WHEN former Labor leader Mark Latham was campaigning to win the 2004 federal election, he promised to add 450 gigalitres of environmental flows to the Murray River in his first term of government and an extra 1,500 within ten years.
Australian Greens leader Senator Bob Brown said he would return 1,500 gigalitres within five years – in half the time.
Back then 1,500 gigalitres seemed like a lot of water.
In a June 2003 interview for ABC Television’s Four Corners, the late Peter Cullen from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists also mentioned 1,500 gigalitres and indicated that volume was scientifically derived.
In their Blueprint for a National Water Plan, the Wentworth Group proposed the water be returned through an annual incremental increase of 100 gigalitres for environmental flow. Based on this 2003 plan, by last year at least 800 gigalitres would need to have been returned to the river.
In fact, when campaigning during the 2010 federal election Julia Gillard said over 900 gigalitres had already been recovered.
The Wentworth Group should be happy with progress.
But it isn’t.
The group now claims no less than 4,000 gigalitres must be returned to the Murray Darling river system. The Australian Greens are also now claiming that a minimum of 4,000 gigalitres must be returned to ensure the Murray River’s survival and 7,600 gigalitres if it is to be healthy.
What has precipitated such a momentous change in the volume of water required to save the river?
In 2003 the water was apparently needed because of declining water quality and rising river salinity. This was shown to be a furphy: river salinity levels had been falling since the early 1980s since implementation of the salinity management strategy of the Murray Darling Basin Commission.
So now less, not more, water should be needed. But the focus has switched to the bottom of the system with claims more water is now needed to keep the Murray’s mouth open.
Professor Cullen was talking about the Murray’s mouth in that June 2003 Four Corners interview. Had he mentioned the need for a minimum of 4,000 gigalitres back then it would have been considered greedy.
Not any more! Expectations have changed.
I put the change down to two initiatives lead by former prime minister John Howard. In 2007 the Water Act became law, creating priority for environmental water. In the same year $10 billion was allocated for implementation of the associated Murray-Darling Basin plan.
Thanks to Mr Howard, Ms Gillard now has a legal obligation to send a volume of water about equal to the total current baseline diversions for the NSW Murray (1,812/year GL) and also the Murrumbidgee (2501 GL/year) to South Australia every year.
***************
First published in The Land newspaper on January 19, 2012
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer, I can’t get my head around this “environmental flows” concept.
It’s proven and indisputable that the rivers ran dry in times of drought, so wouldn’t it be logical to let it be like that at least for the wetlands and the riverbanks?
I mean that was the natural state in the past!
As Debbie mentioned on an other thread, the flora and fauna returned in abundance despite the dire predictions.
“also mentioned 1,500 gigalitres and indicated that volume was scientifically derived. ”
so what science has changed?
Yep. Got that right!
It has turned into a political circus!!!
I agree with you, Mark A.
But according to all the planning documents it must be always brimming with water, all the way to the Lower Lakes.
John Sayers,
this was never about science.
Debbie,
Mark A. and John Sayers raise issues that hopefully your group can take to Canberra?
“It’s proven and indisputable that the rivers ran dry in times of drought” yep fair enuff
But presumably environmental flows should wet up overbank wetlands at some level of historical frequency that would ensure their sustainability. As opposed to never.
Luke
I agree completely, but it happens anyway now, don’t you think?
I mean in the past when rainfall wasn’t enough to have the rivers flooding, there was no “wetting”
of the riverbanks and filling the wetlands.
In ’79, when I toured down the Darling for three weeks in a Canadian, they were draining the billabongs to remove the carp. The mud would be thick with their bodies. I hope there are some realists and genuine experts running these environmental flows, especially in dry times. I suspect carp can handle an unexpected surge of sludge better than other species. I don’t know much about this sort of thing. I hope someone does.
Spot on Mark A,
Of course it happens anyway.
Luke’s perception of ‘never’ is the misconception.
The whole concept of ‘environmental flows’ created by mindlessly trashing storage water is a nonsense.
When the drought finally broke, the natural environment bounced back in an absolutely spectacular manner.
The MDBA’s ‘environmental waterings’ during the last 12 months have only succeeded in jamming up the storages at the start of the season and then senselessly wasting storage water that should have been conserved. Putting water on the back of floods does not achieve an ‘environmental outcome’. The environment didn’t need their help.
The natural environment is ephemeral.
Their sticky problem is: what on earth can they do with all that storage space when there is plenty of rain and plenty of excess inflows?
So far, their answer is: JUST FLUSH IT OUT TO SEA.
That is an abysmally wasteful plan IMO.
The other kicker is that the storages were not designed to either assist or create flooding events and are therefore incapable of doing so.
Despite all the PR about the ‘mighty river Murray’, the reality is that it’s natural state is nothing like that. If left alone it ranges from a raging flood to a series of disconnected stagnant puddles. That mouth would also have shifted and altered many times.
The so called ‘science’ being used to justify a number completely ignores that simple reality.
It would be good if we had some realistic policies and legislation that had some sensible and achievable vision.
Some interesting comments on our most precious sunstance, water. When hearing about the MDB landscape recovery from a couple of years of good rains it is hard to be concerned about dire loss of RAMSAR wetlands if we dont fill them up annually. However with projections of climatic drying looming, opportunities for our farming and inland comunities to expand output of agri/food produce to Asian and Middle East regions where food security is big issue, the need for more water is obvious. We cant reliably share around all needs of environment and farming from existing mean flows, it is quite obvious that government needs to address the transfer south of a minor fraction of huge northern flows to sea to our temperate southern regions which support most reliable farming. Canals built in the hot Arizona USA region move
water 600km annually with losses from evaporation and seepage less than 2% pa
Hi Mark A,
Regarding letting wetlands run dry during droughts when I spoke to the Environmental Water Holder asking should we block off non essential back waters and flood plains be blocked off below Lock 1 and only water and maintained damp his answer was whilst the environmentalists did not agree it would have been a good idea!
Hi Jennifer,
The documents are WRONG if the backwaters and floodplains below Lock 1 were managed wetted when necessary and the water left in the River we could save many gigalitres of water that is just wasted, the environment would be fine and all the new trees etc would not drown!
Hi Debbie,
I agree this should be put forward when/if you go to Canberra I have been telling this to the pollies for years!
Hi Luke,
Re, “It’s proven and indisputable that the rivers ran dry in times of drought” yep fair enough. But presumably environmental flows should wet up overbank wetlands at some level of historical frequency that would ensure their sustainability. As opposed to never” correct proper MANAGEMENR!
Hi Luke,
I believe that non essential wetlands /backwaters should/could be block off and then managed it is not about wetting and drying but keeping damp.
Hi Robert,
Firstly I would hope times have changed since 1979 and our scientists are smarter and whilst European Carp are able to survive in adverse conditions draining non essential areas would mean collecting the dead/dying Carp and then using the bodies for fertiliser etc.
Hi All,
Of course it must be realised that we have artificially changes the River from its natural cycles to being full or as full as possible all year round and we should not and cannot change it back again but we can MANAGE it better!
Re, “the storages” they were designed prior to the diversions being as high as they are now and SA don’t want stored for SA any more than OUR entitlement so SA can survive better than in the drought WE ONLY WANT THE ENTITLEMENT!
The last post, “Talking Turkey, But Not About the Barrages” began by Virginia Tropeano quoting a figure of 5,000 Gigalitres well and that was/is a exaggeration and event the figure put forward by the SA Premier is high.
I know long term averages are not a good example but that is what the powers to be are using.
If SA received 3,500-Gigalitres per year (including the entitlement and dilution flow) with no infrastructure changes) the River and Lakes would function as we would like and also we could probably keep the Murray Mouth open without dredging.
If the powers to be could grasp that fact and block off non essential floodplains/back waters, remediate Lake Albert, upgrade the Barrages and investigate Lock Zero maybe we could move forward.
Hi Debbie,
Miracles re, “It would be good if we had some realistic policies and legislation that had some sensible and achievable vision” I am afraid don’t happen!
Peter,
I have no wish to rehash this argument but I need to point out one reality.
When inflows get tight you will have little hope of getting your full entitlement just the same as the rest of us. For SA it is even more problematical because there is insufficient excess jnflows to convey water all the way from the upstream storages.
Your assertion that the problem is due to higher diversions is incorrect. Every State is subject to caps. Those are worked out on averages. BTW Virginia’s figs are correct because those lakes always have the benefit of excesses above the cap. The problem is that your govt and mine have relied too much on those excesses.
Although I agree in principle that it is silly to trash storage water on non essential areas that are perfectly capable of surviving a drought as they have in millenium, I do not agree it should then be trashed into the ocean.
I also do not agree that flushing the mouth with storage water is a good plan. If you are in an average or above average year then I guess you can do whatever you like with the excess inflows. In below average years, using precious storage water to flush out the mouth is just as wasteful as putting it into non essential wetlands.
What is even more obstructive is expecting that water to be kept in the storages even in a good season when there are plenty of excess inflows available.
You are exhibiting a rather odd ‘entitlement mentality’ that has no basis in reality. I will qualify that with the comment that entitlement mentality is not just in SA.
How about we all swap that for a ‘reality mentality’?
We might actually get something sensible on the table if we do that.
Hi Debbie,
YOU ARE NOT LISTENING when things get tough, if the proper infrastructure modifications are completed, we believe we can be far better off than in the decade of drought!
Yes every Basin State is subject to caps but, and I know you will not agree, one State (yours) have increased their diversions by far more than the other States in the last 50 years, oh except for Queensland as they won’t sign the cap agreement!
Re, “What is even more obstructive is expecting that water to be kept in the storages even in a good season when there are plenty of excess inflows available” is a management issue and this can be sorted out!
In SA we realise that sometimes the entitlement will be difficult to maintain but above all our water for critical human needs must as much as possible be delivered and I am not talking about the water from below Lock 1!
Peter -You are not listening!! why should the whole basin suffer because you want to sustain an unnatural, unsustainable environment of fresh water lakes that naturally should be saltwater!!
Sheesh!!
Hi John,
OK let’s say you are correct and we should be made to do away with the idea that ‘our’ Lakes Alexandrina and Albert should be preserved as fresh. How so we stop Lake Albert from becoming hyper-saline probably within two years maybe three and Lake Alexandrina from following that direction and the Murray Mouth closing up?
Peter,
That’s almost a good question.
How about you try again without the deliberate negative spin and maybe you might get some good answers that think ‘outside the box’ ?
If we are going to get somewhere, thinking outside the box is defintely necessary. Otherwise we will all return to the same ridiculous stalemate. We are all going to have to change. That includes you.
For a bit of perspective, 4,000 gigalitres per year is more than the consumption of all Australia’s cities, suburbs, towns and non-agricultural industries put together. Melbourne, for example, consumes about 400 GL of dam water per year.
Thanks for that Debbie I have been putting on these posts for a long long time what has to be done but as I have said NO ONE LISTENS and no one has been listening for years especially Craig Knowles – the Political Dinosaur.
Whilst I am happy once again to list my views there must be some infrastructure changes that should be made in the Northern Basin but as yet accept for a friend at Tilpa no one has ever suggested anything!
I believe the following must happen and happen yesterday: –
Lake Albert: –
• Remove the Causeway,
• Remove the Bund in total,
• Dredge the Narrung Narrows,
• Return natural flows to the southern end of the Coorong.
• A channel or a pipeline at the southern end of Lake Albert to the Coorong.
The Barrages: –
• Total upgrade of the Barrages making the operation of ALL gates computerised,
• Upgrade ALL gates to stop ALL leaking,
• Make ALL gates openable mechanically and remotely.
Lock Zero: –
• A complete investigation/study/impact statement/environmental impact statement into Lock Zero,
• ie, managing the Murray Darling Basin from Lock Zero.
Thank you too Peter,
Despite your claims otherwise, people are listening. I agree the MDBA aren’t, but that’s because they can’t. They’re hamstrung by a completely inadequate piece of legislation. I also agree that our problem is largely political not environmental.
However, I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt because you may not realise what you have written.
There is no way on God’s green earth that the MDB can be managed from Lock zero.
Water runs downhill Peter. The MDB needs to be managed from the top, not the bottom.
For all your plans to work you need to also source extra water that will be required when inflows get tight. As John pointed out, if the rest of the MDB has to suffer for that to happen, even in a good season, then there is a fatal flaw.
The other obvious question is who pays?
I may be missing something but it looks like the whole of Australia would have to pay in both tax payer money and also with conveyance water.
As I said, maybe you may not have expressed yourself as well as you wanted, but at the moment it still looks like an ‘entitlement mentality’ is operating.
Peter,
Managing the Murray Darling Basin from Lock Zero.
Mate you need a holiday.
Re :- A channel or a pipeline at the southern end of Lake Albert to the Coorong.
Lake Albert Outflow
The plan involves changing 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.
“Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists” is an interesting name. Any relation to the “Union of Concerned Scientists”? That’s a group that Fenton Communications manages in the US:
CONTACT: Union of Concerned Scientists / Riverkeeper
For Riverkeeper: Cathy Renna, Fenton Communications, 212-584-5000
Fenton now has offices in Australia. They create what appear to be “grass roots” organizations but are really closely coordinated by Fenton.
I find this passage in a document I found on the web to be quite hilarious:
Fenton Communications, the people behind The Union of Concerned Scientists is firmly within the “neo-liberal political agenda”, at least what we define as “neo-liberal” in the US, which may be different in Australia.
I found a word doc here:
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucessjb/Drought/Concerned%20scientists.doc
George B
Affectionately known throughout the Basin as the Wentworth Group of Confirmed Misanthropists,they are a shameless bunch of acclaim and influence seekers.They specialise in exagerating environmental “problems” with the intention of locking renewable resources away from sustainable production.As Jennifer pointed out above their demands have increased alarmingly from 1500 to 4000 gigaltres…..enough to feed and clothe millions!
Hi Debbie,
Re, “There is no way on God’s green earth that the MDB can be managed from Lock zero” why not? We must keep the Murray Mouth alive and doing that can be done by at all times knowing how much water is required and working toward that goal ie, as I said SA requires/needs less than all that is being bandied about!
And yes Debbie, “Water runs downhill Peter. The MDB needs to be managed from the top, not the bottom” why we are not doing a good job of it now?
Re, “For all your plans to work you need to also source extra water that will be required when inflows get tight” when we are going through a period of low inflows Adelaide and the majority of SA’s supplies still are sourced firstly from our reservoirs but they must be maintain and regretfully that must be from the River Murray.
Re, “The other obvious question is who pays?” we all pay!
Yes you are, “I may be missing something but it looks like the whole of Australia would have to pay in both tax payer money and also with conveyance water” we are all entitled to our fair share!
Re, “entitlement mentality” we have to be able to survive the same as anywhere else in the Basin or that sources water from the Basin.
Hi Sean,
Yes I need a holiday from listening to those who DONOT understand the Lower River Murray!
Re, “The water will be fresh during wetter times” why will the water be fresh as even now the EC level is close to 5,000EC and the interchange through the Narrung Narrows is not happening and also re, “estuarine during dry times” don’t you mean becoming hyper-saline?
Without total reinstatement of the Narrung Narrows all other efforts will be second rate!
Hi George B,
An interesting article about the Wentworth Group but as I know a number of members I shall not comment.
Hi Dave,
Whilst you may not agree with the Wentworth Group and quite often I question what they say but I am sure there are many in the Basin who do listen to what they say and don’t dismiss it straight away without some research!
Re, “They specialise in exaggerating environmental “problems” with the intention of locking renewable resources away from sustainable production” crap.
If you believe J.M is always right I pity you.
Whilst feeding and clothing people is important we (Australia) must ensure we are able to maintain our ability to continue to do so for ourselves for OUR future generations!
Peter,
You asked me 2 questions so I will answer them.
1) You cannot manage water from the bottom, it has to be from the top, it is just physics, it runs downhill. You obviously do not have any practical experience in water management if you seriously think it can be managed successfully the other way around.
2) Your second question was an extremely negative rhetorical question. The system is not poorly managed. The politics however are attrocious! The development of irrigation and inland Australia has a very proud history of success. If it was poorly managed SA would not have had a running river during the last drought. The problem was there was not enough back up storage to supply every last demand during the drought. That problem is gone for the moment and SA is right now getting WAY MORE than its share. You appear to be extremely confused about what water management in the MDB entails and even why it was implemented in the first place. It is management of the storages which is the water for human needs and the management of the major rivers and excess inflows for the benefit of all, including the environment. The storages were built to conserve excess water so that it could be used in the inevitable dry seasons. They were NOT built to flush water out to the sea. If they’re used for that, the inland irrigation areas, especially the permanent plantings, will need to be severely compromised. If they’re used to hold ‘just in case’ water even in good seasons, then broad acre production is jammed out of allocation.
And Peter….your post is just riddled with a mentality that is most distressing. SA does get it’s share. Usually, because of the caps, SA GETS WAY MORE THAN ITS SHARE!!!
When SA started to struggle during the water shortages….SO DID EVERYBODY ELSE!!! we all got to share the misery as well. Your government however, deliberately abused the LRM and the lower lakes for political reasons.
You have rather sidelined yourself with that attitude. You do in fact have a rather unattractive ‘entitlement mentality’ and also what is know as the PLOM mentality (poor little old me)
You do get your share in SA the majority of the time and often, because of the caps, SA gets way more than its share. When SA struggled….SO DID EVERYBODY ELSE…we all got to share that too!
Also…your last sentence is just fuelling a false assumption. It is entirely possible to sustainably feed and clothe ourselves, assist less fortunate countries to feed and clothe themselves AND nurture and protect our environment.
Seriously Peter, if you don’t like sea water and the influence of the ocean….maybe you should move? There are plenty of places in the MDB which are not affected by the ocean and the tides. That’s one of the reasons why our forefathers developed those areas….because they were safe from oceanic influences, safe from cyclonic/coastal storm influences and also safe from invasion.
Dave & George,
Talking about the Wentworth Group here is part of an article in The Australian by Professor Tim Flannery.
“Heroic action” sought for lakes
Pia Akerman July 12, 2008
Article from : The Australian
Former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery has backed the controversial option of flooding the Murray’s Lower Lakes with salt water as a “heroic measure” to save their dying ecosystem.
Professor Flannery yesterday called on governments to take unpopular but urgent actions to protect the lakes at the end of the River Murray in South Australia.
“I think it’s time for quite heroic measures that will be somewhat risky and probably unpopular”, he said. “One of the things that could be done is a barrage built higher up the system and for the Lower Lakes to be flooded by the sea. “It’s time perhaps a premier or COAG or a prime minister to say: “We need to do this, we know it’s not going to be popular, but we need to get ahead of the curve now because nature is changing very quickly and we’ve been very laggardly in our approach.”
The prospect of deliberately flooding the lakes with salt water has been opposed by the irrigators, who have traditionally relied on fresh water.
He rejected the argument for increased freshwater flows from upstream as a short-term solution “If water was released down the Murray … you’ll but people some time, but they’ll be in exactly the same position 12 months from now if this shifting climate persists. Nature is moving very fast. We have been arguing for years and we simply haven’t gone forward.
THE ABOVE IS PART OF THE ARTICLE.
As we now know the irrigators are now sourcing their water from Jervois and the Lower Lakes potable water is supplied from Tailem Bend. Hence the reason for Lock Zero to be built below Tailem Bend.
I tried to get the full story but was unable to get The Australian website with the article.
Peter,
The Wentworth Group ARE demanding that a self evidently renewable resource (fresh water) be taken away from self evidently sustainable production (farming).As Jennifer has shown their demand has increased from 1500 gigs in 2003 to 4000 to 7600 gigs now.
Next time you “question what they say” could you ask them to explain their increased demand ?They wouldn’t exagerate would they ? It just seems a bit much given the devestation it would cause to the vibrant and productive communities upstream of you as well as consumers.
If they want to take enough water to feed and clothe millions they need to show the alleged benefits outweigh the consequences.
Peter,
Hi Sean,
Re, “The water will be fresh during wetter times” why will the water be fresh as even now the EC level is close to 5,000EC and the interchange through the Narrung Narrows is not happening.
It is currnetly a blind lake aren’t we looking at turning it into a transit lake.
“estuarine during dry times” don’t you mean becoming hyper-saline?
No we open the barrage gates and create the Tidal influence into the Lakes ( remember you said they were always TIDAL ) and the lake is now a transit and 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.
Hi Debbie,
As a matter of fact I know water runs downhill, thank you.
Re your answers oh yes you can manage water from the bottom, admittedly it takes some intelligence as first you properly manage all storages and only release water when necessary or when an expected major inflow, then manage the weir pools fluctuating the pool levels and then allowing water to flow over Lock 1 when it can’t be held back or is necessarily released. That could be good management!
How can you say the system is, “not poorly managed” do you really believe the management was good during the drought?
Re, “If it was poorly managed SA would not have had a running river during the last drought” what a load of crap if the weir pools in SA had been lowered the problems would have been less in Lakes Alexandrina and Lake Albert!
Yes, we are getting more than our cap amount and the River/Environment is getting the rest as we are not using it!
Re, “You appear to be extremely confused about what water management in the MDB entails and even why it was implemented in the first place” I know why it is necessary – to stop those above Lock 1 using as much as they would like, I mean be serious I have heard mayors and irrigators in the Eastern States referring to any water that flows out of their area and into SA as wasted!
Re, “The storages were built to conserve excess water so that it could be used in the inevitable dry seasons” even I know that, though I still believe the River needs to flow through the Rivers’ mouth.
Re, “SA GETS WAY MORE THAN ITS SHARE” as explained no the River/environment get much needed water!
More crap, “Your government however, deliberately abused the LRM and the lower lakes for political reasons” as that is your opinion.
More crap, “You do in fact have a rather unattractive ‘entitlement mentality’ and also what is known as the PLOM mentality (poor little old me)” this isn’t about me or what I want it’s what SA needs!
My last sentence is about THIS country looking after OUR future and THE future for the next generations.
Why should I move my passion has been and always will be myriver!
Hi Dave,
I shall take your advice and next time I am speaking to any of them I shall ask that question.
Re, “If they want to take enough water to feed and clothe millions they need to show the alleged benefits outweigh the consequences” I will ask that question though I believe we should look after this country first.
Hi Sean,
Re, “It is currently a blind lake, aren’t we looking at turning it into a transit lake?” not that I know but if the following was carried out: –
• Remove the Causeway,
• Remove the Bund in total,
• Remove the ferries causeway,
• Dredge the Narrung Narrows,
• Return natural flows to the southern end of the Coorong.
With the above modifications Lake Albert would return to the way it used to be and the salinity level would be considerably less if freshwater were available, if seawater entered Lake Albert it would become hyper-saline!
As too, “remember you said they were always TIDAL” yes, but of course that was prior to all the infrastructure construction along the River Murray, without enough freshwater Lake Albert may as well be written off.
I took you advice Sean took a couple days off visited the Coorong and after speaking to an expert on the Coorong was disappointed to hear him say, “we may as well forget the Coorong as it is nearly beyond repair.”
When I asked if redirecting the Southern drains back into the Southern Lagoon would that help his answer was NO!” If you want more explanations ring me.
Peter,
Speaking to an expert on the Coorong was disappointedd to hear him say, “we may as well forget the Coorong as it is nearly beyond repair.”
Of course it is, very little of the 1850 GL of the RAMSAR agreement flows into the Coorong most of it flows over the barrage and out to sea.
These are part of the notes Peter M and I wrote after a meeting with the Dept. of E&H.
RAMSAR AGREEMENT – What was its purpose ?
It a decisive action on securing a defined quantity of water from the Eastern States. This resulted in the MDBA allocating for SA its 1850 GL per annum. A big part of that was SA’s need to meet its new obligations under the RAMSAR agreement which it argued that the water was a necessary part. The RAMSAR agreement covers the Lower Lakes ( and their artificial fresh water environment ) and the Coorong. Everybody knows that since the agreement has been in place, the only direction of the environmental state of this area has been downhill. Twenty years of management and it has declined in value to the point where the ratifying body has allegedly been considering whether to de-register the site as no longer being of international significance.
As long as enough water was flowing down into these bodies then all was well. As long as the agreement kept the water flowing, everybody was happy. How about the Coorong in the meanwhile? Well, the Coorong is a complicated issue in its own right and without going into the full story there was very little or even nothing done for the Northern Coorong body. Occasionally there would be sufficient water to open the Tauwithchere barrages for a month but this did very little in reality for the overall state of the Coorong. How can it? It is an opening at the western end of the North Lagoon leaving the eastern pat and the entire Southern Lagoon unaltered. Every time the gates were opened nothing stopped the politicians from beating their chest and saying how good they were managing the Coorong.
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.
Thanks Sean,
Level headed advice and some common sense is much appreciated.
Peter, I am not surprised that you are not being heard,
Managing storages correctly?
You are the one who is not listening.
Where are the storages? At the top or the bottom?
What is your criteria for correct management?
No never mind. . .it’s all about what SA needs and is qualified by everyone else has to change except SA. That’s simply not going to happen Peter. This is politically driven water reform. It is a woeful process but SA is going to have to accept change too.
Hi Sean,
That was a nice statement/a piece of your opinion!
I note that over the last year or so you have bent to agreeing with those above Lock 1 not giving a study/investigation/impact statement/environmental impact statement into Lock Zero a chance you just say, “and their artificial fresh water environment’ that was not what you used to espouse but you are entitled to change your stance!
I don’t entirely agree with the freshwater solution the motion I put to the Murray Darling Association was, “an EC level of no greater than 1000EC at Wellington” and that was only last year!
Re your comment, “ Even though the body of evidence is overwhelming that a fresh water solution is not sustainable” without the proper – study/investigation/impact statement/environmental impact statement into Lock Zero – how can anyone know?
Hi Debbie,
I have spend the last couple of days travelling up River looking at all the drowned growth since the River attained pool level, don’t talk to me about management, management we have no idea!
In your reply to Sean, “Level headed advice and some common sense is much appreciated” why is it level headed, because you agree?
Re, “Peter, I am not surprised that you are not being heard” I will tell you why because I am resolute changes can be made and until it is proven I am wrong I will not alter my stance, it’s as simple as that!
And of course the storages are not at the bottom they are throughout the Basin and between to Locks in SA.
Re, “What is your criteria for correct management?” “No never mind” that’s the attitude it’s all SA’s fault and we WILL accept change if necessary after all the information is on the table.
I am more than willing to accept change but the evidence is not all in yet.
Re, “This is politically driven water reform” that is correct the Chairman of the MDBA is just a political dinosaur stating his own opinions I have been interview three times on the radio in the last 10 days and are continually opposing the plan as a “yes minister’ document.
I also believe this is fairly true, “One day we may begin to realise, “Only when the last tree has died, the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught, will we realise we can’t eat money”
Peter,
When I put my first submission to the Government I called it LOCK 1/2 and it was to be at Swanport where the bridge was built on a granite foundation and Tailem Bend pump station was to be shifted back to Murray Bridge. The potable water pipelines around the western side of Lakes was to be supplied from Myponga Reservoir by the continuation of the pipeline from Goolwa which meant less River Murray water ( how silly of me trying use other water than from the Murray). When they decided on the irrigation pipeline that was to go above Swanport as well to Murray Bridge. I have mentioned before I asked both Dean Brown and Minister Mayweld at the very first meeting at Langhorne Creek about building the Finniss Reservoir and if it was too small why not connect it to Myponga just the same as Happy Valley. Happy Valley is now going to be the storage reservoir for the new desalination plant, how silly of me again not using River Murray water again. I started calling it Lock Zero when others started saying what is this Lock 1/2.
Have been asking for gates on the Goolwa Barrage ( not the antquated sleeper type ) for the same length of time.
Ebb Tide Release
If the historic characteristics of the Murray Mouth can be restored on alternative outgoing tides, the barrage gates at Goolwa could be opened to allow the discharge of several perhaps tens of Gigalitres of water.
This outflow is designed to produce a torrent of water for the last part of the ebb tide sending a rush of water up to 300mm high down the short channel on its way out to sea.
Peter I am sorry but I have been pushing Lock Zero since after the first public meeting at Goolwa, January, 2009.
Hi Sean,
I note that over the last year or so you have bent to agreeing with those above Lock 1 not giving a study/investigation/impact statement/environmental impact statement into Lock Zero.
No Peter I have stuck with Lock Zero first then the barrages. They weren’t listening because of the suggestion to use sea water just like Professor Tim Flannery suggested July 12, 2008 “I think it’s time for quite heroic measures that will be somewhat risky and probably unpopular”, he said. “One of the things that could be done is a barrage built higher up the system and for the Lower Lakes to be flooded by the sea. Every meeting started with SA Govt.’s policy is Fresh Water, yes we know but we believe they should look at alternatives and when we finished, do you want me to pass on this information “Yes please”.
So I have tried another way by letting people in the Eastern states know that some of us in S.A. do have a other ideas such as Lock Zero and automated gates on the Goolwa barrages. Alternative Reservois such as Myponga and Finniss (not Murray water) and an alternate storage when we have high River flows like the Burra Lakes less evaporation than the Lower Lakes.
We now have a petition that asks for re-engineering the barrage gates and the building of Lock Zero below Tailem Bend.
Hi Sean,
There WAS NEVER ANY CHANCE of a Lock being constructed anywhere but near Wellington as if the last resort seawater was going to invade Lake Alexandrina and if a Lock were built near the Swanport Bridge it would contaminate the River to the new Lock and all or most of the vegetation to the new Lock would die off!
The cost of building the Lock would be enough why add to the expense of having to shift other infrastructure ie, pump stations and all irrigation infrastructure etc?
Re using Myponga Reservoir, why when the River is available?
Sean if SA was too lessen its reliance/take from the River Murray there may be a call to lower our cap our entitlement and that would be a disaster!
I totally agree we must see at TOTAL upgrade of the Barrages and silence any call for there removal.
Upgrading and total re-management of the Barrages is a MUST and as you have mentioned to attempt to keep the Murray mouth open and of course if Lock Zero were a reality in conjunction with Lock Zero holding back the River then large calculated releases.
Mike Young spoke to a Murray Darling Association meeting about 10 years ago and that is when Lock Zero was, or the idea was born.
Whilst you have continued to support Lock Zero and the upgrading of the Barrages including raising the height of the Barrages you have also accepted seawater intrusion of Lake Alexandrina and this is TOTALLY against what we want and until a “study/investigation/impact statement/environmental impact statement into Lock Zero” PROVE WE ARE WRONG, is carried out and proves to us conclusively that, that option is necessary we WILL NEVER accept it, “for the Lower Lakes to be flooded by the sea” at this stage is not an option and also once that happened we will never by able to remove all of that seawater and Lake Albert would become hyper-saline and we are not sure if the same fate would follow in Lake Alexandrina and also regulators would be required across the Bremer and Currency Creek!
I am well aware that the SA Government’s policy is ‘freshwater’ and they must look at the idea of a minimum of 1000EC at Wellington.
Re, “alternate storage” whilst it must be investigated it also must be as close to the River as possible in an area that allows for mayor deep water storage, easier said than done.
And re a petition, really they are a waste of time, give everybody prepared to sign a petition a letter to sign put them in an envelope and each time you have a large number deliver them to a Federal Politician to deliver to Canberra then they have to all be opened and SHOULD then each receive a reply.
Peter,
I am now completely disappointed in you:
I also believe this is fairly true, “One day we may begin to realise, “Only when the last tree has died, the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught, will we realise we can’t eat money”
This is just unfounded rhetorical alarmist socialisit rubbish. To try and advance this as a reason for your position on the system makes everything you have said completely and utterly bi polar. You have no evidence whatsoever to prove that we are heading in such a direction. WITHOUT FAIL, the predictions of environmental doom and gloom from the people such as the individual you have quoted have proven to be false.
One example:
As per the ‘poisoning’, I have been updating my reading in this matter in the last few days because new data has become available.
This is a typical conclusion from everything I have read:
The long term salinity management by the Basin Salinity Management Strategy and federal, state and territory governments have achieved a mean salinity level at Morgan for 2008/09 of 489 EC and prevented approximately a cumulative amount of 450.000 tonnes of salt from entering the River Murray System. The large scale investment by state Government in the construction, operation and maintenance of Salt Interception and Drainage Disposal Schemes to meet the salinity targets have evidently been highly successful.
‘According to the NSW Salinity Audit (2009) only some sub-catchments were recognised to have increasing salinity trends in 2009 whilst most sub-catchments appear to be in equilibrium. Successful methods to reduce salinity levels in certain sub-catchments include among others; the reduction of saline drainage by improved irrigation efficiency and better delivery systems as well as the re-use drainage waters on-farm irrigation.
In short, the environmental lobby simply aren’t telling the truth about salinity. It’s merely another tactic to push for a Basin Plan that doesn’t deliver a triple bottom line outcome.
Hi Debbie,
I accept what you said about my quote but I use it to push that we MUST do it right as all we are doing is going around in circles!
Sometimes it brings people into the conversation/discussion!
Yes, we have been successful in our attempts to remove a large amount of salinity but we must do more
Re, “In short, the environmental lobby simply aren’t telling the truth about salinity. It’s merely another tactic to push for a Basin Plan that doesn’t deliver a triple bottom line outcome” I will make some more inquiries next week and get back to you.
Peter,
I apologise for not being as knowledgeable as you,as I have said we picked Swanport for its granite base, knew that Dept. of Mines had done the soil testing etc.for the bridge and that is why I have mentioned to you that the SA Got. would already have information on their files.
pump stations and all irrigation infrastructure etc?
Isn’t the Jervois pump station and irrigation infrastructure new. Use Commonwealth money to consolidate pumping in the area to Murray Bridge by laying a new potable pipeline to Tailem Bend.
Re using Myponga Reservoir, why when the River is available?
Sean if SA was too lessen its reliance/take from the River Murray there may be a call to lower our cap our entitlement and that would be a disaster!
Peter building Lock Zero and reducing the pool level to 0.5 M AHD we can save 694 GL.
That is why I have been advising you to be careful on the way you refer to people, I’m Irish and you calling me a clown doesn’t worry me but it may offend others, just remember the e mail I sent you as there are rumblings from Eyre Peninsula.
“For the Lakes to be flooded by the sea”
I have said at times of DROUGHT and extremely low river flows, when the Lower Lakes reach 0.15 M AHD allow the sea water in bring it up to e.g. 0.25 M AHD until the floods return, then bring it back to 0.5M AHD.
Hi Sean,
Re, “Isn’t the Jervois pump station and irrigation infrastructure new? Use Commonwealth money to consolidate pumping in the area to Murray Bridge by laying a new potable pipeline to Tailem Bend” yes it is but as I said, “The cost of building the Lock would be enough why add to the expense of having to shift other infrastructure ie, pump stations and all irrigation infrastructure etc?
Sean, “Re using Myponga Reservoir, why when the River is available?” as I said, “Sean if SA was too lessen its reliance/take from the River Murray there may be a call to lower our cap our entitlement and that would be a disaster” as then we believe there would be calls for less water into SA!
Re, “just remember the e mail I sent you as there are rumblings from Eyre Peninsula” no I don’t think I got that one.
We also believe that if Lock 1 were constructed we could alleviate the need for the level to ever get low enough to expose acid sulphate soils.
Peter,
please take note of the methods used to successfully remove salinity.
Notice the absence of flushing?
Also, your comment to Sean about why do that when the Murray river is available completely dismisses the actual problem we SHOULD be trying to solve.
We have just recently been taught that the Murray River is not in fact a pressurised pipe that can be switched on and off to manage pulsing. You have either had not enough or way too much in the last 6 years. That cannot be contolled using current infrastructure. That has happened because we had a crippling millenium drought followed by massive flooding.
To then introduce a bi polar environmental argument that pretends our systems are irreversably dying is totally counter productive and also unsubstantiated.
Your plan would work in average years but it involves denying upstream access to their entitlements in the time frame they need it. And anyway, in averave seasons it is not necessary to do that because SA gets more than it needs to flush and pulse that environment because there are exceesses available.
So what are you actually trying to achieve?
Hi Debbie,
I know about methods to remove salinity but as salt inception schemes, I don’t believe, the normal schemes would be successful in our Lakes could you please tell us how we should go about it?
Whether you like it or not we are not going to be able to lessen our reliance on the River Murray for potable water and because of the words (which still ring in my ears) from so many in the Eastern States, “the less you in SA rely on the Murray the less water we will have to let you have” we will continue to expect out share!
Re, “You have either had not enough or way too much in the last 6 years” I am not complaining and how many more times do I have to say WE NEED INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES!
Whilst the system is at this time healthy do you believe we should not have a fair plan for the future?
Re, “Your plan would work in average years but it involves denying upstream access to their entitlements in the time frame they need it” can you back that up with science etc?
I know about good seasons but average seasons I am not sure I am not interested in averages but the only reason, “SA gets more than it needs to flush and pulse that environment because there are excesses available” is truthfully because those above Lock1 have nowhere to hold/store it!
Peter,
When I first mentioned Lock 1/2 it was before the decision was made to build the pipelines around the Lower Lakes. Minister Maywled and Dean Brown at the first meeting at Lanhorne Creek were willing to turn their backs on the area so they went to Senator Nick for help and he was able to get Senator Wong to bring the $600 million program forward. They then turned their backs on your area from Wellington back to D/S Lock 1 at Blanchetown. If I remember some people at Mannum did get connected to potable water.
As I am Irish I changed my paperwork and presentations now to read that Lock Zero was to be built below Tailem Bend and Jervois.
Peter,
re:-
I am not interested in averages.
Why do you then use averages on your Lock Zero presentation ?
Hi Sean,
Re, “If I remember some people at Mannum did get connected to potable water” no one I know of as we get our water from SA Water though some irrigators received assistance to shift their pumps.
The reason the Lock Zero paper work mentions averages and ‘climate change’ is I am the spokesperson for the group who assisted to put the paper work together.
We are doing another one including Lake Albert and the Barrages which should be finished soon and when passed by the group it will go on the web site probably marked Lock Zero No 2 presentation or maybe infrastructure requirements in the Lower River Murray or even infrastructure requirements at the bottom of the MDB.
Scientific evidence?
Since when do we need scientific evidence to know at what time/season we require access to our entitlements?
We need access in Spring.
Your plan requires the storages to be jammed up until December.
It is not rocket science Peter.
Hi Debbie,
What I am trying to do is make people listen and understand is that with the right approach and total infrastructure up grade firstly in the Lower River Murray then along the entire length of the River Murray especially what is referred to as the Southern Basin and then into the Northern Basin (which is not an area that I am really familiar with) we as a Nation can ensure our future.
It is about storing what can be stored, using water as efficiently as possible, moving water efficiently, minimising wastage, letting people get on with their lives doing what they do best throughout the entire Basin and where people access their water from the Basin.
We must look at ground water and the use of our ground water we must seek methods of replenishing our ground water supplies/basins especially at times of massive excessive rainfall and not only within the Basin.
This is not about us as I have tried to explain until I run out of breath/patience it’s about the rest of this century and into future century’s.
We have a responsibility to make this country better not full of persons (especially politicians) who can think further than their elected terms.
Looking at the Lower River Murray from the Barrages: –
• Total upgrade of the Barrages – as previously explained,
• Repair/reinstatement of Lake Albert – as previously explained,
• A study/investigation/impact statement/environmental impact statement into Lock Zero,
• If the seeking of information into Lock Zero is positive construct Lock Zero,
• Look at the operation of all Locks/Weirs in the River Murray,
• Upgrade the Locks/Weirs so they operate in a similar or even better way than Torrumbarry, water must flow under the Locks/Weirs and they must (in case of massive inflows) be able to be opened 100%,
• When all infrastructure upgrades are completed along the River Murray then begin the process moving up the Murray Darling and all other water sources within the Basin,
• The last part of this long, huge and expense process expand the work into Queensland above the Basin and through this process look at water, its use and reuse throughout this country,
• We must look seriously at the re-use of water, “potable re-use what are we afraid of?”
All things are possible with the proper mind set by being totally non-selfish this is not about US!
As reasonable as that sounds Peter you are now dismissing your major argument, which is a fresh water only solution.
Once water is at the bottom of the system or flowing out to the ocean, simple laws of physics will explain it is not re usable.
Legislation that tries to ignore the laws of physics and instead tries to insert emotional environmental ideology is doomed to fail.
If it’s not about us, then us have been disenfranchised.
Some honesty in this debate would be highly appreciated.
Hi Debbie,
I will NEVER, until it is proven impossible, “dismissing your major argument, which is a fresh water only solution” this time YOU ARE NOT listening until, “A study/investigation/impact statement/environmental impact statement into Lock Zero” is completed and the results are studied.
You are NOT listening Debbie, “potable re-use what are we afraid of?” I am talking about grey and black water!
I resent, “Some honesty in this debate would be highly appreciated” since this argument/debate began I have NEVER changed my direction though I am open to all directions I sometimes feel dishonesty is confused for selfishness!
Peter,
your definition of selfish must be very different to mine.
I would also add that my observation re honesty and basic physics was not directed at your over sensitive self but at the individuals and organisations whom you repeatedly quote.
You appear to be operating from a false assumption, that being SA somehow holds the key to the health of THE ENTIRE BASIN. Simple physics will defeat that assumption.
You are also claiming that because people are contributing ideas that don’t match your position, that means they don’t care, they don’t understand AND OF COURSE they are selfish.
You then further claim that none of this is about you or us but about some esoteric unsubstantiated idea about the future that requires us to then completely disenfranchise ourselves in the name of some airy fairy higher moral ground.
You then complete that with comments like I will never change, I am the only one who understands the LRM, I am the spokesperson, I am not being heard I I I me me me me.
Perhaps you need to supply your definition of selfish?
BTW, this is the first time you have introduced black and grey water. Where did that come from? Are you saying that we should fill the lakes with that water?
Peter,
WOW
&
Have you ever read or seen Dr. Mike Geddes report “The Idea of a Freshwater driven Estuary”.
I attended that meeting at Goolwa sponsored by The Signal Point Reverine Enviroment Group. We were told that copies of Mike Geddes presentation would be made available if we left our contact details. The information that did arrive was question & answer only. I rang him twice after the meeting as it was similar to what Peter Marsh and I were proposing, the only difference was we had Lock Zero and his idea was trying to keep Wellington fresh by fresh river flows and keeping the sea water out. He finally said he going on holdidays ( I got the message ) I know someone took notes and I am trying to get a copy.
Peter 4/02/2012 8.39 am “I am well aware that the SA Govt’s policy is “freshwater” and they must look at the idea of a minimum of 1,000 EC at Wellington. The 2/08/09 Tailem Bend was 1086 EC and Wellington 1253 EC which is above the restriction level of 500 EC and drinking limit of 1000 EC.
Hi Debbie,
Yes, obviously most of my definitions are different to yours.
Re, “You appear to be operating from a false assumption, that being SA somehow holds the key to the health of THE ENTIRE BASIN” well I believe that if the LRM is healthy that is another region is healthy ten again a healthy Basin requires ALL regions in the Basin to be healthy.
No I don’t claim, “that because people are contributing ideas that don’t match your position” they are selfish but dismissing without investigation is selfish.
I have been an exponent of potable re-use for many years, refer my web site.
It is the policy of the Murray Darling Association that all new sewage treatment plants or upgraded sewage treatment plants within the Basin or where water is sourced from the Basin should produce “A” Class water and that water should be returned to water courser or large water storages.
Re, “Are you saying that we should fill the lakes with that water” basically yes, should produce “A” Class water and that water should be returned to water courser or large water storages.
Hi Sean,
No I have not read, “Dr. Mike Geddes report “The Idea of a Freshwater driven Estuary” though have just rung him and left a message and also emailed Mike seeking the report.
A group of SA Water staff and a retired senior member of staff put forward the idea of a minimum of 1000EC at Wellington, but the SA Government rejected the idea, I put it to the Murray Darling Association who also rejected the idea sticking with the Government line, I believe they were wrong in rejecting it out of hand.
Re, “The 2/08/09 Tailem Bend was 1086 EC and Wellington 1253 EC which is above the restriction level of 500 EC and drinking limit of 1000 EC” I know but it is worth looking at!
I have a meeting with the State Politicians who make up the NRM Committee, Hon Steph Key MP, Presiding Member, Mr Geoff Brock MP, Hon Robert Brokenshire MLC, Hon John Dawkins MLC, Mrs Robyn Geraghty MP, Hon Gerry Kandelaars MLC, Mr Lee Odenwalder MP, Mr Don Pegler MP, Mr Dan van Holst Pellekaan MP and it will be part of my submission as will potable re-use.
Peter,
A bit of weather activity in Goolwa over the week-end I see the water level rose about 0.4m at Mannum.
The low pressure system with accompanying winds and ocean swell produced a nice little storm event yesterday.
Salt water penetration upstream of the Goolwa Barrage was limited due to near closure but salinities did rise from 600 to 1700 at the bridge. However upstream of Boundary Ck, Ewe Island and Tauwitcherie barrages salinities increased to above 30,000 EC.
Water levels in the Goolwa area dropped by about 0.6m and conversely water levels rose by 0.4m at Murray Bridge and Mannum.
Have not had a chance to check out Goolwa Beach as yet but suspect tides reached the base of the sand dunes.
Interesting also to note that this was the second such event within a week which is unusal for summer.
I have located the person who took notes at Mike Geddes Power Point presntation at the Goolwa meeting will forward a copy.
This was sent to me today from a well versed person on both policy and science.
I think it clearly explains what we have in our hands and also points out what needs to be recognised and what needs to be done at a policy level.
I have come to the conclusion that the Water Act 2007 and the Murray Darling Basin Authority is a failed experiment. What has been demonstrated is that the national scale is the wrong scale to be managing water.
The MDBA has been unable to produce a practical plan for the management of the Murray Darling Basin, and this is agreed by all parties. All governments should walk away from the Murray Darling Basin Plan, including the Commonwealth Government.
What is needed is an honest review of all the institutional arrangements relating to water, and a new structure which allocates responsibility, funding and accountability at the appropriate scale.
Peter,
Instead of :-
• A study/investigation/impact statement/environmental impact statement into Lock Zero,
Peter,
Hit the wrong button.
Instead of :-
• A study/investigation/impact statement/environmental impact statement into Lock Zero,
• Have a “ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN” into Lock Zero.
Especially now we have Professor Tim Flannery 12th. July, 2008, Professor Peter Gell 6th. January, 2009 and Dr. Mike Geddes 22nd. April, 2010 all suggesting salt water ( sea water ) into the Lakes.
That’s clever Sean,
Use their own language!
Can you throw in ‘localism’ as well?
Peter….this will probably fall on deaf ears but if SA can create efficiencies that make sense and achieve those ‘9 years out of 10’ goals, that would require less conserved and conveyance water to achieve (which is ironically what SA is demanding of everyone else) it would not surprise me if SA got the absolute lion’s share of the money. Many of the upstream productive water users would support something like that.
The challenge is to create the efficiencies so that SA does not lock out the productive use of storage water in the upstream storages. At the moment, that is the inevitable result of the current plan and also your plan. They require water to be held in upstream storages until at least December. That effectively locks out the majority of upstream irrigation in Spring, which is when they need access to their water entitlements.
Think in terms of ‘Environmental works and measures’ and also think in terms of upgrading those barrages and other structures so that the ocean can be used to everyone’s advantage…especially in Summer/Autumn which was the traditional time for the tidal estuarine ecology to operate there.
You would probably find people throwing money at you if you could come up with an adaptive management plan like that.
Don’t forget that seasons like the last 2 will then create extra bonuses for SA.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs38.pdf
Hi Sean,
It doesn’t matter what you call it, it still has to be accepted and carried out. I have spoken to Mike Geddes and yes while he has mentioned it he has had no support though does support our call for a study into Lock Zero. I will be raising it at next Tuesday’s meeting.
Hi Debbie,
Excuse me the Murray mouth 9 out of 10 is the MDBA’s idea not ours, we totally refute that crap as it would mean dredges to keep the mouth open and who pays?
Re, “it would not surprise me if SA got the absolute lion’s share of the money” if you are talking about the $10-Billion, Victoria have already had $1-Billion and much of it has already been earmarked but not for SA.
Re, “Many of the upstream productive water users would support something like that” I doubt that!
What about allowing all of our Lower River Murray irrigators to be able to resume irrigating we did have some of the most fertile dairy land in this country, if not the best?
It’s seems to be all about, “upstream productive water users” what about us?
Re, “also think in terms of upgrading those barrages and other structures so that the ocean can be used to everyone’s advantage” by everybody you mean everybody above Lock 1?
If we are able to have the investigation started and then completed, then accepted, then the decisions made to YOUR way of thinking it should take at least a decade for that then another decade to have the work completed!
You are joking, “You would probably find people throwing money at you if you could come up with an adaptive management plan like that” why would they do that in this I’m alright jack world?
And the only reason that, “Don’t forget that seasons like the last 2 will then create extra bonuses for SA” is because above Lock 1 can’t hold/retain the water and the bonus will be for the Murray mouth!
Who pays for dredges? They cost about 50 million, for some years. A 2750GL reduction in water will cost a billion per annum in lost production. Most years.
Peter,
Where on earth did this come from?
“What about allowing all of our Lower River Murray irrigators to be able to resume irrigating we did have some of the most fertile dairy land in this country, if not the best?”
Who says they’re not allowed? That would have to part of the challenge wouldn’t it? We all think we have the best…and in some ways we are all correct. That is not the issue or the problem we need to solve.
You are still arguing from an ‘us or them’ platform.
Sean understands that can’t work, why don’t you?
Check out Rojo’s comparison as well.
Hi Rojo,
Re, “Who pays for dredges?” firstly please don’t exaggerate the cost figures it’s about $1-Million per dredge per year and why should SA foot the full bill as all we want is to be able to irrigate in the Lower River Murray with some confidence and our dairy farmers on the Lower River Murray flats would like is to be able to resume irrigating.
And I don’t believe, “A 2750GL reduction in water will cost a billion per annum in lost production. Most years” unless you are counting our losses in that and then I still doubt the figures.
Hi Debbie,
“Where on earth did this come from?” it came from the continued attacks on – especially the Lower River Murray including the Barrages and Lake Albert!
I kid you not the Lower Murray irrigated swamps were some if not the best dairy properties in the Basin with great production figures!
Re, “Who says they’re not allowed?” the availability to re laser level their swamps which was done some 10 years ago at a cost of in excess of $ millions and they can’t afford it again, repair of cracks in those swamps, some big enough to swallow a semi trailer, repair of large diameter pipes broken because of the shifting ground, repair of pumps stations that have sunk/shifted/moved.
The estimated cost of repairs $50-Million!
What Sean is doing is slowing bowing to your solution, I can assure we are doing as much as possible putting pressure on our State Government to have changes made, studies undertaken but then we hear what Knowles and co are saying interstate and especially at Mildura and we just wonder why they can’t say the same at each meeting.
Then Bourke says we don’t care about how the water is used as long as it revenue positive, the b****** pandering to the mining lobby.
Also allowing massive take from the country’s ground water, what a joke.
If you were prepared to go to my web page and look at my email contacts and then email me I could send you some presentations that are being presented, we are doing our best to open up the discussions so we can get some answers.
And where did it come from, listening to our State pollies making out they care and our Premier who really has no idea!
Peter,
No one who has been involved in water politics is even slightly surprised by the ‘divide & conquer’ tactics or the rather duplicitous comments that are made depending where they happen to be speaking. Haven’t you figured it out yet? SA is being played just as much as everyone else. Sean has figured that out, he is most definitely NOT bowing to anyone’s solutions. He argues just as strongly for SA as he always has, he has just stopped playing the ‘divide and conquer’ game.
While we allow that game to continue, no one wins.
Also Peter, while I agree that those areas suffered damage, it appears that they are simply not as ‘drought tolerant’ as other areas in the MDB. The huge cracks and broken pipes are a clear indication of that as they were definitely caused by the drought.
Other places in Australia, including some coastal areas also suffered from the same issues. It had very little to do with bad management or the Eastern States. It simply didn’t rain enough and we all ran short of storage capacity. Even the coastal cities like Melbourne, Sydney & Brisbane ran short.
Hi Debbie,
I realise no one is surprised but that does not make it right or fair and yes I knew that right from the beginning!
Re, the damage caused by the drought in the LRM it is the FIRST time since irrigation began on the irrigated swamps (1880’s) that this problem had arisen.
Also there is no absolutely no comparison between the LRM and “coastal areas also suffered from the same issues”
It was the first time for a lot of other places too Peter.
We have outstripped our storage capacity and we can’t supply all demands in a drought like that.
That’s the problem.
Of course there are comparable areas. Although it has it’s own unique characteristics, the LRM soils etc have many similarities to other areas.
Hi Debbie,
I am sorry, and this is not about blame, it’s about 1) The water being so low that soil, some a kilometre from the River, cracked open, huge cracks, and in some places groups of trees soil and all just sank by as much a 2 or 3 metres, 2) Because of the loss of hydrological pressure 100’s of 1,000’s of tonnes just slide into the River taking with it cars, water pumps, power poles, boat ramps etc in some cases destabilizing houses which are un livable.
It is not about soils it is about water!
It was DROUGHT Peter!
Good grief!
Of course it is soils as well.
Obviously there are places in our country that are not as drought tolerant as others.
It’s OK. It is not only those areas in SA like that. There are others in other states who copped it as well when the soil cracked open and infrastructure and housing was damaged.
You need to remember it was a DROUGHT!
Hi Debbie,
I know it was a bloody drought for Christ’s sake what I am TRYING to say is and it’s not blaming anyone but the drought.
I know about the drought don’t treat me like a fool these soils have never in recorded times ever been affected like this before and when I took a hundred odd photos to a Murray Darling Association Conference in Victoria none of our members from the Eastern States had EVER seen the likes of this before.
I am NOT blaming ANYBODY I am seeking your understanding of the situation.
Have you EVER seen irrigated land open up with cracks wide enough to completely swallow a semi-trailer these cracks at right angles to the river some 500 metres or more from the River?
Maybe one day you should visit!
Of course I have Peter.
We all suffered through the millenium drought and observed horrible damage. Soils like the ones you refer to crack open like that. SA is not the only place that has them. SA is not the only place where major damage, for the first time, occured.
I am not trying to belittle the damage there, I know exactly how devastating it was. You need to understand that it was not a unique problem and that it was caused by drought. If we want to avoid damage like that again, it won’t be avoided by jamming up upstream storages in normal years. It also won’t be avoided by simply playing around with pool levels in the river.
Hi Debbie,
I didn’t know that the cracks, which as I said would have swallowed a semi-trailer, appeared in the land along the Murrumbidgee as all of the members of the Murray Darling Association I spoke to in the Eastern States had never seen anything like what occurred in the LRM so you really , unless you have seen it, cannot know, “exactly how devastating it was.”
You are WRONG, “You need to understand that it was not a unique problem and that it was caused by drought”
Because if the level of the LRM had not dropped by more than THREE METRES this damage WOULD NOT have manifested along the LRM and it was caused by lack of inflows into the MDB.
Re, “If we want to avoid damage like that again” IT IS ABOUT POOL LEVELS the LRM cannot if humanly possible not allow the LRM to drop below sea level!
I can only suggest that the people you showed the photos to need to get out more.
You are missing the point Peter.
You claim you understand that the damage was caused by lack of inflows (ie a millenium drought) but still then claim that somehow the LRM should have had more water in it.
The LRM was extra ordinarily lucky to have any water in it at all.
The incessant bleating about ‘bad management’ and poor SA is not helping your cause.
SA needs to take some responsibilty here and stop pretending that it is everybody else’s responsibility and that apart from pure physics and position that somehow SA suffered more than anyone else.
SA is vulnerable because of its position. SA also wants its Lake environment to be like others further upstream when SA’s Lake environment is DIFFERENT to other upstream MDB environments because it is influenced by the ocean.
The further anomoly is that the environment movement is pretending that a fresh water solution is necessary because that’s ‘natural’.
Your environment bears more similarities to other coastal environments, NOT upstream MDB environments.
Put simply, it has proven to be a mistake to try and nullify the influence of the ocean.
It is too powerful an influence..
Hi Debbie,
I didn’t think you had actually seen cracks that would swallow a semi-trailer but by saying, “I can only suggest that the people you showed the photos to need to get out more” as they came from throughout the Basin in the Eastern States I don’t think you have seen them either!
Whilst our environment (near the Murray mouth) used to, “Your environment bears more similarities to other coastal environments” it no longer does as the River upstream of Lake Alexandrina has been irreversibly altered and that, “powerful an influence” could turn the LRM non-potable if it weren’t for the Barrages!