below Lock 1, even though there was a % entitlement most of our irrigators could not use it because the pool level was too low or the quality (for 5 or 6 years) of the available water was unusable and for over 100 irrigators, whilst pulling out was a hard decision, they just left not only the industry but the region.
Another 50 or so industries from the region went broke, just shut up shop or were forced out by the finance institutions.
We realise because of our vulnerability that can happen again and that is not our complaint it is basically about the fact that no one listens and yes you are correct, “There really isn’t any good practical help for SA is there” ( we are used to that) though there is a basic acceptance that this plan should, with some changes, be accepted as we feel we need a plan in the parliament before we can then in 2015 make legislation changes.
Re, “Why isn’t Lock 0 in the MDBP? Why isn’t the MDBA actually recognising the real practical issues that need to be addressed?” I can’t answer that question especially as on page 11 of the, “The Draft Basin Plan: Catchment by Catchment” – MORE THAN A VOLUME OF WATER – dot point 4 talks about, “the management of the Lower Lakes in South Australia including lake level manipulation and flexible barrage operating procedures” and when I enquired as to how this could be done from Loc 1 I was given the, “Yes Minister” answer.
Lock Zero will be in my submission I can assure you!
Peter,
I understand it was tough below Lock 1…..it was tough everywhere.
Many, many businesses went under all over the MDB….some of them were also huge employers and we all lost way too many good people from our communities.
It can’t be an exercise in relativity….how do you measure suffering? Why should we even waste time on that? WE ALL COPPED IT IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
No access to water is no access to water….whether it was because of pool levels or because of WSP’s or delivery regimes or whatever….the result is still the same. If your business relies on water entitlement and you have no access…or not enough access….the result is the same.
I disagree that you should just accept your vulnerability….that is what should be fairly recognised and we could then all set about making sure it is properly accounted for and some good technical solutions are put in place before we are faced with drought again.
Our disagreement resides in SA’s bi polar arguments (not you personally).
SA’s water problems have little to do with the ‘natural environment’ (and yes I know you agree but it is still the loudest SA argument)
Extra ‘just in case’ water to ‘flush’ to the ocean via the Murray River is not a good option for anyone….including SA.
Flushing water out to the ocean completely defies the whole reason for developing inland Australia (including SA).
It will only interfere in the productive capacity of inland Australia when it is not necessary to do so.
At best, that would perhaps give you a couple of extra months before you face the same disaster again.
SURELY, we can all do much better than that?
Lock 0 must be part of that solution….but if we all had some vision we could come up with much much more.
As mentioned before…we need to start thinking win/win….and use ‘possibility thinking’.
I suggest you look at that petition again.
There are many South Australians signing it. I think that’s because they can see that this petition is asking for the Federal Govt to look at good practical options.
Something needs to be done with those barrages Peter and something needs to be done to protect SA’s fresh water supplies in low inflow sequences.
The barrages are antiquated and the management of them is too dificult and wasteful. At the very least they need major upgrading.
The Coorong’s problems are not the fault of upstream….its traditional water supply was from elsewhere…only about 10% ever came from the MDB.
Much of the works on the working Murray River were not completed and some of them are also in serious need of expanding and upgrading….Lock 0 would be one of those don’t you think?
Much can be done if we have the right mindset.
The arguments emanating from your government are not helping.
Hi Debbie,
We can continue to debate different situations re the years of drought but the Murrumbidgee had more available water available than those of us below Lock 1 and whilst the River has come back to pool level +0.75-AHD the repair from 100’s of 1000’s of tonnes of soil from the collapsing banks into the River taking cars, boat ramps, retaining walls, pumping stations, power poles, light poles and in a lot of cases making buildings including houses un safe to enter and much more it ain’t over this end of the River.
I will continue to say that if the River, the River Murray doesn’t empty into the Southern Ocean our (especially in this region) situation will only get worse!
Re that petition, “There are many South Australians signing it. I think that’s because they can see that this petition is asking for the Federal Govt to look at good practical options” yes they are and I believe most have done so as they do not understand the Lower River Murray and have rung many already and they DON’T understand the region accept for what they read in the media or on the internet from people like JM pushing a view come to by their own beliefs and not in many cases the best available information.
If that petition was seeking the best solutions then maybe I would believe it had some real relevance i.e.
1) The necessary repairs to Lake Albert,
2) A full and scientifically researched, “Impact Statement’ into the construction of Lock Zero, it can be contemplated until we know if it will be what is needed and the construction costs, estimated $1-Billion!
3) A complete review into the operation of the Barrages and an up-grade of the Barrages and the costs required, estimated $20-Million!
The next problem who pays?
Who Pays????
There is more than enough money set aside for the MDB. We don’t lack either money or good ideas. What we we lack is political will.
You can’t judge degrees of suffering Peter.
The Murrumbidgee may have had ‘more water’ numerically but other than that there were just as many businesses that went under and just as much damage to infrastructure etc.
As I said before, the reasons why people had no decent access to their water allocations do not make any diference to the inevitable result. If they were denied reasonable access, for whatever reason, their businesses were either severely strained or they went under.
As far as damage to banks etc goes….there is very little that our river system can do to alleviate that, yet strangely the current MDBP expects the largest sacrifice of entitlement from this area.
Must have more to do with that ‘numerical’ argument rather than actually attempting to look at where the problems actually are do you think?????
You may need to expand your perspective a little. People do understand Peter. People do care. You are in a very vulnerable place.
It needs to be addresses properly and practically.
Expecting others to become just as vulnerable is a silly solution….you know….make everyone suffer equally or as much as you think you do….?????
That’s going for the lowest common denominator….that has never ever ever worked successfully in the whole history of mankind.
We can do much better than that.
Peter,
I noticed you haven’t commented on the S.A. Govt. or the Fresh Water I mentioned above. I attended the first meeting at Langhorne Creek where Minister Mayweld and Dean Brown were willing to sacrifice the Lower Lakes but thanks to Senator. X he arranged with Penny Wong to bring forward the new potable and irrigation pipelines for the Lower Lakes. As we know now they gave no thought to the people between Tailem Bend and Lock 1. The figure of $1 billion on building Lock Zero sounds quite excessive as the River in this area is around 250 metres wide, the site I was originally working on at Swanport it was only 220metres wide. It is in a lot more sensible area than 2.6 km Pomanda Isl. site they looked at for a temporary weir
You can’t judge degrees of suffering Peter.
—————————————————–
Of course not, my problem is far more serious than yours and vice-versa!
————————————————–
It needs to be addressed properly and practically.
——————————————————
With politicians and remote bureaucrats involved? You must be joking!
——————————————————————-
Expecting others to become just as vulnerable is a silly solution….you know….make everyone suffer equally or as much as you think you do….?????
———————————————————-
Company in misery is very much appreciated Debbie!
———————————
We can do much better than that.
————————————————
I wish you didn’t say that Debbie, it’s just a platitude, and no, we can’t do better than that!
Whatever “THAT” is?
If we could we would’ve done it long ago and wouldn’t be in a continued mess stumbling from one disaster to the next!
Mark A,
Good point about the pollies and bureaucrats! I wasn’t intending to joke but when looked at from that perspective….good one!
Gotta take umbrage with your last comment….it is actually not in as big a mess as the Peters of this world would have us believe. It is certainly a long way from perfect, but most of the problems are fixable.
Our major problem was we had a crippling drought and our human dependent water resources weren’t up to dealing with a drought like that.
I can’t see how it will ever get solved if we don’t learn the actual lessons the drought taught us.
The ‘natural environment’ coped way better than we did 🙂
A quick tour through the MDB makes that very obvious.
Hi Mark A,
It is so good to have you back even though you don’t understand the Lower River Murray so therefore have very little to add!
To make the above point, “but why not dredge, deepen either one or both lakes” and “Times like this they could have been filled easily” as it impossible to dredge the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert we did fill them as they are!
Re, “Other nations build land from the dredging of the seabed, we bicker about not real, not even potential but imagined hazards” just because it happens in other countries doesn’t mean we can do the same, maybe a little knowledge and education re the Lower River Murray would not go astray!
Re, “we had to use it to alter the flow of rivers water otherwise dry wetlands create artificial situations that eventually become “normal”” we are not watering, “otherwise dry wetlands” we are just watering out of season, most of, if not all, of the wetlands you are referring to used to get water during the natural River cycles we have just altered the cycles!
Re, “accusing the Hindmarsh Island developers of dishonesty” I have never done that and as I know them if I was going to do that I would do it face to face!
Re, “Is that supposed to be a threat” I never threaten unless I going to carry out what I say!
Re, “Have you ever been a politician Peter” yes, but only at Local Government I leave the big game to those only interested in themselves!
Re, “Peter has no valid arguments he regurgitates the same lines over and over again” that is because I try to tell the facts as they are!
Re, “Allowing sea water to invade Lake Alexandrina WOULD contaminate all fresh water downstream of Lock 1 at Blanchetown” as I said you don’t understand the Lower River Murray!
Re, “This conflicts with an earlier claim that the lakes were fresh prior to the barrages being built” it certainly does not as prior to the Barrages and Locks the tidal prism (during bad droughts) sent seawater as far as at least Blanchetown!
Re, “Also Lake Albert, due to its situation in the chain always had saline pools, the movement of water is restricted and the incoming fresh water merely dilutes it” maybe but prior to the drought the average EC level was 1500EC which was useable!
Re, Peter “I am sorry but many people believe the Murray River should flow into the Ocean. You cannot be serious citing that belief as a reason” my belief is because Rivers should as when they were first created run out to an end, whether that be a sea, and Ocean!
Re, “I spoke to the Minister about this on Wednesday and told him my belief that the Southern Lagoon of the Coorong must be pumped out to the Ocean, and then open Tauwitcherie let the Southern Lagoon refill then close Tauwitcherie and pump it out again and continue the process until it has an EC level below sea water.”
Now I know that you are not serious, you were against pumping water from the river over a pipeline instead of keeping the lakes sweet, and now you want to pump the lagoon for no good practical purpose? Would be cheaper and better to just cut a new access from the S lagoon to the ocean” just because I was against some pumping/pipelines doesn’t mean I oppose all and as far as the Southern Lagoon is concerned the ‘Ngarrindjeri’ will accept pumping over the dunes but not cutting an access through the Younghusband Peninsular!
And Mark A where was it you live again?
Hi Debbie,
Re, “As far as damage to banks etc goes….there is very little that our river system can do to alleviate that, yet strangely the current MDBP expects the largest sacrifice of entitlement from this area” irrespective of what you say we MUST ensure – if possible – that the damage caused by bank collapse and massive cracking does not occur again and to do this we must not – unless impossible – not allow the pool level in the Lower River Murray fall to below +0.4-AHD.
Re, “Expecting others to become just as vulnerable is a silly solution, you know, make everyone suffer equally or as much as you think you do” I would never what anyone to go through what we have been through and certainly never want anyone to be as venerable as we are.
Hi Debbie,
I take umbrage at your comment, “Gotta take umbrage with your last comment….it is actually not in as big a mess as the Peters of this world would have us believe” I don’t believe the MDB is in a big mess I just believe we must be better prepared when the next drought comes and really by better prepared I mean our elected leaders’ politicians – that’s an oxymoron – and the only way to keep them in line I feel to have any hope of that is to have a legislated plan.
And please Debbie, “The ‘natural environment’ coped way better than we did” there certainly nothing natural about the River Murray other than it is full of water!
Sorry folks, just frustrated as we go around in circles.
Peter!
How the hell can you make sweeping statements like “YOU don’t understand the Lower River Murray therefore have very little to add!”
What do you know about me and what I know or don’t know?
When in a corner try Ad hominem eh? Typical!
I think in the last few weeks I learned more about it than you ever knew, I happen to have an open mind and read up on the subject.
Walking along or boating up or down a river means nothing if you are not observant, and judging by your responses here you must have had your eyes closed or you are by nature close minded.
Growing old is a natural process does not give you or anyone wisdom.
There is very little to add, considering your position is permanently rusted in place no amount of sensible argument will shift it.
Sorry Debbie my comment about being in a mess was a general observation and I stick to it, it has been proven over and over again.
Peter,
I will have another go it appears my earlier comments don’t seemed published.
You haven’t made one commment on these comments above:-
Thank the S.A. Government and the Fresh Water people they were against building a lock and allowing sea water in. They didn’t mind pumping 27 GL of water out of Lake Alexandrina into the Goolwa Pool to a height 0.75 m and then approving the use of the Lock in the Goolwa barrage to operate from the October 2009 long weekend right through the end of Easter 2010. I found that very unfair 1. For using the scarce water from Lake Alexandrina. 2. Neglecting Lake Albert as they did. 3. The way they allowed the river and its banks to reach such the poor conditions.
I attended the first meeting at Langhorne Creek as outsider my feeling at that meeting was Minister Mayweld and Dean Brown were prepared to sacrifice the Lower Lakes and I believe others were too. Senator Nick X brought the matter up not much later with Senator Penny Wong in the Senate and received over $600 milion to bring forward works on the Lower Lakes which included the potable and irrigation pipelines for the Lakes.
As you rightly say nothing was done for the River between Tailem Bend and Lock 1 at Blanchetown in other words your area became the sacrificial lamb.
The other matter I continued to bring to their attention was nothing was being done about connecting the Lower Lakes to the Myponga Reservoir more so when it was known the desalination plant was going to be built at Port Stanvac each time it brushed aside even though it meant no water would be coming out of the RIVER MURRAY.
Hi Sean,
I believe that one of the reasons for the Clayton Regulator and the pumping of water into Goolwa Chanel was because of the upcoming Tour Down Under and the mess that would have been on show when the Tour was in Goolwa. You can call me cynical but the then Premier would do nearly anything for his Tour including sacrificing other sections of the Lower River Murray.
Re Lake Albert I believe that what you said was 100% correct it was just sacrificed as it is being sacrificed now!
Re the Rivers’ banks all that was needed was to release some of the water in the weir pools upstream of Lock 1 and the SA border.
Senator X made a lot of noise for not much action, typical politician.
Re connecting Myponga Reservoir to Lake Alexandrina I will as my contacts when they come back from holidays next week.
Hi Mark A,
My opinion of your input has not changed and you can read all you like come down and talk to those who are 4th or 5th generation irrigators or professional fisher persons get your information 1st hand and see what happened and is still happening.
Re, “Walking along or boating up or down a river means nothing if you are not observant, and judging by your responses here you must have had your eyes closed or you are by nature close minded. Growing old is a natural process does not give you or anyone wisdom” living in the region being the immediate past SA Vice-President of the Murray Darling Association, being a member of a number of State Government Advisory Groups/Committees/Boards and doing consultancy work for business persons in this region does make it necessary
to ensure my facts are correct.
Re, “There is very little to add, considering your position is permanently rusted in place no amount of sensible argument will shift it” anytime you want to visit this region I will ensure that you speak to the people with the knowledge then you can comment first hand and Debbie the same invitation is open to you!
Peter you just proved my point!
Appealing to authority is the last resort of the ignorant.
As I said, you don’t know me or what I do.
I don’t care about your past or present position.
Your comments here reveal all and I pity the community you advise.
Hi Mark A,
What do you mean by, “Appealing to authority is the last resort of the ignorant” I am sorry I must be missing something?
Re, “Your comments here reveal all and I pity the community you advise” their view is different but maybe they are all lucky because on the 31st December I will be retired for good!
“being the immediate past SA Vice-President of the Murray Darling Association, being a member of a number of State Government Advisory Groups/Committees/Boards “
Who is mentioning positions of authority then?
May I draw your attention to the competence or lack thereof of some ministers of the crown and their shadow counterparts?
Position many time means only that they have the right connections, both in politics and commerce.
Peter,
There is still plenty of ‘natural’ in the MDB. Think about the billabongs, the backwaters, the tributaries, the creeks, the swamps and lots of the natural depressions that spring to life.
The natural Australian wetland environment is ephemeral. It still happens….just open your eyes.
I have lived and worked in the MDB for 30 + years and I am absolutely amazed at what I’m seeing this season. It’s awesome!
The native species both plant and animal have re appeared in plague proportions. They follow where the water goes…..they are incredibly adaptable.
The rivers are also teeming with new life.
Just because the Murray is a working river does not mean that native flora and fauna does not also gain advantages.
And they most certainly have recovered from the drought way, way faster than we have 🙂
As Mark A points out here….too many are still arguing about it rather than getting on with it!
He’s right you know….too many permanently rusted in positions.
Good metaphor!
Mark A,
You are spot on about the politicians and their Deparments. Mayweld and Briggs are the only two politicians that have replied to e mails, Pederick (Liberal) my State member has never replied. The Dept. of E&H at two meetings in Head Office began the meeting with “You do know the Govt. policy is a Fresh Water Solution, do you want to proceed”. Yes we do as we believe we have an alternative solution that should be considered. Do the power point presentation then finish by the Dept. of E&H person saying do you want me to pass this on, yes please as your Dept. Head has been replaced by yourself for this meeting.
They then through the Minister, now our new Premier outlay $220,000 set setup the Lakes Hub infromation centre at Milang, but no money for any alternative ideas. They have recently received more funding to continue the centre’s operation.
Hi Mark A,
Thank you for your explanation re ‘authority’ and re, “May I draw your attention to the competence or lack thereof of some ministers of the crown and their shadow counterparts? Position many time means only that they have the right connections, both in politics and commerce’ I believe having a seat at the table is at least putting me in a position to voice my community’s and my position and whilst it may not be listened to and heeded at least I am at the table.
Hi Debbie,
I know there is a lot of ‘nature’ on the MDB but sadly in the River Murray is completely regulated and what we seem to be trying to do is control ‘nature’ i.e. we have changed the seasons as now we have the system fukk during the Summer which is reverse of ‘nature’ which we need to do too irrigate but it is upside down.
And I realise you, “have lived and worked in the MDB for 30 + years and I am absolutely amazed at what I’m seeing this season. It’s awesome” and you are correct as with me my association with my region began in 1945 but I can’t remember the first 5 or 6!
Re, “As Mark A points out here….too many are still arguing about it rather than getting on with it! He’s right you know….too many permanently rusted in positions” maybe but all opinions must be heard this should be a two street.
I don’t completely agree with that Peter,
While I agree that we should be at the negotiation tables, if we keep listening to and espousing negative, ‘small pie’, parochial and political pragmatist thinking then we don’t get anywhere….As Mark A has pointed out.
As far as the Murray goes….you’re right….it’s upside down or back to front…..that’s why the populist argument emanating from your Govt is Bi Polar. They want to keep the river flowing when it was traditionally low and are also claiming it is ‘environmental’ and that the lakes and the Coorong were always full of fresh water supplied by the MDB…IN SUMMER/AUTUMN????
It is impossible to come to some sensible conclusions if we’re all arguing about the wrong problem.
There is no way the Murray is going to be restored to ‘natural’….it would undoubtedly be your government that would scream the loudest if that ever happened.
However….calling that sad is rather counter productive.
It is what it is… and we need to build on what works and fix up the errors and the waste.
Despite your ‘rusted in’ position…one of those areas is most definitely the management of the lakes, the barrages and the SE drainage systems.
There are other places in other states that also need urgent attention.
The native species actually aren’t that worried….haven’t you noticed?
They are BOOMING right alongside a BOOMING Summer cropping season.
It is indeed the human dependent water assets that need our investment and our attention.
Hi Debbie,
What my Government wants to do is not necessarily what I feel is best but I don’t have to agree that is why the seat at the table is important!
Re, “There is no way the Murray is going to be restored to ‘natural’ it would undoubtedly be your government that would scream the loudest if that ever happened” I agree and I only wish people would stop saying it must be returned to ‘natural’ flow, your right that is impossible.
Re, “However, calling that sad is rather counter-productive” my terminology may be wrong but I am sure you know what I mean.
Re, “The native species actually aren’t that worried – haven’t you noticed?” of course I have noticed but also sadly I am watching 1000’s of new Red Gums drowning but when I tried to have some floodplains and backwaters shut off during the drought I was critisised. Though interestingly at a meeting with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder he made the point, “he had seen my pleas” to the Lower River Murray Drought Reference Group and agreed that we maybe should disconnect some non essential floodplains and backwaters. You win some!
Peter!
The 1000’s of new red gums????
They, like the rest of our native ephemeral environment know how to live through drought and flooding rains……and fires.
If the CEWH drowned some…silly them eh?
It is entirely possible they may have drowned anyway because there has been so much flooding in the last 12 months.
Just further shows that CEWH have very little idea what to do with that massive amount of water and storage space they’ve already acquired via the Water Act 2007.
We also know how to plant gums….it’s unfortunate that some of them have drowned but it isn’t really a tragedy as you imply here…..it has happened before and it will happen again.
Actually….when they grow new and thick like they obviously have in this amazing season, it is much much wiser to thin them out a bit….they tend to become very very dangerous if allowed to grow uncontrollably.
Non essential floodplains and backwaters?
What on earth does that mean?
Non essential to whom or what?
If you mean it’s about time that we actually followed the NWI idea of a balance and the ability to ‘trade off’ between social, economic and environmental outcomes with some sort of vision that includes human ingenuity IN (REPEAT IN!!!) the environment…..then I agree with you.
If you’re attempting to introduce more bi polar environmental arguments that implicate there is nothing we can do… except do nothing….then sorry! NO WAY DO I AGREE WITH THAT APPROACH!!
Hi Debbie,
Ye Debbie, “The 1000′s of new red gums” on areas covering many hectares in areas that should under ‘natural’ conditions prior to regulation (I realised this is mow unavoidable and I agree that it was a good idea) would have been dry during the summer, but are now inundated with water. These areas which should go through periods of being wet then drying out along roads where there is now houses will stink and attract will stink with all the rotting vegetation. These areas had only been dry once or twice since the Weirs, Locks and Barrages were completed.
Re, “Non essential floodplains and backwaters” means created, floodplains and backwaters, as there are many areas along the River below Lock 1 that were as I have already said were areas which were never permanently covered with water!
Re, “If you mean it’s about time that we actually followed the NWI idea of a balance and the ability to ‘trade off’ between social, economic and environmental outcomes with some sort of vision that includes human ingenuity IN (REPEAT IN!!!) the environment…..then I agree with you” yes and ‘balance’ keep the water in the River where possible where it will do the most good for a region!
Re, “If you’re attempting to introduce more bi polar environmental arguments that implicate there is nothing we can do… except do nothing….then sorry! NO WAY DO I AGREE WITH THAT APPROACH” no way what I mean by ‘do nothing’ we must change our ways to ensure a managed survival and growth for the future.
I share the belief that there is things we must/should do to ensure a future for our grandchildren.
Peter,
The problem therefore is that the Murray River is a rather hopeless delivery system. It leaks and leaches and spills in many places. It also allows water to escape via underground fissures.
Once again…we’re in danger of trying to advance a bi polar argument.
It is not sensible to try and have it both ways.
We either accept that our major goal is to use the water efficiently all the way to SA and do all the storage and infrastructure works that are necesary to achieve that….or…..we leave the river alone and waste the water in the ‘non essential’ areas.
Pretending that irrigated agriculture is the reason that 1) SA is short of water and 2) Has created ‘environmental catastrophe’ in the Coorong and Lower Lakes is just making everyone go round and round in circles.
Change our ways??????
What on earth do you mean?
I think we need to build on and improve what we know works and stop pretending that by protecting stuff that has already been seriously interfered with will somehow make things better for ‘future generations’.
Turn that one around and think about what our forefathers achieved and how that allowed the development of your area and my area in the first place.
What has endangered that really?
I would say it is a total lack of vision accompanied by a silly utopian ideology….and some woeful parochial politics….playing the game of ‘rob peter to pay paul’.
Water has long been a community resource in the MDB. To redefine that and make its traditional use ‘second rate’ is not going to do anything to help either your environment or mine.
Humans and human ingenuity are an integral part of the MDB environment and have been for over 100 years.
To pretend that is a bad thing or a morally and ethically sad thing is completely ridiculous IMO.
As far as the red gums go….the prevailing ideas about them are completely impractical and downright dangerous.
I love gum trees BTW but I also have a well learned healthy respect for them….in dry summers they are incredibly dangerous if they’re not controlled and firebreaked.
They grow like uncontrollable weeds in seasons like this one. If there are people and property nearby….that is not what we need or want….that will spell heartache and danger for our grandchildren.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “The problem therefore is that the Murray River is a rather hopeless delivery system. It leaks and leaches and spills in many places. It also allows water to escape via underground fissures” yes the River Murray like all other Rivers in the World with such a low gradient are not good delivery systems but that is one thing that we cannot change and as we have made many changes it is now about management!
I am NOT blaming, “irrigated agriculture” per say is the reason; “SA is short of water and has created ‘environmental catastrophe’ in the Coorong and Lower Lakes.” Of course we have to make changes and you are correct, “we need to build on and improve what we know works and stop pretending that by protecting stuff that has already been seriously interfered with will somehow make things better for ‘future generations’” but does that have to be at the expense of the area surrounding Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert?
As I have tried to explain, the problems with Lake Albert need to be corrected, the Barrages need a complete up-grade and to be made able to be remotely controlled and we NEED an ‘IMPACT STATEMENT’ undertaken into the pro’s and con’s of Lock Zero and managing the Lower River Murray and the MDB from that Lock and a management plan for Lakes Alexandrina and Albert!
Maybe if that biased petition tackled the right problems it would be supported by those who understand the Lower River Murray!
Re, “As far as the red gums go” the ones I refer to are on/in floodplains/backwaters which need not have been flooded after the drought. Those areas also need to be managed correctly and only dampened when necessary and as the Red Gums are not near houses or any buildings pose no real threat.
No peter,
It doesn’t have to be at the expense of anything.
Of course it is about management.
It is also about doing way more than one impact statement.
The lower Murray has unique vulnerability problems.
Our disagreement remains that SA wants that fixed by keeping ‘just in case’ water in upstream storages when they were neither designed for that purpose or capable of delivering water efficiently to SA when we are faced with low inflows.
SA has relied too heavily on assuming there would always be extra inflows available above the caps.
Despite your comments otherwise, SA has outstripped its water storage and infrastructure capabilities and is pretending the problem is ‘environmental’ and tbe fault of upstream. Both those assumptions are incorrect.
Throwing in obsfucations like red gums etc is just more bi polar trash.
Re, “It doesn’t have to be at the expense of anything” in response to me saying, “but does that have to be at the expense of the area surrounding Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert?” you must be joking you expect the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert to become seawater lakes, is that not at, “the expense of the area surrounding Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert?”
I say again I/we are NOT asking for, “keeping ‘just in case’ water in upstream storages when they were neither designed for that purpose or capable of delivering water efficiently to SA when we are faced with low inflows’ we are saying that better management will achieve goals and one of those management options is to the next time we are plagued by drought to lower the weir pools in SOUTH AUSTRALIA there is no need to keep the River Murray at the same level as when Paddle-Steamers plied there trade!
And again I BLAME no persons, specific groups for what occurred but I do blame our so called political leaders for not ensuring better management.
We listen to the TRASH from up-stream of Lock 1 being told WE HAVE to change what happens in SA, well we use 7% of the Murray Darling Basins’ water you can critised my points of view call them bi-polar but I will fight in any way I can to retain the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert as they are and I will continue to push for an ‘Impact Statement’ into the construction of Lock Zero (and keenly if successful await the decision and I will abide by that decision no matter how unpalatable) and if you don’t like my attitude well bad luck and believe me when I say I am also sick and tired of groups, associations, corporations, irrigation trusts and individuals etc who DON’T UNDERSTAND the Lower River Murray but continue to tell us what to do!
I am sick of that 7% figure too Peter.
I suggest you recheck it.
It is based on meaningless long term averages.
Your argument about no increased usage in SA since the 70’s is also incorrect. Check that one too.
Being told what to do and offering suggestions are not the same thing.
SA has done nothing but cry foul for ages. Your government has also told some massive porkies.
I do believe a sensible use of seawater when we are faced with drought is worth considering. That would also have to include extra works like lock zero so that potable water supplies are protected.
You seem to have misunderstood why the river was held up at those levels.
It had very little to do with paddle steamers.
Do the maths Peter. How much extra water would have been wasted and how much extra damage caused if the required amount of water had to be delivered from just the storages?
They are too far away and the river is too inefficient.
I am not interested in the rob peter to pay paul argument. Neither am I interested in pretending that the Murray is NOT being used as a delivery channel for SA. It most certainly is being used that way, amongst other uses.
If you want to maintain your status quo, then figure out how to do it without lieing and without punishing the wrong culprits. Throwing in sad tales about gum trees will not solve anything.
If you don’t want help or advice, then stop asking for it!
Peter,
If Lock zero were built and and fresh water channeled to the downstream users around the lakes, why would it matter if they became “seawater lakes”?
Hi Dave,
I suppose that depends on where you live if you ask the majority of persons who live in the area around the Lakes especially the licensed fisherpersons and the others affected I would suggest the percentage would be close to 99% who would disagree with Lakes Alexandrina and Albert becoming saline and as we have been told if that were to happen and no water flowed over Lock Zero those Lakes would become hyper-saline.
There are many other reasons but some are the cost of SA Water supplied water to those who still irrigate from the Lakes and from Currency Creek and the Bremer River, all of the freshwater reliant vegetation would die, the freshwater fish, crustations, turtles and frogs that would perish, the loss of habitat for animals and birds.
Those reasons would ensure the hyper-saline Lakes would stink but of course that would only affect those unlucky enough to still live in the area.
During the drought those regions suffered terribly, but of course as Debbie keeps saying no more than anywhere else in the Basin and of course Debbie knows all.
The losses in the area would ensure that during the transition from EC levels below 1000 to seawater EC of 55,000 and then whilst the Lakes became hyper-saline that region would become a basket case.
Dave, what I have written is only a minute percentage of the problems which would befall the region but I am sure that if you contacted the council’s involved i.e., Coorong, Alexandrina and Victor Harbor Mayor Strother, Mayor McCue and Mayor Philp could enlighten you further!
Hi Debbie,
Re, “I am sick of that 7% figure too Peter” maybe you are but is it because it is the truth that SA uses only 7% of the Basins’ water.
Your argument about no increased usage in SA since the 70′s is also incorrect. Check that one too.
Re, “Your argument about no increased usage in SA since the 70′s is also incorrect. Check that one too” I just have since 1970 NSW’s increased their take by 11000-Gigalitres, Vic by 1,700-Gigalitres, SA by 250-Gigalitres, Qld by 400-Gigalitres and ACT by 50-Gigalitres!
Re, “It had very little to do with paddle steamers” try to understand that I said at the ‘same level’ as when Paddle-Steamers plied there trade and there was no need to keep the level in SA that high!
Re, “How much extra water would have been wasted and how much extra damage caused if the required amount of water had to be delivered from just the storages” I didn’t ask for water from storages but from the WEIR POOLS IN SA and one of the main reasons to stop the MASSIVE bank collapses in the Lower River Murray.
Oh Debbie, did I ever say, “that the Murray is NOT being used as a delivery channel for SA” what have you been drinking?
Re, “If you want to maintain your status quo, then figure out how to do it without lying and without punishing the wrong culprits. Throwing in sad tales about gum trees will not solve anything. If you don’t want help or advice, then stop asking for it” I am not telling lies, I am not, ‘throwing in sad tales about gum trees’ and re asking for advice I have never asked for advice from up-stream of Lock 1 because I know most advice from up-stream of Lock 1 is based on false beliefs of the Lower River Murray and Lakes Alexandrina and Lake Albert or the rubbish put forward by JM.
Peter,
If the Lakes were tidal how would they become hyper-saline ?
Some water would still flow over Lock 1 as it did before into the new pool between Lock 1 and Lock Zero and then as in the drought period 3 GL/ day ( as quoted in a meeting by Russell Seaman in Goolwa ) of water would still flow into Lake Alexandrina and because of Lock Zero the irrigators would still get their water from the Jervois and the farmers who weren’t included in the irrigation and the general public would receive their potable water from Tailem Bend as it now protected by Lock Zero. The automated gates on the barrage can be opened and allow the Lower Lakes to become tidal until the drought is over as should have happened this time. The Lakes should have never been allowed to go below sea level.
No Peter,
You didn’t say that but you are using the same figures and arguments as the people who are saying that.
You also really need to check those figs….I know where you got them from….they are not correct as they conveniently ignore the fact that SA has heavily relied on extra inflows above the caps. They are also based on totally meaningless long term averages. The MDB has never ever respected long term averages.
You also have to consider % of population and % of arable area and % of chokes and wetland areas. It is not just about volumes per state. Nature didn’t see it that way either!
I have not pretended to know all….I have merely pointed out that SA was not unique as far as hard times and suffering during the drought is concerned.
You are the one who keeps trying to say that it was worse there….once again using those same arguments from those same people who are pretending they want to ‘restore’ the MDB. and in particular the Murray.
They are also saying that all of SA’s problems are caused by greedy irrgators and over extraction…..all quite duplicitous.
As the topic of this post highlights, if we truly ‘restored’ the Murray that would mean less water for SA, particularly in low inflow periods.
False beliefs??????
There are plenty of those all over the MDB.
There is just as much rot going on at the top end of the southern connected system….it is just not the subject of this post.
However….that Mouth has trouble because it is influenced by tides and winds. River Mouths like to shift around….all over the world. It is when they are settled by humans that it becomes desirable to keep them static.
AND…the problems with the Coorong have virtually nothing to do with the MDB. Most of its water traditionally came from the SE of SA. Only about 10% was ever influenced by the Murray and that was in high inflow periods….not in Summer/Autumn.
Re engineering those barrages and re thinking about the salt water option at the lower estuarine/tidal end of the system is probably a good idea as a back up strategy for the next drought….it would have to be preferable to hyper salinity and exposed acid sulphate soils????
There are also other re engineering works that need to be done elsewhere in the basin….once again that is not the topic of this post.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “They are also based on totally meaningless long term averages” no there not there the diversion increases since 1970!
Re the topic of the post, “As the topic of this post highlights, if we truly ‘restored’ the Murray that would mean less water for SA” interestingly enough if we, “‘restored’ the Murray” SA would have the last of all water as to restore it would mean restore it to its natural condition and of course that is not possible but why do the majority up-stream of Lock 1 want to restore the Lakes to what they were before the Barrages but not chance any other section of the River Murray?
Re the figure of 7%, you say, “I am sick of that 7%” you said you were sick of the figure and then go on to say, “
You also have to consider % of population and % of arable area and % of chokes and wetland areas. It is not just about volumes per state’ make up your mind.
RE, “Re engineering those barrages and re thinking about the salt water option at the lower estuarine/tidal end of the system is probably a good idea as a backup strategy for the next drought” it’s not about what would be, “it would have to be preferable to hyper salinity and exposed acid sulphate soils” what I am saying is yes the Barrages need to be re-engineered and made able to be operated remotely but also what I am saying is that if the seawater is allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina the Lake WOULD BECOME HYPER-SALINE if there were no flows over Lock 1.
Getting back to, “the topic of this post” – “Healthy Country Means less Water for South Australia” if a healthy country means, healthier for other than SA meaning less water for Sa the rest of you can GET STUFFED.
Debbie, you stay on the Murrumbidgee and worry about your patch and I will remained on the River Murray and continue to worry about my patch and in doing so ensure that no water from the Murrumbidgee reaches the River Murray!
You are ranting Peter.
Telling me to get stuffed is not proving anything.
SA would be the last State to want everything to return to nature. That would mean that no water would arrive there in drought conditions. NONE!
Gets all the last of the water? HUH?
Seriously?
Hi Debbie,
You are right I was having a bit of a rant!
I know full well it is impossible to return the River Murray to ‘nature’ so make changes ar management level and investigate all options but don’t force those options on SA just because the Eastern States have the weight of Federal votes!
I suppose the reason or my reason is a, “Healthy Country” seems to mean less water for SA in so many people’s minds.
The simple question is why SA?
Why must SA pay more than anyone else?
What have we done to deserve everyone else’s wrath?
Is SA less important than anywhere else in the Basin?
Are South Australians’ lesser Australians’?
I may be wrong but as a regular soldier I thought during my overseas service I was protecting Australia was I wrong?
The trouble with so many South Australians’ is that they are so used to being told what to do firstly by our own corrupt Labor Government and now by Juliar Gillard they seem to have just about given up, well I haven’t.
Peter,
I think it is about time you gave it a rest and bow out of the argument for a while telling people to get stuf… is just going too far.
You mentioned to Dave :-
“I suppose that depends on where you live if you ask the majority of persons who live in the area around the Lakes especially the licensed fisherpersons”.
How many of the fisherpersons were involved in the two Government Carp lakes cleanup worth close to a $1 million dollars over a couple of years ?
How many times has the Bremer and Angas Rivers flowed into Lake Alexandrina prior to April 2010.
Why are some of the irrigators and farmers that used Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert water
now not connected to the irrigation pipeline from Jervois only the potable water from Tailem Bend, Murray Bridge and Myponga Reservoir ? Was it a S.A. Government decision as they along with the Federal Govt. put $94 million towards the irrigation pipeline ?
Peter,
SA is just as important as every other State but it has also made just as many mistakes as other States.
While you say that you dont blame upstream for mistakes that were clearly made in SA, you use the same arguments.
SA farmers are efficient, but so are farmers in the other States.
River and irrigation communities and wetlands in SA suffered during the drought but so did other states.
Yes, upstream govts have outstripped back up storage and infrastructure but so has SA.
Some of the diversion works in upstream areas have since proved to be ill conceived but SA has done that too, particularly in the SE.
So therefore Peter, SA’s problems are not particularly unique.
I concede that SA is more vulnerable but that is because of your position, not because of poor treatment. You seem to forget that even during the depth of the drought the river was kept running and there was 3 YEARS of critical supplies stored for SA in the upstream storages.
Could it have been managed better? Undoubtedly, but if it had been left up to nature that River would have been bone dry.
The popular arguments emanating from SA are using politically motivated environmental ideologies which will not solve the real issues you have there.
They will also seriously interfere with the productive capacity of inland Australia, including your upstream SA farmers in seasons when it is not necessary to do so.
As Mark A pointed out. . . making everyone suffer is just company in misery. . .it is not a good solution.
By all means keep fighting but if you keep pushing those unproductive parochial arguments then of course you are going to be pushed back.
As I keep trying to say, we need to think win/win.
I know you don’t believe it but most of your arguments use win/lose as their basis. They also come almost exclusively from the same source.
Hi Debbie,
Re, irrigation and efficiency, I’m sorry but whilst your irrigation practices may be ultra efficient SA has aimed for 80% across the State and whilst we may have not yet quite reached our target we are nearly there and I believe that should be the target across the Basin and where water is sourced from the Basin.
Re the South East it is not in the Basin so let’s agree to disagree about the Coorong and the SE drains, but the Southern Coorong MUST be pumped out!
A number of times during the drought the River DID NOT flow over Lock 1 and I put the blame for that squarely on the SA Government.
Not right, “Could it have been managed better? Undoubtedly, but if it had been left up to nature that River would have been bone dry” that would not happen unless the drought lasted for some 15 to 20 years as that’s what Dartmouth, Hume, other storages, Locks, Weirs and the Barrages were constructed to alleviate, things would have been critically bad but we would have had water for critical human needs.
I can assure every person who reads this blog I will continue to fight for ‘my patch’ the Lower River Murray and I doubt I will be ‘pushed back’ as I really hope sense will in-the-end prevail.
There is an order that I believe must be followed: –
1) A full and scientific Impact Statement into the construction of Lock Zero and the management of the Murray Darling Basin and until that is agreed to we cannot move forward, as without the correct information we will get nowhere. It is easy to say build another regulator but it is not that simple,
2) What has to be done to alleviate the problems in Lake Albert must be carried out and carried out yesterday,
3) Firstly re the Barrages we must undertake the engineering study into the best way to upgrade the Barrages and as soon as that study is completed the upgrade MUST begin.
All of the above are completely at the whims of the Federal Government as the overall costs for just the above will be close to $5-plus million but without agreements nothing will happen.
The other thing that must occur is SA MUST receive its capped amount (as the agreement) of water unless it is not available which will mean we share the water in the Basin.
Dave,
It appears trying to get some answers from Peter re his comments to you above re Lock Zero etc. were not suitable for comments. Plus telling him to take break for a while for his comments :-
“the rest of you can GET STUFFED”.
Peter,
The capped amount argument is moot.
That already happened during the drought.
It was not available and we all ‘shared’ what was left.
There were also some real issues with losses and conveyance….which BTW make a bit of a mockery of your 80% efficiency argument. You seem to like ignoring the fact that using the Murray River as a delivery channel for SA is enormously inefficient.
It’s OK….it’s just more parochial stuff that you’re not factoring in.
I agree that some of the management decisions were questionable. They made an absolute doozie that caused a lot of damage and heartache in this area and then made almost the exact opposite mistake when the drought broke.
However….when things got critical they did the best they could….I sincerely hope they learn some lessons about some of the rather ordinary decisions they made….and I particularly wish the Federal Govt and SA would stop trying to make this a debate about irrigation v the environment.
Re the Coorong.
Yes the SE is not in the basin…however the problems with the Coorong emanate from the SE. Unfortunately MDB upstream activities are being blamed for that problem too, by both the ACF and your government.
Re, “That already happened during the drought” no it didn’t as during the height of SA received less than our entitlement!
Debbie, I openly admit that the River is the most efficient mode of conveyance but all of our metering is at point of extraction.
Re, “However….when things got critical they did the best they could” maybe in your opinion and who is they?
Re, “I sincerely hope they learn some lessons about some of the rather ordinary decisions they made….and I particularly wish the Federal Govt and SA would stop trying to make this a debate about irrigation v the environment” maybe but if the environment is un-healthy we are in trouble!
Re, “Yes the SE is not in the basin…however the problems with the Coorong emanate from the SE. Unfortunately MDB upstream activities are being blamed for that problem too, by both the ACF and your government” oh Debbie please the problems in the Coorong (especially the Southern Lagoon) are because when there was not enough available water to ensure the Southern Lagoon was able to be refreshed it just continued to become more saline.
What the ACF say means nothing to me and as for our Government they don’t understand what our (my patch) problems are as they only listen to their staff not the people on the ground.
Maybe instead of relying on the blame game you should just forget about blaming and get on to the main task lets fix the problems perceived or not so we can ensure the future of the Basin!
Oh yes it did Peter….
Everyone received less than their entitlement….we actually got none one year (it went to 9% negative) and way less than 1/3 for the remaining years.
We had to share what was available as you pointed out in the previous post.
You also need to remember about conveyance and losses when we get as far down the system as you are and we are suffering from drought. It is not possible to use extra inflows as conveyance water as would normally occur in average and above average seasons.
I did some checking….although I am always suspicious of Govt figs….it gets over 1ML of loss/conveyance per ML delivered under low inflow conditions when water is being shifted from the Murrumbidgee Valley storages via the Murrumbidgee and then Via the Murray.
That is not efficient in anyone’s language.
Also…point of extraction on the Murray is not accounting for those losses and conveyances.
I’m not trying to make a big issue of it….I’m just trying to point out that the figs you are quoting do not take in all the variable factors.
Re the Coorong…you musn’t have looked at those links I supplied you?
The Coorong’s traditional fresh water supply was drained away to the ocean a long time ago.
Blame game?
You must be joking?
I have repeatedly stated we need to think win/win. I have also repeatedly stated that all basin state govts are culpable.
There are definite problems in your area….no one is denying that.
We need good technical solutions, like lock 0 to address them and we need to stop pretending the problem is ‘environmental’.
We also need to stop blaming the wrong culprits….irrigation farming and the MDB environment are not mortal enemies.
Hi Debbie,
I have just spoken to the Senior Project Office from SA Water (whiIe he is on holidays) I asked one question, did SA receive its entitlement during the drought, answer NO!
Debbie, I do understand conveyance there is an amount for NSW, Vic and SA.
Did I ever say that conveyance in our tributaries and Rivers was efficient, answer NO but do you have a better idea to move water?
Re, “Also…point of extraction on the Murray is not accounting for those losses and conveyances” the losses are factored in as the conveyance amount but nor when water is measured at farm gate along kilometres and kilometres of open channel irrigation channels.
Re the Coorong, “The Coorong’s traditional fresh water supply was drained away to the ocean a long time ago” yes a LONG TIME ago things have changed over the years it now just evaporates and the inflows are minimal so it – the Southern Lagoon is just getting more saline it is at about 150,000EC
Re, “There are definite problems in your area” are there any in your area/region?
I AM NOT INTO BLAMING! I AM ALSO NOT USING THE ENVIRONMENT AS AN EXCUSE!
What has to happen I have pointed out before and prior to any construction we must: –
1) A full and scientific Impact Statement into the construction of Lock Zero and the management of the Murray Darling Basin and until that is agreed to we cannot move forward, as without the correct information we will get nowhere. It is easy to say build another regulator but it is not that simple,
2) What has to be done to alleviate the problems in Lake Albert must be carried out and carried out yesterday,
3) Firstly re the Barrages we must undertake the engineering study into the best way to upgrade the Barrages and as soon as that study is completed the upgrade MUST begin.
All of the above are completely at the whims of the Federal Government as the overall costs for just the above will be close to $5-plus million but without agreements nothing will happen.
The other thing that must occur is SA MUST receive its capped amount (as the agreement) of water unless it is not available which will mean we share the water in the Basin.
Certain studies must be undertaken ASAP!
Of course there are problems in our area Peter. They need sensible technical solutions as well.
Also…SA did not reveive its full allocation….neither did NSW, Vic or QLD…that’s the point.
Did you misunderstand what I said about that? Maybe I wasn’t clear?
This thread is getting old.
I agree that those works need to be done….never said otherwise.
When we are in drought SA CAN’T receive its capped amount anymore than the other states can….that’s the way it DID work in the last drought.
It was far from perfect but it DID follow that basic principle.
The measurements at Farm Gates after miles and miles of open channels does not occur here. Where do you see that happening? Maybe it is an old story or it happens somewhere that makes no measurable difference to the rivers ?
Every last drop is accounted for in this area, it is a closed system run by an infrastructure company that has no intention of missing out on one single cent of water charges.
The same basically applies on the NSW Murray Irrigation Ltd system and also in Northern Victoria.
I am not aware of what happens as far as metering water goes further downstream and into SA?
Hi Debbie,
Well it seems we will have to just agree to disagree about our views are who is efficient and who isn’t and who’s right and who’s wrong.
All I would therefore ask is when you make your submission and I am sure you will and if you mention the Lower River Murray, “What has to happen before and prior to any construction we must: –
1) A full and scientific Impact Statement into the construction of Lock Zero and the management of the Murray Darling Basin and until that is agreed to we cannot move forward, as without the correct information we will get nowhere. It is easy to say build another regulator but it is not that simple,
2) What has to be done to alleviate the problems in Lake Albert must be carried out and carried out yesterday,
3) Firstly re the Barrages we must undertake the engineering study into the best way to upgrade the Barrages and as soon as that study is completed the upgrade MUST begin.
All of the above are completely at the whims of the Federal Government as the overall costs for just the above will be close to $5-plus million but without agreements nothing will happen.
The other thing that must occur is SA MUST receive its capped amount (as the agreement) of water unless it is not available which will mean we share the water in the Basin.
Certain studies must be undertaken ASAP!”
Dave & Peter,
Jennifer has infromed me that I was being re-assessed because I have a new e mail address.
Peter,
If the Lakes were tidal how would they become hyper-saline ?
Some water would still flow over Lock 1 as it did before into the new pool between Lock 1 and Lock Zero and then as in the drought period 3 GL/ day ( as quoted in a meeting by Russell Seaman in Goolwa ) of water would still flow into Lake Alexandrina and because of Lock Zero the irrigators would still get their water from the Jervois and the farmers who weren’t included in the irrigation and the general public would receive their potable water from Tailem Bend as it now protected by Lock Zero. The automated gates on the barrage can be opened and allow the Lower Lakes to become tidal until the drought is over as should have happened this time. The Lakes should have never been allowed to go below sea level.
Peter,
I think it is about time you gave it a rest and bow out of the argument for a while telling people to get stuf… is just going too far.
You mentioned to Dave :-
“I suppose that depends on where you live if you ask the majority of persons who live in the area around the Lakes especially the licensed fisherpersons”.
How many of the fisherpersons were involved in the two Government Carp lakes cleanup worth close to a $1 million dollars over a couple of years ?
How many times has the Bremer and Angas Rivers flowed into Lake Alexandrina prior to April 2010.
Why are some of the irrigators and farmers that used Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert water
now not connected to the irrigation pipeline from Jervois only the potable water from Tailem Bend, Murray Bridge and Myponga Reservoir ? Was it a S.A. Government decision as they along with the Federal Govt. put $94 million towards the irrigation pipeline ?
Yes I will be submitting Peter and of course I will be campaigning for sensible, progressive technical solutions.
I notice you didn’t answer my last question?
WHERE are these incredibly wasteful irrigation practices that allow irrigators to access miles and miles of open channels and only pay for what they receive at their farm gate?
They are obviously upstream from you, are they upstream from southern NSW & northern Vic?
If not, can you give a reasonable explanation why it is those areas which are expected to contribute the most productive water?
Hi Sean,
Re, “If the Lakes were tidal how would they become hyper-saline?” when we have another drought, and it will happen it’s not if but when, and there is no flow over Lock 1 or when so many in the Eastern States and as a matter of fact up-stream of Lock 1minimise the flow over Lock 1 (especially if Lock Zero is constructed) and there is no flow over Lock Zero and the water flowing out cannot keep the River’s mouth open you don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to work out what will happen.
Why or how would water flow over Lock Zero if none flowed over Lock1?
Re, “The automated gates on the barrage can be opened and allow the Lower Lakes to become tidal until the drought is over as should have happened this time. The Lakes should have never been allowed to go below sea level” and what if the tidal movement was not enough to do as you want it to?
Ah Sean I get pissed off at times, and whilst I have apologised to Debbie, if I want to tell people to get stuffed I will and re, “How many times has the Bremer and Angas Rivers flowed into Lake Alexandrina prior to April 2010” not very often but regulators will have to be built across the mouths of both of those tributaries if sea water is allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina to protect water users from the Bremer and Angus.
Re, “How many of the fisherpersons were involved in the two Government Carp lakes cleanup worth close to a $1 million dollars over a couple of years?” I don’t know the answer but I believe there are 33 fishing licenses in the Lower River Murray and Lakes fishery and no matter what it cost it was money well spent.
Re, “Why are some of the irrigators and farmers that used Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert water now not connected to the irrigation pipeline from Jervois only the potable water from Tailem Bend, Murray Bridge and Myponga Reservoir?” how would I know you will have to ask them.
Re, “Was it a S.A. Government decision as they along with the Federal Govt. put $94 million towards the irrigation pipeline?’ How would I know why don’t you ask them and I didn’t think the SA Government put any money in.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “WHERE are these incredibly wasteful irrigation practices that allow irrigators to access miles and miles of open channels and only pay for what they receive at their farm gate?’ are you sure that all irrigators accessing water from open channels are metering their water from point of first extraction?
Re, “They are obviously upstream from you, are they upstream from southern NSW & northern Vic?
If not, can you give a reasonable explanation why it is those areas which are expected to contribute the most productive water?” I deeply regret I cannot answer the question, “why it is those areas which are expected to contribute the most productive water?” you will need to ask the Hon Craig Knowles, how can I speak for him?
I can only answer for the areas I know Peter.
I am absolutely 100% completely and positively certain that infrastructure companies/ govt depts like NSW Office of Water, State Water, Snowy Hydro Ltd, Murrumbidgee Irrigation, Murray Irrigation, Colleambally Irrigation and Murray Golburn account for every single last drop of water as they have NO intention of missing out on any fees 🙂
Considering that accounts for a rather sizeable whack of extracted water in the Southern Basin…it must be happening somewhere else either upstream or downstream from these areas?
It was not me who made the accusation Peter….you’re the one who keeps insisting that there is incredible wastage because water is not being metered correctly and it had something to do with kilometres of open channels….I was assuming you know where that is???
Upstream or downstream from here? How much is actually not being metred efficiently and therefore not being paid for or accounted for?
Maybe it’s another one of those false assumptions that have mysteriously crept their way into the MDBA research????? You know….using a very ‘old hat’ problem that has long been addressed and then claiming it still needs to be fixed?
I’m not sure as I can only speak for the areas and the depts/companies that I either deal with or have personal knowledge of.
Hi Debbie,
I realise I have not travelled much in the last three or so years but whilst at Cowra last time I was shown many properties extracting water from open channels and being metered at farm gate and if this has changed I apologise but information being supplied to me still indicates that the practise is still occurring. It is probably time hopefully about the middle of this year, I may be able to travel up the River Murray and then the Darling again on my way to visit a friend at Tilpa or when I go to the Murray Darling Association AGM/Conference in Mildura in September.
We do have private properties along the River Murray that are not metered correctly and those properties are allowed to extract a maximum of 500-Kilolitres and I have hounded for the last 15plus years South Australian Water Ministers and I shall continue to do so, all extractions must be metered correctly!
Cowra?
That is on the Lachlan River near Wyangala Dam.
How much did their irrigation practices ever affect SA or even the southern connected NSW/Vic system Peter?
I can also assure you that farmers and communities on the Lachlan had absolutely horrendous problems during the drought….far, far worse than either your area or mine.
The Lachlan actually got shut down. It was devastating for those people. It was the one river that the Govt depts were not able to keep going….at one stage even their critical supplies were gone.
They were denied any access a very long time before & after either your area or mine.
They also had a huge whack of their groundwater taken from them….that one even went to court.
If you truly want to pick the areas that probably suffered the most….look to the irrigators and small rural communities on the Lachlan.
As a further kick in the teeth those poor people were absolutely hammered by groups such as ACF and the Wentworth Group because of the Macquarie marshes and some of their other wetland/ floodplain areas.
Of course the marshes and very impressive floodplains on the Lachlan have roared back to life because they’re ephemeral…but far too many of those people did not make it through….the suicide, depression and divorce stats from those areas are also horrendous.
I certainly hope the ‘information being supplied to you’ has included those facts as well?
If not….maybe you should take that trip and gain some perspective.
I will also clearly point out to you that their irrigation techniques and practices have almost nil affect on anything that happens in SA.
While I agree that in times past it appeared that they had access that was not correctly accounted for….they had to pay very, very dearly for that on the Water Sharing Plans.
They are way lower on the WSP and they miss out on access a very long time before you do.
Sorry Corowa. I must have had an old age moment!
Peter,
Goolwa Channel’s salinity peaked at 32,720 EC 18/2/2009 with a S.A. riverflow of 35.8 GL/week.
Lake Albert Meningie peaked at 11,680 EC 8/04/2009 riverflow 20.6 GL/week.
Lake Alexandrina Milang peaked at 5,930 EC 22/04/2009 riverflow 21.3 GL/week. The lowest weekly riverflow was 11.8 GL 17/06/2009 and S.A. was 346.5 GL in deficit of its 915 GL RAMSAR agreement. Goolwa in April 2009 was – 1.034 m AHD.
If we had Lock Zero in place you would have had a pool level and safe river banks between it and Blanchetown’s Lock 1 and not have to keep putting River water to the Lower Lakes. Unfortunately I don’t have a figure of what the Lower Lakes had in storage in April 2009 but I do know that the Lower Lakes at 0.0 m (AHD) holds 1138.2 GL of water ( 67.15 % ). If the barrages had been opened then quite a lot of fresh water would not have had to be waisted to refill the lakes until the next lot of flooding occured.
Corowa is on the Murray upstream from where Murray Irigation Ltd (MIL) operates.
I do not know how much area is irrigated there but I have driven through there quite often….and it is not that much.
I have driven through there quite regularly because one of my children live nearby.
They do definitely pump straight from the River in that area and they are not as regulated as further down stream….however I strongly suspect they are mostly metred at the river….not at their farm gates….but I do not know for sure.
In the big picture….especially since they are upstream from MIL…how much do you think they are influencing what happens in SA Peter?
Sean is desperately trying to explain to you where the work really needs to be done.
Looking at small volumes of water that are not perhaps extracted and used as efficiently as elsewhere will not provide the answers or the protection you need.
BTW, the farms and the landscape in that Corowa area are looking absolutely magnificent at the moment.
They too did it very tough during the drought. In some areas there they also copped a belting from the flooding when the drought broke so dramatically. It is good to see things have turned around for them this last season.
It is a very pretty area….lots of native critters as well.
Hi Sean,
I realise IF we had Lock Zero things would have been much different in the Lower River Murray and lakes Alexandrina and Albert but Sean we have not got Lock Zero and we must look at what is happening now.
If an ‘Impact Statement’ into Lock Zero was passed through Parliament today in my estimation by the time the ‘terms of reference’ were decided on and that is after some deal of consultation to ensure all the right questions and management answers are being properly investigated probably a year would have passed. Then the time for all the information to be gathered checked and a final report finished another year.
Then the discussion as to whether it should be constructed and how much it would cost and then where is the money going to come from?
Let’s say it all runs to plan I feel that phase would take at least two and a half years. Construction would take at least two years so if we started tomorrow I could not see it completed until at least the middle of 2015 or early 2016 and because the River is at pool level and with a strong flow it could take longer but we will keep pushing.
All you referred to above is correct but we don’t even have a commitment to an ‘Impact Statement.”
Hi Debbie,
Thank you for that information, though re, “how much do you think they are influencing what happens in SA Peter?” any extractions INCLUDING IN SA must be metered from source, efficiencies!
I know what Sean is trying say thank you!
Peter,
Jim Marsh was Barrage Superintendent at Goolwa and in the Alexandrina Local History Archive he was interviewed by Rose Geisler 27th. September,1999 Page 28. The Government must have some information on a new Barrage or Lock at Wellington if he mentioned it in his interview back in 1999. Tim Flannery mentioned doing a similar thing again 12th. July, 2008 surely they have something in their bottom draws or it got lost going between departments. I wrote to The Advertiser when the new piplines were announced :-
To Adeliade Now
Times are getting very interesting as past ideas of just ten years ago even before the current drought and water crisis were known are now coming to fruition.
Alexandrina Local History Archive
Jim Marsh Barrage Superintendant at Goolwa in September 1999
One of the positions being considered is to abandon the barrages and let the lakes return to natural estuarine condition and rebuilding the structure at Wellington. It would entail quite significant capital expenditure because they would have to build distribution works down each side and all the people who now pump out of the Lakes would have to be supplied from a large pipeline. The political ramifications of shifting the barrages would be too hot for any government to try.
Ten years later a new pipeline with filtered water from Tailem Bend to properties in the districts of Raukkan, Narrung, Meningie and Poltalloch Peninsular, Point Sturt have to wait until September has been constructed. Langhorne Creek connected to Strathalbyn, Milang and Clayton pipeline. The irrigators $12.5 million and thanks to the Commonwealth and State Governments putting in not less than $94 million will have their separate pipeline from Jervois to Langhorne Creek through to Currency Creek by October, 2009, the reliance on the Lakes no longer required. It has moved a pumping station closer to the Lakes and salt water with a weir being built in a position not suitable in the late 1930’s switched to Goolwa. One of the most suitable places to build a Barrage / Lock is a site near the Swanport Bridge ( Granite rock base ) which just happens to be above Tailem Bend.
Maybe we do not have enough government departments working on the problem.
The River Murray, Water Security, Environment & Heritage, Agriculture & Fisheries, Water Land & Biodeversity/Conservation, EPA, S.A. Water and a couple of Commonwealth Departments.
Do not worry folks water is coming I don’t know when but is coming then we can fill the Murray Darling Basin down 7713GL ( 18% ) Lake Mulawa emptied with weed problems then all the back waters and Lakes between Blanchetown and Goolwa. In 1940 they didn’t worry about the native fish Mulloway, Mullet, Flounder and Bream.
Sean Murphy
Goolwa North
S.A. 5214
Peter maybe nothing gets done because too many Governments Departments are involved as mentioned above.
As I mentioned in the letter we were looking at Swanport for the Lock where the River was 220 metres wide, has a granite base and shifting all pump stations up to Murray Bridge.
Hi Sean,
From my meetings, information and contacts with all of the Departments mentioned I can assure no-one is working on any plans that include a lock/weir in the Lower River Murray.
Re, “If there were any discussions or work being done I do not believe that any consideration would look at any option accept as close as possible to where the River narrows just down-stream of Wellington. The reason for that would be that if sea water were to be allowed to invade Lake Alexandrina the powers to be would want ensure minimal damage into the main River.
Re, “Jim Marsh” and what he said in 1999, do you really believe that anyone in this Government would consider what was said in 1999? And re what Tim Flannery has said that would also be aligned with what Jim said put away in achieves probably never to be opened again.
Re, “One of the positions being considered is to abandon the barrages and let the lakes return to natural estuarine condition and rebuilding the structure at Wellington” all my information from the Federal, State Governments and the MDBA is that the removal of the Barrages WILL NOT happen!
Peter,
They did get their pipelines that Jim Marsh said that would have to be built. The next step is Lock Zero and the automation of the barrage gates to overcome some of the weather activity thay have had at the Murray Mouth.
e.g. Recent weather happenings at the Murray Mouth with antiquated equipment.
22nd May, 2011, an intense low pressure system 0f 994 HPA with associated west to southerly winds of up to 40 knots crossed the area. This system increased the levels of Encounter Bay by about 0.66 m above the predicted astronomical tide to 1.4 m or 0.65 m above the designated FSL 0.75 m in the Lower Lakes. This event reversed the river flow and sea water intrusion caused salinities to rise to over 40,000 EC in the Goolwa Channel to Narnu Bay. The sudden increase in salinity caused a fish kill in the Goolwa Channel. 4th. July, 2011 at 6.00 pm, the Goolwa area experienced one of the highest tides observed in the previous 12 months. The tide at Reedy Island was recorded at 1.42 m AHD which was aprox. 0.6 m higher than the predicted astronomical tide at Victor Harbor. The high tide was at the end of a period of spring tides and was due to a combination of low pressure ( 1008 HPA at HL), large ocean swells and strong NW to WNW winds up to 40 knots. This event was the fifth major sea water intrusion event since May 22nd but with higher tides. The Lower Lake salinities had not fully recovered from these prior events. Had more of the barrage gates been open there would have been a major sea water intrusion much greater than the previous events.
Peter,
Just putting it out there….but Sean is basically corect that this whole debate is being made way too complicated when it really doesn’t need to be.
I can help you out with an EPA for free.
Building Lock Zero WILL (Repeat WILL) impact the environment in some ways….however….it is one of the things that MUST (repeat MUST) be done.
The environmental impact….particularly to the human environment below lock one… from doing nothing and fluffing around with all these different agendas and wasting everyone’s time and money…..will be a much more devastating impact.
If we’re writing off what was said in 1999 then we have to write off everything else that was done before then in the MDB.
If it was a smart option in 1999 it is still a smart option….too bad if it wasn’t the idea of the current crop of bureaucrats and politicians.
Extra works on the lower Murray and extra storages upstream were always part of the original plans….we still need them to be completed.
And yes….they will impact the environment and they will cost money…..doesn’t change the fact that it must be done if we are to have positive and progressive and prosperous future.
It’s all about ‘trade offs’ and correctly compensating affected areas.
Somehow we have allowed water storages and management to be redefined as ‘environmental resources’. That is complete rubbish….they were always community resources.
We need to expand and develop those resources incorporating what we have learned about environmental responsibility in the last 100 years….anything else is just political rhetoric and completely counter productive.
Personally I don’t mind if you keep the barrages….but they must defintely be re engineered and there must be a way to either access/build extra storage (not take it from other areas) or utilise the tidal/estuarine sea water option when we are next faced with low inflows.
The Murray Mouth will not stay put unless it is made to stay put….those type of areas are forever causing problems world wide because the tides and the ocean and the winds like to move them around. Extra flows of fresh water will not stop that from happening.
Sea water can also solve the hyper salinity problems. Despite your assertations otherwise, if managed correctly it is not a contaminant.
Hi Debbie,
It’s easy to say what must be done and it’s easy for you to say what must be done and thank you for, “I can help you out with an EPA for free” I will send that information to the Prime Minister and her Minister, the SA Premier and his Ministers and Craig Knowles and we should expect the work to start straight away!
Well Debbie, IT JUST AIN”T THAT EASY!
And thanks again for, “The environmental impact….particularly to the human environment below lock one… from doing nothing and fluffing around with all these different agendas and wasting everyone’s time and money…..will be a much more devastating impact” but as they have not listened so far I will give them your contacts and you will straighten them out.
Oh once again thanks, “And yes….they will impact the environment and they will cost money…..doesn’t change the fact that it must be done if we are to have positive and progressive and prosperous future” it’s obvious you are experienced in dealing with Governments it really is so pleasing to know you will get it all done.
Your right, “It’s all about ‘trade offs’ and correctly compensating affected areas” the Barrages were built as a tradeoff for Mulwala!
Your wise beyond your years and obviously understand more about the Murray Mouth than anyone else I have ever dealt with and yes I am a sarcastic bastard!
Debbie, in the last two years on behalf of the Lock Zero Group I contacted every Elected Federal Member in Australia, every Shire and Council in Australia and every major media (TV, Radio and Printed) outlet in Australia and am now compiling new contact lists and prior to the next Federal Election will be contacting EVERY candidate who is standing for election and will until then continue to push for answers, please don’t belittle my group we care!
My wife tells me my life should be more than just fighting other people’s battles and I need to spend more time
for me and us, decisions decisions?
Re, “The Murray Mouth will not stay put unless it is made to stay put” but we are not sure just allowing the mouth to be influenced by the tidal prism will achieve this and we can assure seawater will be a contaminant.
Peter,
For goodness sake…you didn’t think I was being sarcastic????
We can run around in circles forever trying to deal with pollies and bureaucrats….the answers are quite simple…..but I was joking….I realise it is not quite that simple…more’s the pity.
ROFL.
Maybe it’s time we stopped playing their stupid political and bureaucratic games? It hasn’t got us anywhere has it?
Your wife is right you know….trying to individually take the world on your shoulders is not a good idea.
Re the seawater….I may have misunderstood….. but isn’t it less saline than the hypersaline areas?
Wouldn’t flushing with seawater at least alleviate some of that problem? Or do you prefer to have it hyper saline? I am confused.
You have definitely misunderstood my comment about the Mouth.
The ocean, the tides and the winds will always try to move it around…..it is a common problem for all communities which settle around river mouths that empty into the ocean….all over Australia and all over the world.
Most of them need to dredge and continually redistribute the shifted sands back into the preferred position.
It’s a trade off thing again.
Those communities want those river mouths to stay put….so they use engineering works to make them stay put.
If it was left up to nature….those tidal estuarine mouths move around…..whether there is fresh water being flushed or not.
Debbie,
Exactly what I thought when Peter said that the lakes were tidal. The Lakes how could they become hyper saline if there is daily tidal movements. I thought lack of movement was the cause of hyper salinity.
I have found a e mail that Peter Marsh sent me 16/04/2009. I met Peter at the first meeting in Goolwa and have supported his ideas for the Lower Lakes. He has ceased this project for personal reasons and I have continued his work.
Dean Brown also pointed out a reality of how Governments worked. He said that they do not get involved in R&D because as he quoted, they are not very good at turning ideas into good products. He said that private enterprise was much better at doing that sort of thing. He also said that by trying to incorporate the wind the wind turbine,electricity generation, desalination plant was making the overall project too complicated. Governments can only handle small bits at a time so it seems and he just felt that trying to dovetail the new technology would not be considered.
Debbie,
I noticed this letter to the editor in one of our local papers.
Lower Lakes Salt Spectre is a Furphy
Differences of opinion about the Lower Lakes can be accepted, but when the facts are ignored the record must be corrected and the “mountains of salt” scare campaign of the environmental lobby is a case in point.
Salt moving through the river system to the Lower Lakes is not ‘deposited’ there, nor can it move upstream to ‘destroy’ the basin, because it is dissolved in the water – a huge amount of water – that flows ‘downhill’ to the Lakes and out through the mouth. What matters is the salt concentration – the salinity level of the water.
In fact, over the last 30 years, average salinity at Morgan has steadily reduced from about 700ECU to about 500ECU – an inconvenient truth for those who want us to believe that salinity is getting worse. The numbers tell the real story.
Even with salinity of 500ECU the Lakes contain half a million tonnes of salt but the water is fresh enough to drink and to irrigate, and when river flows bring water that is even fresher, the salt moves on with the water it is dissolved in; not left behind as some insidious poison.
The “two million tonnes of salt” repeatedly claimed by activists to accumulate annually, is a meaningless furphy designed to intimidate us into agreement with a false argument.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “Re the seawater….I may have misunderstood….. but isn’t it less saline than the hypersaline areas?” yes but if seawater where to invade Lake Alexandrina and the Murray Mouth closed the Lake would become hyper-saline, it all relies on flow!
I agree that if it was seawater (which I totally oppose) there would still need to be enough tidal pressure to keep the mouth open and I am not sure but at times there may not be enough and once the mouth is silted opening it again may require dredging once again massive costs.
There have been many engineering ideas put forward to maintain the River’s mouth but there is unique problems with the movement of water in that area so I am not sure.
Hi Sean,
Are you sure that if there is no out flow from the River Murray the mouth will remain open? Over the past the Murray’s mouth has shifted considerable distances!
Sean, I have known and worked with Dean for close to 50 years and that does not sound something he would say but I would like to see that in writing from him, you have my contacts.
Can you please send me the link to the paper you mentioned to Debbie?
Sean if you can back up (scientifically, “The two million tonnes of salt” repeatedly claimed by activists to accumulate annually, is a meaningless furphy designed to intimidate us into agreement with a false argument” as once I have that information I will desist making the two million tonnes point?
You are still confusing me Peter,
If sea water was allowed in that must mean the mouth is open musn’t it? It can’t get in if the mouth is closed can it?
Also, which paper?
I am also at a loss why you concede that the mouth moves around yet claim that it is because of river flow (or lack thereof) and not for the same reason that every other tidal/estuarine mouth in the world moves around ie because of the ocean, tides and winds.
Re the 2million tonnes of salt, gotta ask the same question, where did you get that info from? It wouldn’t be the same place that claims that 90% of the MDB’s wetlands have been destroyed would it?
Both are exaggerated misquoted furphies.
Hi Debbie,
Re that paper I misread something Sean wrote my apology.
If seawater was given the opportunity to invade Lake Alexandrina yes if the mouth remained open the tide would bring in the seawater but as it is an odd region the mouth could also close as it has done in the past i.e. in times of little or no flow out of the mouth, the tidal movement would not necessarily be enough to keep it open.
Over thousands of years researchers have found that the mouth has shifted I am not sure of the exact distance but it is some miles I believe and I am also not sure of the exact reason. I shall do some checking.
Re, “the 2million tonnes of salt, gotta ask the same question, where did you get that info from?” that is the amount quoted in all of the scientific information I have read, it is also the figure quoted by SA’s Water Department and the MDBA and it don’t believe it is a furphy and re, “It wouldn’t be the same place that claims that 90% of the MDB’s wetlands have been destroyed would it?” NO and I have never said or agreed with that comment or used it at any time so politely get stuffed!
Peter,
You will just have to take my word re Dean Brown as Peter M. had a few meetings with him and even changed his original plan for the Lower Lakes from those meetings and also reading The Walker Report 2002 “The Behaviour and the Future of the River Murray Mouth”. The original plan was to open the Tauwitchere Barrage at high tide and increase the Lakes level by 300 mm. After reading Walkers report the Lakes level would have to be at least 500 mm. The 500 mm level was confirmed at the meeting in Milang when Donna Ferretti S.A. Water Principal Planner spoke about a Seawater EIS “Will the Lakes Remain a Fresh Water System” but for some unknown reason we never received a copy of that talk. Peter you weren’t at the meeting but you did mention to me quite a while ago you were getting a copy from Donna. The other person who spoke on a “Salt Water Estuary” in Goolwa at a Signal Point Group meeting we received information on some of the questions and answers but nothing on his Power Point presentation when I contacted Mike Geddes, I am sorry but I am going on holidays tomorrow.
The problem is no one is allowed to discuss an ALTERNATIVE in S.A. because there has been over $600 million allocated to the S.A. Government by the Commonwealth Govt. and they are going to spend it on their “Fresh Water Policy”. They spent $10 million on Lake Albert and when it didn’t work all Mr. Holmes could say was “At least we tried”. They spread Limestone and Rhye grass on the Goolwa Channel even when they knew that they were going to pump water over the Clayton Regulator and bring it up to pool level 0.75 m. Russell Seaman when I questioned him at Clayton on the cost he didn’t know and still didn’t know a couple of weeks later and then when he quoted that crop dusters hourly rate you knew he wasn’t interested just like Lake Albert. The figure he gave me was a bob cat hourly rate in other words please dont’ bother me.
Hi Sean,
Yes I was told I would get a copy of Donna’s final report though she has now moved on I will follow that up next week and get back to you.
I will also contact Mike next week and follow that up also.
Re, “They spent $10 million on Lake Albert and when it didn’t work all Mr. Holmes could say was “At least we tried” I don’t think they spent that it was some promised money from some time ago I will also follow that up for you.
I will also try to catch up with Russell as he had promised me some information in November so that’s another I will chase next week.
Peter,
While every region in the world has its unique characteristics….no matter where it is or what it is…..they have more in common.
Tidal/estuarine river mouths get moved around by wind and tides.
The upstream river flows do also have influence, especially in floods, but the major factor and much stronger factor is most definitely the oceanic tides and winds.
Communities who have settled in these type of areas world wide have exactly the same issues with their tidal/estuarine river mouths continually wanting to shift around and at other times silt up.
The truth is….human settlement wants them to stay put….oceanic winds and tides love to move them around.
The issue is that your government is trying to pretend that upstream practices which have actually been in operation longer than the works done around the Murray Mouth are somehow completely responsible for the problems occuring there and that it MUST be fixed by upstream giving more water and supplying more storage space based on meaningless long term averages.
The logical conclusion of doing that is the storages will be jammed up with ‘just in case’ water that would be released in Summer/Autumn if it’s needed….which effectively excludes the large area irrgators who need to start accessing water in Spring…AND MOST IMPORTANTLY….will not solve the problems that occured in the drought….because up stream storages are not capable of freshening the Lakes or flushing out the Mouth when inflows are low. When inflows were low…before we built the storages and management infrastructures….the Murray had NO influence on what happened to that mouth….NONE!
The storages and management infrastructure were not built or designed to create flooding events….they were actually built for the opposite reason.
Expecting them to be used to create flooding events is not possible without either severely damaging upstream’s capacity to produce or without doing some highly radical infrastructure alterations.
Salt also does not travel any further upstream than what the tidal flows would take it….as Sean clearly pointed out. It is extremely easy to make a technical decision about how far that would be….From my perspective….Lock 0 looks like one of the most sensible solutions….it may not be perfect but it appears to me that it is a far, far better option than doing nothing and letting SA cop it again next time we have low inflows.
And yes….it is very likely that when the tides and winds decide to try and shift your mouth or silt it up…..you will need to dredge it out if you want to keep it there…..and yes….it costs money….it is a cost that nearly every tidal/estuarine community in the world has learned it must factor in if they want their river mouth to stay static. Quite obviously, the barrages have not been successful in mitigating that problem for the Murray mouth….quite obviously something else needs to be done.
The favoured solution of your government also has enormous costs associated with it, placed on people who have not decided to inhabit and settle a tidal/estuarine river mouth.
I recognise that we all do however bear some responsiblility for the settlement of the Murray Mouth because the governments of the day (State and Federal) definitely encouraged that to happen….the same applies to the settlement of inland Australia. We all bear some responsibility for that as well because it too was encouraged by the governments of the day.
Some mistakes were made in both areas and they need to be fixed.
So far all we’ve managed to do is go round and round in circles playing silly parochial political games…..and spending a lot of money…..and so far not actually solving the real problems.
Also Peter, telling people to get stuffed either politely or impolitely does absolutely nothing to advance your argument or discredit someone else’s.
Shooting the messenger and personal attacks are a political trick.
I do not go there as I would much prefer to actually discuss the issues.
You will gain no reaction at all from me by doing that….other than perhaps I may just start ignoring you altogether as someone who takes things far too personally and is therefore unable to sensibly discuss the issue at hand.
I too am very passionate about the MDB and I too am personally invested in the outcomes of this process….along with numerous of my family and peers and acquaintances.
However….I have never ever seen anything productive occur from being rude to people and dismissing people via personal attacks.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “Salt also does not travel any further upstream than what the tidal flows would take it” correct but without another regulator tidal movement in and out of the mouth if the Barrages were not in place and with wind seiching the salinity would be an influence to Lock 1.
Re the enormous costs in whatever is decided will not just be at the expenses of the SA Government but all of Australia as there Barrages were constructed by the Federal Government.
Points taken but also I am passionate about the Murray Darling Basin not just the Lower River Murray as I have said before the complete Basin needs better management as does the Lower Rover Murray.