IN South Australia the Coorong fishermen say that before irrigation, before the weirs, locks, levees and barrages (sea dykes), the Murray River would flog down from September until maybe Christmas, filling the lagoon, then out the mouth. By Christmas, flow had usually slowed and water levels dropped right down. Then when the South Westerly wind picked up the sea would pour in through the mouth and work its way across the lake.
So Lake Alexandrina was fresh in spring and summer, but salty by autumn.
What the old fishermen describe is an estuary: a transition zone. The Murray River had a barrier estuary with a central lagoon, Lake Alexandrina, and a sand barrier, the Younghusband Peninsula. A single, narrow and shallow inlet that often closes over is also a characteristic of barrier estuaries.
There are many barrier estuaries along the southern Australian coastline including Lake Illawarra just south of Wollongong. According to the Lake Illawarra Authority’s management guide, freshwater flows into the lake from the escarpment and salty water from the ocean tides and therefore it is an estuary. There are 70, of these Intermittently Closed and Open Lakes and Lagoons, known by the acronym ICOLL, from Sydney to the Victorian border. A significant issue is management of the risk of flooding when their ‘mouths’ close over. NSW State government policy doesn’t support the artificial opening of ICOLLs.
The South Australian government insists the Murray mouth, which is the inlet to Lake Alexandrina, be kept open. In fact since European settlement there have been many schemes devised to change the Murray’s mouth to make it deeper and wider, including through blasting and dredging and more recently through water reform.
There is this invented narrative that the Murray’s mouth closes over because greedy upstream irrigators have stolen all the water, but the reality is Barrier Estuary’s close over naturally. The long-term solution is to remove the Murray Mouth barrages – the sea dykes – that have interrupted the evolution of this system and so let it develop to a fully mature state. Mature barrier estuaries tend to be fully tidal.
The sea dykes dammed the estuary making it totally dependent on river flows. Stopped the tide. Limiting natural scouring of the sea mouth in spring by the river flow and in autumn by the Southern Ocean. Not surprisingly the hydrology and geomorphology of the Murray’s mouth has changed with sand that used to shoal behind the mouth consolidating into Bird Island that continues to grow and may one day permanently plug the Murray’s mouth.
Indeed Federal Water Minister Tony Burke can buy back all the water from all the irrigators across the entire Murray Darling, but this will have very little real impact on the Murray’s mouth.
*************
To learn more about barrier estuaries and why Lake Alexandrina was once part of a wave-dominated barrier estuary and which sea dyke should be removed first read my latest technical paper ‘Plugging the Murray River’s Mouth: The Interrupted Evolution of a Barrier Estuary’
at http://jennifermarohasy.com/publications/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer,
We know what the right thing to do would be, but alas the horse has bolted and it will never happen.
The “right thing” and politics live in different universes.
It has been pointed out here over and over that if the amount of water rushing down the river this season didn’t clear out the salt and the mouth of the river then wasting all the water stored will not do it either.
Especially not when there is a rock solid, stubborn, illogical stance against removing, nay even thinking, of removing the barrages!
I admire your tenacity but frankly, you and those others of a practical mindset have a snowflake’s chance of changing the status quo.
Good luck with your projects.
“Duh!” is right.
And for inspiration I check here:
http://bit.ly/zb04AF
For those with pay TV my talk at the Sydney Institute will be shown tonight (Sunday night) on Apac at 9.09pm. I talk about barrier estuaries.
Definitely Duh!
Mark A, while I do understand your cynicism we have to remember that if it wasn’t for people like Jen, politics and “the right thing” would live even further apart than they do now. We need more people like Jen who have the guts to speak up.
This one is particularly worrying because all of us, including SA, rely heavily on water for our health and our access to much of our food. Water, particularly stored water, is just as much a community resource as it is an environmental resource. The politics have badly muddled that up. Jen has done a lot of good work to help keep them honest or at least debunking the popular mythology.
Messing with access to reliable power is just as worrying.
Water and power are both far too important to be political.
I will watch it tonight Jennifer, but please get it on youtube as soon as you can and provide a link.
BTW our friend Ole of climate4you is involved in a just released paper.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/quantifying-the-solar-cycle-24-temperature-decline/#more-56382
Cheap abundant water and cheap abundant power are achievable and essential. There is no scarcity of resources: just timid hearts and junk-educated intellectuals telling people they have to settle for less. The puritans and elitists will never want to democratise anything. If we wait for their permission we wait forever. Conservation goes hand in hand with the provision of cheap, abundant power and water. Conservation is the first casualty of scarcity and desperation. Its chief enemy, environmentalism, does for land, water and air what communism did for the working class.
OT. I’m afraid I can’t go along with Archibald. It’s fine that we have new sources of information and observation. But this rush to theorise, publish and predict on a fashionable or controversial subject is not science: it is emotion and careerism. To enlist the current big freeze in Europe as some kind of proof is to dismiss the fantastic complexity and still largely unknown nature of climate. I’m not saying his notions are as silly and superficial as AGW. His observations are really interesting and I’m sure they will be of value when a useful science of climate actually exists.
And of course Canada should have plans for a climate shift of some sort. But beaver-trapping?
What happened to skepticism, guys?
All those hopeless DUD predictions from Flannery and BOM about rainfall are covered by Bolt in this mornings show.
Denis Jensen does a good interview with Bolt about those clueless predictions and BOM tampering with Darwin’s temp record etc. He also agrees there should be a Royal Commission into CAGW.
A retarded five year old could see through this super expensive fraud so why shouldn’t there be an enquiry?
One quick benifit would be the saving of countless more billions $ soon to be wasted down the plug hole for zero return to the Aust people.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_bolt_report_today4/#commentsmore
Hi Mark A,
You may praise Jennifer but she is WRONG as you are it is not about removing the Barrages it is about a total upgrade and it is required yesterday.
If the Barrages are removed the Lower River Murray (Lock 1 to the Southern Ocean will become saline – ie non-potable) only good for boating so therefore most of SA’s water supply will be unusable.
The “right thing” is what we are pressuring all pollies at all levels to embrace.
Removing NO upgrading YES!
Hi Susan,
We are not talking about removing dams!
Hi Jennifer,
I can’ afford pay TV.
Hi Debbie,
Please Debbie, what we need is people to listen to ALL ideas and have a proper discussion!
I am sorry but Jennifer is not held in high regard below Lock 1.
To all,
We in the Lower River Murray have been putting forward plans for improvements for many years, prior to the drought, we will continue to do so at every opportunity but the BARRAGES totally remove NO WAY!
Peter Smith, I believe it is generous, & reasonable for us, that is Qld, NSW & Vic to supply you South Ozzies with the water you actually need, but appear to be too mean to provide for yourselves.
Most of us don’t even mind supplying you enough water for your wine & dairy industries, even when it means many of our irrigators must go without all or much water so you have it.
However I do object to you demanding we provide you with the largest fresh water water sky & boating lake, at a cost of more waste of fresh water by evaporation, than any of us actually get to use ourselves.
The eastern states have had to spend large amounts of money to develop our irrigation systems, so I don’t see it as too great an expectation that you should pump our water when we provide it to you, rather than waste in on filling the largest irrigation ditch in the world.
When many of our own irrigators had no supply for a couple of years, your demand for so much of our water is rather greedy. Keep up this type of rhetoric, & many of us will become happy to see you with no water.
Perhaps you can imagine Peter, we really don’t care how popular we with with the greedy natives below Lock 1.
Hi Hasbeen,
Don’t you mean supply us in SA with our entitlement and unregulated flow that you can’t either use or contain and Queensland unlike NSW, Vic & SA won’t even sign the cap!
About supplying us, “even when it means many of our irrigators must go without all or much water so you have it’ what a load of crap.
We are not DEMANDING anything, nothing more than or share of the resource.
Admittedly you live in Queensland but Menindee Lakes evaporate 43% more that SA’s Lakes and we get a bit sick of the skiing & boating crap and is there no evaporation from the massive private storages in Queensland?
Please come down have a good look around and find out what really is going on!
Do you mean that SA has not spent big on irrigation systems/infrastructure?
By irrigation ditch I suppose the River Murray if there is another method to supply water from the far North above the Basin please let me know.
More crap when your irrigators had no supply we below Lock 1 also had no supply!
Re, “Keep up this type of rhetoric, & many of us will become happy to see you with no water” and how will you do that as water duns downhill as Debbie continues to point out.
I am not sure what you mean by, “Perhaps you can imagine Peter, we really don’t care how popular we with the greedy natives below Lock 1” but I thought we were all Australians’ and being greedy has NOTHING to do with it.
Hasbeen,
Some of us in S.A. people are trying to convince the Government to create a new pool between downstream Tailem Bend and below Lock 1 to protect Adelaide’s water supply. This project is to build …. …. (I’m not allowed to mention name) will then allow us to change the old pool level height of 0.75 M AHD down to 0.5 M AHD between …. …. and the barrages saving 694 GL. By automating the barrage gates we will be able to stop the Lower Lakes ever going below 0.15 M AHD again in drought periods and low flows. With the automated gates we can then try other levels e.g. 0.3 M AHD and see what people think of that level. We could increase the pool level to 0.75 M AHD open the gates at low tide and flush the Goolwa channel out through the Mouth.
What people don’t know is the current barrage gates consist of concrete sleepers 30 M wide x 0.5 M high (they vary in height) and they can only be lifted by a crane 1 at time. Last year we had a storm in Goolwa on the weekend therefore there was nobody working to close the gates which resulted in fish kill and salt levels to rise to around 40,000 EC.
The post at the top of this thread is about the Murray River’s estuary being a wave-dominated barrier estuary and how barrier estuaries are common in Southern Australian and often close over. More information at http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Plugging-the-Murray-Rivers-Mouth-FINAL-ver4.pdf
Off topic comments on climate change and SA water entitlements will likely be deleted.
Jennifer what happened to your speech last night on Apac? I’m on Austar and there was only parliament on here last night.
*******
Hi Neville, I don’t have pay TV. But my mother says she watched it and recorded it with 30 minutes of presentation and the full 30 minutes of question time also shown. So maybe you were on the wrong channel? Jen
As Jennifer clearly states,
There are 70 similar areas in Australia.
And yes Peter, I know they are not exactly the same, but the principle still applies.
Communities who live around Estuarine/tidal environments USUALLY understand that they are heavily influenced by the ocean. They do not expect to be able to always use their lakes or bays or whatever as fresh water sources and they have sensible ‘conitigency plans’ that allow them to have fresh water as well as live near these lovely water areas.
They also understand that they need to manage these areas because the tides and the ocean are highly prone to silt up the accesses.
Think, Sydney harbour…which is also fed by the Parramatta River, Think Noosa, Think Tweed Heads, Think Perth, which is also fed by the Swan River, Think Illawarra as Jen points out and there are several others.
I’m certain that there are others who visit this blog who live in some of these areas….do any of them expect what it seems SA expects from their feeder river?
Debbie
There are 70 ICOLLs between Sydney and the Victorian border. And many of the estuaries you mention above are not barrier estuaries with Intermittently Closed and Open Lagoons. But they are nevertheless estuaries.
A first thing to understand is that most northern Australian estuaries are tide dominated and have large openings, while most southern Australian estuaries are wave dominated and many are ICOLLs with central lagoons and narrow openings.
More on ICOLLS here: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/habitat/aquatic-habitats/wetland/coastal-wetlands/management-of-coastal-lakes-and-lagoons-in-nsw
Jennifer I was definitely watching Apac last night on Austar. Definitely not on here last night.
Just looked up the TV guide and it wasn’t on.
http://tvguide.austar.com.au/ Perhaps Foxtel was a different time?
But Apac is shown live online so if its repeated we should be able to view it.
Hi Jennifer,
Re, “Off topic comments on climate change and SA water entitlements will likely be deleted” my deleted comments did not mention climate change but re SA water entitlements the point I am making is that all SA wants is the amount of water out of the Basin as per the States agreement.
Hasbeen accuses SA falsely accusing us of wanting/taking water at others expense, “even when it means many of our irrigators must go without all or much water so you have it’ at others expense which is not true.
And it is certainly nor about, “However I do object to you demanding we provide you with the largest fresh water ski & boating lake, at a cost of more waste of fresh water by evaporation, than any of us actually get to use ourselves” as evaporation occurs throughout the Basin and Menindee Lakes evaporate 43% than SA’s Lakes Alexandrina and Albert and SA has also spent $millions developing irrigation systems.
And, “When many of our own irrigators had no supply for a couple of years, your demand for so much of our water is rather greedy” we also had no supply!
Also, “Keep up this type of rhetoric, & many of us will become happy to see you with no water” that threat is non Australian as Debbie reminds me water runs downhill.
Hi Debbie,
The entrance into Lake Alexandrina from the Southern Ocean is unique in many ways because of the fact that the tides and winds come from many thousands of kilometres South which has different characteristics .
Hi Jennifer,
Why can’t you and others understand that if there were to be a complete Barrage upgrade, as I continue to mention, if the entrance to Lake Albert from Lake Alexandrina were repaired/reinstated so the interchange of water could happen as it used too, we then need to look at the Locks along the River so they can be opened from the bottom and then readjust the management in SA.
Let’s look at all options and when that is done correctly decisions can be made with confidence!
I watched it on AUSTAR APAC channel yesterday and again after 6 am this morning.
Hi Peter
So do we agree that the Murray River’s estuary was a wave-dominated barrier estuary which is the most common type of estuary in southern Australia?
These estuaries have a central lagoon, in the case of the Murray’s estuary Lake Alexandrina, and a sand barrier across the top of them, in the case of Murray’s estuary the Younghusband Peninsula.
The same winds blow across much of Southern Australia, so nothing special at all about the wind system impacting the Lower Murray.
What is different about this estuary (if it hadn’t been crippled by the barrages) is that its snow fed from the Australian alps. So unlike most South Australian river system it receives a constant and extraordinary large volume of freshwater each and every year. Even with river regulation average inflows over the last 42 years (1968 to 2010) have been about 6,000 Gl each year over lock one. So no shortage of freshwater feeding that estuary – if it weren’t for the barrages.
Hi Peter,
No, you are not talking about removing dams, you are talking about removing their contents.
Transferring them in very environmentally unfriendly ways, down overfilled rivers, to maintain an artificial, ( but apparently iconic ), freshwater estuary system.
All that to provide you with a decent ,inexpensive, irrigation source. Which ,as has been repeatedly stated, could and should be provided by the amending of the Water Act .-Allowing the billions being wasted on buybacks etc to be spent on you.
Peter, they don’t want you farming either. You will, in time, lose your right to that water too.
Thanks Tom, it was shown at 4.30 pm yesterday and 6 am this morning on Austar.
Should have checked the actual Austar guide myself. Next Sydney institute show is on friday but don’t know whether that’s the same content or not.
Hi Jennifer,
Prior to the constructing of the dams, weirs, locks and the Barrages things were certainly different and sea water entered the River Murray as I have said before in about 1921 a friend of mine caught a Whiting at Younghusband which is upstream of Mannum.
I disagree that the Southern Ocean and wind influence is not different you cannot compare estuaries on the East coast or West coast with the mouth of the River Murray.
Tides on the North West coast of Australia are as high as over I believe 30-metres and you can enlighten me as to what the tides into Sydney Harbour are.
Regarding the snow melt water we used to receive that and we knew when it came but now the snow melt water is negligible.
Re averages, which really can’t be used or relied on, since 1950 the averages have been;
Our long (50-year average) term average has been 8,435-Gigalitres,
The average over the last decade of the 21st century, 9,800-Gigalitres,
The first 5-years of this century 4,800-Gigalitres,
The last 5-years of the last decade South Australia’s was lucky to receive entitlement our flow 1850-Gigalitres.
South Australia’s average including the drought years was 6221-Gigalitres.
Hi Ian,
Firstly the 2007 Water Act is a joke!
Re, “All that to provide you with a decent, inexpensive, irrigation source” the same source as all irrigators source their water from!
This scares me because I think you may be correct, “Peter, they don’t want you farming either. You will, in time, lose your right to that water too.”
Peter
Your ignorance and inability to read my comments is astounding.
Didn’t I explain in an earlier comment that southern Australian estuaries are mostly wave dominated, while northern Australian estuaries are tide dominated.
I suggest you read my technical report.
So isn’t it that the relative effects of tidal and wave processes is important and that the situation is somewhat complex. What is the relative proportion in the Murray system?
Luke
I can’t find the pdf I read some time ago but according to the research done, as Jennifer said, in that part of the world the wave action, specially when assisted by wind far outweighs tides.
Which compared to other parts of the world and Australia can be considered minuscule.
Hi Jennifer,
I know what you wrote though honestly believe that without good outflows the Murray mouth WOULD close up as the waves would bring in much more sand etc than the waves would take out, especially without sufficient outflows.
If the mouth closed for a significant time Lake Albert would most definitely turn hyper-saline and Lake Alexandrina would follow.
Removal of the Barrages would cause MASSIVE problems and without another regulator the Lower River Murray WOULD become non-potable!
Jen – typo on page 14 – violent storm, not violet storm.
Luke,
You’ll find the answer if you read my report.
And also
Ryan, D.A., A.D. Heap, L. Radke, D.T. Heggie, 2003. Conceptual Models of Australia’s Estuaries and Coastal Waterways: Application for Coastal Resource Management, Geoscience Australia Record 2003/09
Peter,
You refuse to read and you repeat misinformation. If you read my report you will discover that wave-dominated estuaries normally become fully tidal. The Murray estuary’s evolution was interrupted by construction of the barrages, in particular the blocking of the Mundoo channel resulted in the formation of Bird Island. If the Mundoo barrage was removed the estuary could continue in its development to a fully tidal system.
Lake Albert would normally eventually become part of the flood plain.
John Sayers,
Thanks for spotting the typo.
Mark A.
Your correct, and you will find more info if you click on the Geoscience Australia link in my report. Also, you should be able to find this report online:
Ryan, D.A., A.D. Heap, L. Radke, D.T. Heggie, 2003. Conceptual Models of Australia’s Estuaries and Coastal Waterways: Application for Coastal Resource Management, Geoscience Australia Record 2003/09
http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Plugging-the-Murray-Rivers-Mouth-FINAL-ver4.pdf
Thank you Jennifer, read your ver4.pdf. and the link provided.
Very interesting and you make good sense but only in an academic, theoretical way.
As I said in my first post, practical political considerations will prevail.
What is sad is that it’s all being done in the interest of “maintaining the natural” state of things, nothing could be further from the truth.
To go a bit OT, may I remind those who are opposing the removal of the dykes, and distribute fresh water through pipes, that if they ever go to WA they will find a huge steel water pipe running about 500Km to Kalgoorlie.
If they could do it why couldn’t it be done in SA???
Thanks Mark A.. But did you know that facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored?
Do you remember what I wrote about how flood waters erode a sand barrier across an estuary… not by pushing through it, but by over-topping. How do we get over the top of this one?
Hi Mark A.
I am led to believe that the pipe is not the problem. It is the price that ignorant, overfed administrators want to charge Peter for the water in the pipe , which must be overcome.
That can be addressed by creating an interstate water agreement ,where agriculture is guaranteed wholesale water , at wholesale prices. ( When it is available .)
At the moment agriculture is treated as an optional extra. ‘Right to farm’ laws are badly needed and never discussed, but we can all dream . In the meantime they should be in any MDB legislation.
Ian,
Ignorant administrators is a good way of putting it.
Some of the rot that is going on could be easily scripted into an episode of ‘yes minister’.
Peter, you are absolutely correct. SA was extraordinarily lucky to receive most of the 1850GL entitlement during the drought.
Your ‘entitlement mentality’ is rather worrying. Your use of averages after claiming they are not reliable only further prove that we suffered a drought! SA was treated no better or worse and suffered no more or less as far as allocations were concerned.
Jen’s work clearly explains why the management of the barrages and the refusal to recognise the natural ecology becomes unsustainable under those circumstances.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between entitlement and allocation or the ramifications for EVERYONE when inflows are that critical.
Menindee lakes evaporate 600GL a year. Some years. The lower lakes 800GL. Every year. Evaporation is not really the issue, but keeping several years worth of lower lake evaporation in storage is.
Hi Jennifer,
I have spent SOME time re-reading your article and I regret that I have not altered my thinking.
Re, “If the Mundoo barrage was removed the estuary could continue in its development to a fully tidal system” in other words let the seawater into Lake Alexandrina, NO!
R, “Lake Albert would normally eventually become part of the flood plain” against the wishes of the Coorong Council and many thousand others.
Hi Mark A,
Don’t you mean Barrages?
Have you ever considered the ramifications, the Lower Murray will become non-potable.
Re pipelines where would you suggest the pipeline comes from?
Hi Ian,
Re the price of getting water from the pipeline, it is not to be used for irrigation but can be used for other purposes ie, human use, stock, washing down dairies but not to irrigate!
The cost, they are told is because of the pumping price, ie, electricity which is now approximately 60% more than pumping from the lake.
Hi Debbie,
Yes, ‘yes minister’ is a good way of describing what is happening as I have said on the radio the MDBP is a ‘yes minister” document!
I DO know the difference, “between entitlement and allocation or the ramifications for EVERYONE when inflows are that critical” especially when in flows are really low.
I believe I have said using averages are not a reliable method of constructing any plan.
Re the Barrages, we admit there must be massive upgrades throughout the Basin starting, in SA, with the Barrages!
Hi Rojo,
The evaporation from Menindee Lakes is 43% more than from full Lakes Albert and Alexandrina and that evaporation has meant Lake Albert is at nearly 5000EC.
Peter – the Menindee Lakes are only full (hence evaporating) when there is sufficient flows to fill them – through most of the 2000s they were empty – yet you are demanding that YOUR lakes remain full no matter what the flows are – that’s your flaw mate!! Just stamping your foot and saying NO is not an answer.
OT – very very interesting doco here : What the Green Movement Got Wrong
http://www.viddler.com/v/f4ded86a
Mark A
We already have a pipe system :-
Swan Reach Pump Station
It pumps water to Stockwell, it delivers water to the Barrosa Valley, Lower North and Yorke Peninsular.
Mannum Pump Station
Supplies Adelaide and Northern suburbs to Gawler. Adelaide Eastern suburbs to Kangaroo Creek through to Mannum.
Murray Bridge Pump Station
Adelaide Hills, and into the Onkaparinga River to top up Mount Bold Reservoir. Strathalbyn and the Lower Lakes. Mount Bold also tops up Happy Valley Reservoir.
Tailem Bend Pump Station
The Lower Lakes through to Keith. Lower Lakes on potable, Lake Albert currently 5,000 EC therefore paying metro prices for stock water. As Ian has pointed out.
Jervois irrigation Pump Station
Supplies irrigation water to Jervois, Langhorne Creek, Milang through to Currency Creek.
Morgan Pump Stations ( ABOVE LOCK 1 )
Pipeline 1
Morgan to Whyalla pipeline completed in 1944 delivers water to Hanson, Spalding, Helshay, Port Augusta and Whyalla.
Pipeline 2
Runs side by side to the original one as far as the Baroota Reservoir changes direction down to Mambray Creek where it becomes a submarine pipe section under Spencer Gulf to Whyalla and completed in 1966. When work finished on this pipeline the original pipeline then from Port Augusta was extended to Woomera with branches to Iron Knob, Jamestown, Peterborough and numerous other country towns. Iron Knob has since been extended to Kimba and Lock.
The first thing required is Point 3. of the petition:-
Adelaide’s water supply can be secured by building a lock downstream from Tailem Bend.
By doing this we can lower the Lower Lakes to 0.5 M AHD (now 0.75 M AHD) and save 694 GL. I call this the crawling stage.
In the meantime we learn to walk and make further adjustments when lower river flows appear again or a DROUGHt. Lower Lakes not allowed to go below 0.15 M AHD.
Here’s the page on it Sean
http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/Education/OurWaterSystems/Pipelines.htm
John,
Thank you, that was where I got my info from and put in a precis word doc. for e mail attachments.
I actually knew the E&WS Supervisor Les, who was in charge of the marine laying from Mambray Creek to Whyalla.
Hi John,
Oh John I know about the condition of Menindee Lakes during the drought years and really what crap, “yet you are demanding that YOUR lakes remain full no matter what the flows are – that’s your flaw mate!” we are seeking NOT DEMANDING to remain at least above AHD WHEN possible!
What the Green movement do/does is not what we want!
We are not, “Just stamping your foot and saying NO is not an answer” and that is not what we are asking.
We want the Barrages UPGRADED, Lake Albert REMEDIATED, a study into Lock Zero and the other locks along the River Murray.
Hi Sean,
Great, thank you Sean could not have been better explained!
And we are constantly accused of doing nothing!
Hi Pete “what crap, “yet you are demanding that YOUR lakes remain full no matter what the flows are – that’s your flaw mate!””
well aren’t you??
Jennifer is offering an new, original, natural environment for your region. As Sean has shown you have a pumping system that doesn’t have the lower lakes in it’s design.
so the lower lakes are open to re-design.
One design is your design – keep them fresh water and call upon the rest of the MDB to sustain it.
the other design is to return the lakes to their NATURAL state and let the River return to it’s natural state with a fresh water/ saline environment. The Greenie solution – Wow!!
John Sayers
“As Sean has shown you have a pumping system that doesn’t have the lower lakes in it’s design.
so the lower lakes are open to re-design.”
John, that was my point but, but somehow Sean and Peter still insist that the lakes remain fresh, the difference between the two being only the level above sea level they want to maintain.
If fresh water is pumped already or is in the process of being so, then what’s the problem?
I’m basically a greenie. I believe the natural state should triumph.
Here’s an example of how the natural state should exist, and to our benefit.
Peter seems to be oblivious to the commercial advantages of returning to the natural state of a varying saline/fresh Lake Alexandrina environment.
JS , need that ‘like’ button again.
It is so simple, just guarantee Peter and his friends wholesale irrigation water out of a pipe. On a par with upstream user’s prices.
Electricity for pumping is nothing ,compared to the cost of the current farce.
Mark,
The first thing required is Adelaide’s water supply to be secured by building a lock ( Lock Zero )downstream from Tailem Bend. No way are the Lakes allowed to fall below sea level again in a DROUGHT, once they reach 0.15 M AHD the re-engineered automated barrage gates are opened and sea water allowed in. Adelaide’s water supply is safe as it is now protected by Lock Zero and when floods return the river flow can be contolled by the automated gates at the barrage. The section between Lock Zero and below lock 1 is protected by a new pool level not left to hang to dry like they were with colapsing river banks etc. during the last drought.
Mark that is where Peter and I differ, I believe the floods can flush out the salt water as it has done this time.
Remember we are still in the CRAWLER STAGE until Lock Zero is built.
John,
The greens are the Fresh Water people too.
I need the like button too.
It is important that SA has access to potable water just like every other community that lives near a tidal/estuarine environment.
No other community which lives in a similar environment expects to keep the ocean away from their fresh water access the way SA does.
Attempting to use those lakes as fresh water access has recently proved to be unsustainable.
Mark A is right. If the piping is already in place, what’s the problem?
If more needs to be done, what’s the problem? Let’s do it!
And Peter, what on earth does Menindee have to do with it? The environment and ecology there is completely different.It is not influenced by the ocean.
Sean understands that SA has been shamefully played by parochial politics. Peter is still trying to play parochial politics.
What is crap is, “you are demanding that YOUR lakes remain full no matter what the flows are – that’s your flaw mate!” why don’t you read and understand?
RE, “Well aren’t you?” NO I am NOT a minimum of +0.15-Metres – above AHD.
I am sorry but, “Jennifer is offering a new, original, natural environment for your region” delivering the total devastation of the Lower River Murray!
Re what Sean has written read his post from February 14th, 2012 at 11:36 am again and TRY to comprehend!
No, “So the lower lakes are open to re-design” the Barrages require a complete upgrade!.
Re, “One design is your design – keep them fresh water and call upon the rest of the MDB to sustain it, the other design is to return the lakes to their NATURAL state and let the River return to its natural state with a fresh water/ saline environment. The Greenie solution – Wow!!” stuff the Greens and we can NEVER, “River return to its natural state” and I mean NEVER!
Hi Mark A –
The pump does supply the properties around Lake Albert but is not to be used for irrigation and the properties around Lake Alexandrina have piped water but not for irrigation.
It is not about, “the lower lakes are open to re-design” it is about the Barrages which MUST be upgraded.
Re, “Sean and Peter still insist that the lakes remain fresh” that is incorrect we want the upgrade and a Lock in the Lower River Murray and then after studying what is possible then management decisions can be made with confidence!
Sean explained the desired levels please read his post again!
Hi John,
Being, “basically a greenie” makes no difference, “I believe the natural state should triumph” that is IMPOSSIBLE without removing all infrastructure along the River Murray!
Re, “Here’s an example of how the natural state should exist, and to our benefit” IMPOSSIBLE!
Re, “Peter seems to be oblivious to the commercial advantages of returning to the natural state of a varying saline/fresh Lake Alexandrina environment” WHAT ADVANTAGE?
Hi Ian,
Regrettably what you said is not that SIMPLE!
Hi Sean,
Thank you but will they read and understand.
Hi Debbie,
RE, “No other community which lives in a similar environment expects to keep the ocean away from their fresh water access the way SA does” also no other community has the unique system we have and wish to prptect until it is proven otherwise!
Re, “Mark A is right. If the piping is already in place, what’s the problem?” read the posts and this time try to understand!
Re, “Menindee” an artificial Lake in some of the hottest and driest part of Australia and when we are critised for the evaporation from Lakes Albert and Alexandrina I believe Menindee Lakes can be compared artificial with no upgrades to save water being undertaken.
I spoke to Sean earlier today and we understand each other and both agree SA has been lazy but we both believe the right changes can be made and if proven seawater may have to be sourced even though it is as a LAST RESORT!
And Debbie, I most certainly am not playing we are fighting for fairness and to be heard and understood!
Peter,
Of course some aspects of your environment are unique. EVERY environment has unique characteristics. However, Jen is correct when she points out that yours is influenced by a wave/tidal/estuarine history. Put simply, it is influenced significantly by the ocean. Anyone who lives in those type of environments know it’s more successful to work with it rather than against it.
You, along with the politicians are continually claiming it is not that simple to fix up some of the problems that have been created. That suits the parochial political agenda.
I believe however that the opposite is correct.
IT IS NOT THAT COMPLICATED!!
Hi Debbie,
I am sorry but like so many others who don’t understand, or who live in the dark and are fed on bull**** you have no idea.
It is THAT COMPLICATED IF THE BARRAGES WERE TO BE REMOVED, LAKE ALBERT WOULD BECOME HYPER-SALINE AND THE LOWER RIVER MURRAY WATER WOULD BECOME NON-POTABLE!
That’s why a new lock has to be built at Wellington!
Hi John,
Yes and whilst that is correct without support from people like yourself pressuring the Murray Darling Basin Authority, the Federal Government and the South Australian Government to get a full impact statement undertaken there is no chance of it ever (in my life time) happening.
Instead of petitions calling for the removal of the Barrages it would be better to call the impact statement be done!
Peter, I’ll stand by my evaporation figures because they are true. Hard for you to accept maybe, but true. Happy to read any evidence otherwise, but I’m afraid I won’t take your word for it.
As to Albert being 5000EC, with the lakes at full level and a years worth of fresh flow through Alexandrina, at what point will you realise the problem may not be rectified by Murray flows alone.
Hi rojo,
I will stick by my figures also!
Regarding Lake Albert it is not lack of water causing the high 5,000EC it is the stupidity of the SA government who refuse to clear the Narrung narrows after putting in the stupid bung during the drought but you would understand that if you understood the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert!
And there you have it Peter.
Because your govt is attempting to keep it all as “business as usual” and protecting their own little precious pieces of bi polar policy, they are doing monumentally stupid things.
The upshot however is that even though SA has had a ginormous flush, the salt problems are actually worse in a lot of instances.
It doesn’t actually matter why….that is the result.
So….unless they actually wake up to their own stupidity, extra water for SA will solve absolutely nothing at all.
And you keep complaining that everyone picks on SA?
Why would we send extra water to SA when your govt is behaving so very badly and wasting water?
It’s called parochial water politics. It won’t solve a single thing!
And it really is not that complicated!
Comment from: John Sayers February 14th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
“I’m basically a greenie. I believe the natural state should triumph.
Here’s an example of how the natural state should exist, and to our benefit. ”
Hi John, I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly.
I wouldn’t call myself a “greeny” not only because of the connotations currently attached to the word but because I’m a conservative at heart, in the true sense of the word.
That is, I embrace any new idea or development with gusto if it’s useful and needed but not just for the sake of change.
That also means that if an idea proved to be wrong I don’t mind at all going back to the drawing board and start again. Someone posted a link to a couple of hydro dams in the US that are being decommissioned, go for it I say, if they are no longer needed why not?
Same as pulling down an old building that had outlived its usefulness.
Sean said he doesn’t want to see the riverbanks collapsing, what’s the difference of keeping the banks wet by sweet or salt water?
As to Peter’s gripe about lake Albert going “hyper-saline!”, Please!
I read every available report by the early surveyors, there are not many I admit, but what all say is that part of both lake was fresh and part of it was saline.
No mention of either being HYPER-saline.
And I ask again, what has happened to lake Albert that would make it suddenly that way?
If it was man made, then going back to the natural state would be only beneficial.
Sorry Peter but you come across as a recalcitrant child stomping his foot and shouting “I want it … because!”
Put the lock gates in at Wellington , open the barrages and let’s see the river return to it’s natural state.
Pete you would be amazed at the difference downstream from you. A fully functioning saline environment, as it was for 7000 years.
Now what have you against that?
Hi Debbie,
Re, “The upshot however is that even though SA has had a gynormous flush, the salt problems are actually worse in a lot of instances” yes because the entrance between Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina MUST be remediated, you HAVE NOT understood what i have been saying for the last two years.
The worst part of all of the problems in our Lakes ARE NOT understood by so many upstream of Lock 1.
It, “really is not that complicated!” but how could I expect you to understand.
Hi Mark A,
Come off it how can the, “natural state” exist? I think what you mean is the, “natural state’ in reference the Lakes Albert and Alexandrina and leave everything as is upstream of Lock 1 and stuff the Lower River Murray and let it turn non-potable.
You also don’t understand the Lower River Murray you selfish bastard!
Re, “I embrace any new idea or development with gusto if it’s useful and needed but not just for the sake of change” that’s great but development must not be at others loss, it must be managed!
Re, “Sean said he doesn’t want to see the riverbanks collapsing, what’s the difference of keeping the banks wet by sweet or salt water?”
He also said the Lower River Murray must not be allowed to turn saline!
Re, “As to Peter’s gripe about lake Albert going “hyper-saline!” Please!
I read every available report by the early surveyors, there are not many I admit, but what all say is that part of both lake was fresh and part of it was saline. No mention of either being HYPER-saline”.
Just in case you would like to rethink that statement, “early surveyors” that was prior to Dartmouth, Hume, Lake Victoria and the weirs and Barrages, maybe you have not noticed the River Murray is completely regulated.
And what would you care if the Lakes became hyper-saline it won’t affect you!
You are welcome to visit the area and speak to those who understand the area!
I will probably regret this (no I won’t) but you are acting like an arrogant fool!
Hi John,
Re, “Put the lock gates in at Wellington, open the barrages and let’s see the river return to its natural state.
Pete you would be amazed at the difference downstream from you. A fully functioning saline environment, as it was for 7000 years. Now what have you against that?”
It is not as simple as, “Put the lock gates in at Wellington” we need proper feasibility studies to examine where, how, affect on the region and cost – estimation $Billion+.
I ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION, HOW CAN THE RIVER MURRAY BE RETURNED TO NATURAL?
Pete – Jennifer and the members of this forum are offering you and your organisation an alternative solution to the Lower Lakes.
It’s a return to the natural state.
So why are they not remediated Peter?
Your argument re the rest of the system is completely missing the point and once again attempting to blame everything else for SAs problem.
Its called parochial politics.
Jen’s point still remains valid.
SA has attempted to work against the overwhelming influence of the ocean.
SA could learn something from other communities that live in similar environments. (note I said similar).
Peter,
With Lock Zero you have to split your old LRM into two new sections. Section 1. begins upstream of Lock Zero and goes all the way back to D/S of Lock 1. In this section is Adelaide’s new potable water pool looking after pump stations at Tailem Bend, Jervois, Murray Bridge, Mannum and Swan Reach. This replaces the old pool that ran from the barrages all the way back to D/S Lock 1 at 0.75 M AHD. Section 2. begins D/S of Lock Zero all the way to the barrages. Section 1 can still be called the LOWER RIVER MURRAY and section 2. The LOWER LAKES. As mentioned earlier the Lower Lakes section can be lowered to 0.5 M AHD and save 694 GL. Lower River Murray with the Lock Zero in place protects Adelaide’s potable water supply.
Mark A
Sean said he doesn’t want to see the riverbanks collapsing what’s the difference of keeping the banks wet by sweet or sea water.
Well in this case it is sweet water as the area I was talking about is now section 1 the new Lower River Murray.
Peter,
I have said it before and I will say it again Peter you can call me a clown and a selfish bastard because I am Irish.
Mark,
Lake Albert’s Narung bun episode despite what people advised the Dept.of E&H they went ahead and did it. When it failed and costing around $10 million the chief of the department comments were ” Well at least we tried “. We then had them using crop dusters sowing rhye grass and spreading limestone into the Goolwa channel when they already knew the channel was going to have 27 GL pumped into it over the Clayton Regulator.
Hi John,
You ARE NOT LISTENING it is impossible to return the Lower Lakes to NATURAL without returning the RIVER MURRAY to its natural condition!
Hi Debbie,
Re, “So why are they not remediated Peter?” that’s a question that should be directed at the Minister for the River Murray.
Re, “Your argument re the rest of the system is completely missing the point and once again attempting to blame everything else for SAs problem” no Debbie you are missing the point and I am not into the blame game!
Why don’t you seek out the information from those who understand the tidal movement ie, Ian Mott.
Another load of crap, “SA could learn something from other communities that live in similar environments. (note I said similar)”.
Hi Sean,
Re, “I have said it before and I will say it again Peter you can call me a clown and a selfish bastard because I am Irish” I AM NOT CALLING YOU a clown, I appreciate your posts and our phone and emails we are both fighting for the same aim but I don’t accept seawater in the Lower Lakes.
Yes the State Government made huge mistakes, knee jerk reactions, that are still causing massive problems.
Hi Peter,
Which ‘natural’ river do you want ? The totally empty one ,or the one which includes most of the irrigation country and its towns in the riverbed ? They used to alternate.
Regulating the Murray seems to be a big problem to SA. So how about next drought we just let SA run dry ,as it would have pre-regulation ? In its ‘natural ‘ state.
– That is dry on fresh water, the Ocean is a no no.
You talk of remedial work which YOUR State Govt hasn’t done and obviously isn’t going to do.
( They are going to spend their money on High Court challenges to MDBP )
So nothing happens there in the toilet bowl and the Supreme Court orders us to flush it with bad naughty regulated water.
This will have little effect on salinity levels ,( with or without your list of improvements. )
The Greens will the complain that it is your fault ,that in spite of all the wonderful work being
done, bad naughty farmers like you are SUCKING AND SUCKING the beautiful water and polluting the inflows.
It is called divide an conquer ,oldest political game in the book and you guys are doing the dividing yourselves. Look at the MDBA colour map of water to be taken- State borders are dividers between amounts needed.
Stupid, blind, short sighted parochialism , where nobody wins but the politicians.
Hi Ian,
Ian be sensible, the River Murray is one of the most regulated Rivers in the world and that cannot really be changed, and of course I do NOT want to see an empty river but I DO NOT want to see the Lower River Murray NON-POTABLE!
Re, “So how about next drought we just let SA run dry, as it would have pre-regulation? In its ‘natural’ state” another ridiculous statement, though I sometimes feel that be preferable for those upstream of Lock 1.
Re, “You talk of remedial work which YOUR State Govt hasn’t done and obviously isn’t going to do.
(They are going to spend their money on High Court challenges to MDBP)” I will do everything I can to not allow this stupid Government from instigating any Supreme Court approaches and continue to lobby for the required remedial work.
Re, “So nothing happens there in the toilet bowl” that is certainly an Eastern state comment.
This whole process must be a NO BLAME process!
Peter,
We all understand the problem, it appears that YOU are the one who is missing the whole point.
Let’s try it from this perspective and then just MAYBE, you might understand.
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.
In actual fact, as you have admitted yourself, 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 and that it’s not fair that people keep talking about the barrages and the ocean.
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 SA’s LAKE ENVIRONMENT IS INFLUENCED BY THE OCEAN AND COASTAL WEATHER PATTERNS!!!!!
The further anomoly is that the environment movement is pretending that a fresh water solution is necessary because that’s ‘natural’.
Of course the river is regulated….but it is bi polar to believe that it can regulate the influence of the ocean and coastal weather…ESPECIALLY WHEN INFLOWS ARE LOW!!!!
Your environment bears more similarities to other COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS, NOT upstream MDB environments.
UPSTREAM ARE INLAND ENVIRONMENTS…..YOURS IS NOT!!!!
Jennifer’s post clearly explains this.
Seriously Peter, if you want to live in an area that is not influenced by the ocean, then you may have to move. There are plenty of places in the MDB that do not have to deal with coastal influences, in actual fact that is everywhere else in the MDB except the LRM.
Even though SA is indeed in the MDB….IT IS NOT THE SAME and can’t be the same because whether you like it or not, SA’s part of this complex system IS INFLUENCED BY ITS POSITION ON THE COAST!!!!
Put simply, it has proven to be a mistake to try and nullify the influence of the ocean and coastal weather patterns in the manner that was tried.
The ocean and coastal climate is too powerful an influence.
Even if we sent all stored water to SA, we could still not nullify that influence.
It is far more sensible to accept the actual environment you have to work with and then WORK WITH IT and NOT AGAINST IT!!!!!
In most instances (not all) that is what the rest of the MDB has done.
There are however some mistakes that need to be fixed there too. Would SA like to pay for those and can we demand you take responsibilty for those and maybe you could offer us more water so we don’t have to fix them after all?
But of course there would be NO BLAME involved in this whole process.
Peter,
Well I prefer you did instead of the others on the Blog as I believe that is not helping the cause. Forget about U/S of lock one and concentrate on Lock Zero the new section of the Murray. It appears you haven’t read the report I sent you the other day where Mike Geddes says that you will have to put up with brackish water with his “virtual weir” idea which relies on very suitable river flows. Go to page ten where he hadn’t considered a lock I’m not sure what you mean by a lock and not a weir. It would have lock within the system yes well certainly if we were going to have some sort barrier the Wellington weir proposal which is no longer proposed is certainly not the way to go and an operating system would be an improvement but I’d like to see the sums done on how much water you’d need to be able to maintain the complete connectivity that this virtual weir concept gives you.
Peter in the time of DROUGHT you are going to have to put up with salt water or brackish water as Mike Geddes calls it.
Hi Debbie,
Re, “In actual fact, as you have admitted yourself, the LRM was extra ordinarily lucky to have any water in it at” I have not but if we were lucky so was the rest of the Basin, lucky you can’t hold it all.
I am sorry but re, “The incessant bleating about ‘bad management’ and poor SA is not helping your cause” it is true, does the truth hurt!
You can talk as much as you like about, “the barrages and the ocean” even though don’t understand the, “the barrages and the ocean” in SA.
And we DO KNOW, “SA is vulnerable because of its position” but in case we forget I know you will keeo reminding us!
Re, “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 SA’s LAKE ENVIRONMENT IS INFLUENCED BY THE OCEAN AND COASTAL WEATHER PATTERNS!” NO it was until we made so many irreversible alterations to the River Murray.
I have heard, to death, Jennifer’s posts and am constantly reading information especially Ian Mott’s but of course he is wrong as far as most upstream person’s believe because he disagrees with Jennifer.
Why should I move just because some people who don’t know or understand the LRM want to stuff up my region, I will stay and fight!
I CAN/Will NEVER ACCEPT, “It is far more sensible to accept the actual environment you have to work with and then WORK WITH IT and NOT AGAINST IT” which will render the LRM non-potable!
WE DON’T WANT MORE OF YOUR WATER just take your share!
Hi Sean,
I read what Mike said then I spoke to him for about an hour and he sent me the complete presentation.
Re, “a lock and not a weir” like Torrumbarry with fish passages and a Lock.
Re, “I’d like to see the sums done on how much water you’d need to be able to maintain the complete connectivity that this virtual weir concept gives you” I would also like to see the sums done and that would be part of any study.
Re, “Peter in the time of DROUGHT you are going to have to put up with salt water or brackish water as Mike Geddes calls it” that is also part of any study.
Sean,
I absolutely agree.
It is imperative that SA protects its potable water supply.
You most definitely need Lock zero or something similar.
I also agree that some ‘crawling’ is necessary.
Good for you.
Peter,
of course we could have held it all.
Aren’t you lucky we didn’t?
You are still completely missing the point.
Pay attention to Sean.
Focus on protecting and enhancing SA’s potable water supply.
And Peter. I think Ian Mott’s submission is one of the most sensible submissions out there.
He, like Jen, recognises the influence of the ocean and coastal weather patterns on your LRM environment.
Hi Debbie,
Yes we need to protect our potable water supply but from those like Jennifer, you and many others who have no idea and if you go to Just Grounds Community [mail@justgroundsonline.com] you will find out what Ian Mott is actually saying, brace yourself.
Come off it how could you have held all of that water? Ha ha
Re, “Focus on protecting and enhancing SA’s potable water supply” that is exactly what I am and have been trying to do since those who don’t understand began making stupid suggestions.
Hi Jennifer,
Do you have any $ figures on the cost of Buy Backs and MDBA and Ministerial junkets vs a weir and a pipe with wholesale water for Peter ?
Deniliquin is currently uneconomic as an airport ( for the great unwashed,), yet it is becoming a Ministerial drop in centre any old time. Just a thought.
Hi Sean,
I read what Mike said then I spoke to him for about an hour and he sent me the complete presentation.
So there is more to Dr.Mike Geddes presentation than the one I forwarded to you? The version I received is a restricted version issued by the SPRE Group Inc..
Peter,
During the drought? Where was all that water?
If you mean now, that is completely different.
Please remember who paid dearly to secure critical supplies to SA during the drought.
I don’t believe I have misrepresented Ian Mott. He does not pretend that the LRM should be free from its coastal influences.
Re the water I must of mis understood you but during the drought you could not hold all the water as that flies in the face of the Constitution and now when you would like to you haven’t got the storage capacity.
Re, “I don’t believe I have misrepresented Ian Mott. He does not pretend that the LRM should be free from its coastal influences” please log on to http://justgroundsonline.com/ you are WRONG!
Peter,
had a look.
You seem to be confusing the issue here.
While it is clear that IM & JM may not agree about certain definitions and recommended actions.
Nowhere do either of them pretend that your LRM environment is not heavily influenced, repeat heavily influenced by the ocean and coastal weather. That would be because it clearly is.
Debbie
I read all the comments on that forum too and I can’t understand Ian’s animosity against Jennifer.
Something must have upset him terribly.
Reading the posts I could pick holes in both of their arguments, but one thing Jennifer said convinces me that it’s all political after all.
She said
“Federal Water Minister Tony Burke can buy back all the water from all the irrigators across the entire Murray Darling, but this will have very little real impact “
Indeed you have to think about this buy-back a bit more, what is the real purpose behind it?
If we no longer want agriculture to benefit from the dams and infrastructure we built up over the last half century or more, then why not just demolish all the dams canals etc and be done with it?
Or is there an other reason? I for the life of me can’t see it. Keeping the dams just to water the riverbanks and keep the lakes fresh? Quite an extravagant and expensive gesture to my mind.
Might as well go back to where it all started and then see how the protagonists will like it?
Seems to me some want their cake and it it too though!
Hi Debbie,
You always make me smile Jennifer and Ian are at odds and whilst Mark A can see that you can’t.
Yes, “Nowhere do either of them pretend that your LRM environment is not heavily influenced, repeat heavily influenced by the ocean and coastal weather. That would be because it clearly is” I agree there is tidal influence and their views are poles apart and I believe the reason for this is Ian understands the region and Jennifer DOES NOT!
It is bad luck for you as you are being put in Jennifer’s group, that is the don’t know groep.
Hi Mark A,
Re, “I read all the comments on that forum too and I can’t understand Ian’s animosity against Jennifer. Something must have upset him terribly” I agree and could it be because she is wrong?
And yes Mark it is a political brawl and I feel it is because of the lack of understanding or the lack of will ro understand and there is too much crap being espoused.
I also feel the Federal Government is only interested in the money that can be made from the water and believe we can always buy our food from overseas.
Yes they are at odds Peter,
It also appears you are at odds with both of them. Unlike you, they at least both recognise that SA would do better to work with its key influence environment rather than against it.
I agree Mark A. It is defintely political. Too much ‘entitlement mentality’ operating as well.
I also think water resources are far too important to play politics with.
Trashing human/community resources. . . ie the storages and inland irrigation networks. . . in favour of naive political and parochial ideology is mindlessly stupid.
Pretending it is complicated and therefore all too hard is also nonsense.
That just suits the parochial politics. That won’t solve anything. That would be business as usual:-)
Peter,
So there is more to Dr.Mike Geddes presentation than the one I forwarded to you? The version I received is a restricted version issued by the SPRE Group Inc..
Hi Debbie,
We will always be at odds but as far as Jennifer and Ian the person I am most at odds with is Jennifer.
Ian explains the tides and what they can and can’t do and what will happen if they are removed he really speaks sense.
The whole issue is FAR TOO political and Australia’s water is certainly not a game.
The complete LRM issue is complicated and WHEN you understand it and seriously LOOK at it you may realise that.
ANYONE who believes that removal of the Barrages will solve the problem is to put it politely is an IDIOT!
Maybe it would be better if those who understood areas/regions stuck to giving advice in those areas/regions instead of talking crap about other areas/regions that they have not visited and spoken to the locals about.
Peter said:
“Something must have upset him terribly”I agree and could it be because she is wrong?”
Pardon?
Being rude and behaving in general as an uncouth belligerent boor will make her fact any more wrong or his facts any more right than they already are?
Specially coming from him, complaining that Susan didn’t supply her surname, big deal!
Unless you are a well known person it’s meaningless anyway, you’d have to provide some ID to prove who you are.
If I post rubbish, (prob. most of the time) it remains rubbish whether I post it under Mark Aurel or John Paul the 2nd.
Being civil costs nothing.
just my thoughts.
Hi Mark A,
Re, ““Something must have upset him terribly” I agree and could it be because she is wrong?” Pardon?” well Mark could she be wrong?
“well Mark could she be wrong?”
Peter In some aspect yes I think she is and in some aspect so is everyone else.
In a complex problem like this nobody has the perfect answer.
I’m sorry Peter, but you either don’t read the posts or have a comprehension problem.
My whole point was that being polite and civil to each other has nothing to do with being wrong or right.
Any argument rests on its merit not on how loudly or often you state it.
Calling someone an idiot as some here do, contributes nothing to the debate.
If you don’t mind I don’t think we have much to say to each other on this or probably any subject.
Good luck to you.
Mark A,
While I almost totally agree with you, I have to take issue with your assertation that it’s a complex problem. It isn’t really all that complex, the politics are making it so.
Water management is not particularly difficult. The basic rule is that water runs downhill. The next thing to remember is that it is a renewable resource. The final important factor is that water and gravity together are an amazing untapped power that have a zero carbon footprint.
Nearly everything else is just nonsense politics.
OH!
And I forgot to mention; if you live near the coast then you will be influenced by the ocean and coastal weather and you are therefore in a coastal environment. If you live inland then you are in an ephemeral inland environment.
Also, the storages were not built to enhance flooding, they were built as human resources. They were also not built to flush water out to the ocean.
It isn’t actually rocket science 🙂
As a total aside, I happen to be in the Illawarra district at the moment for a family function. My auntie &uncle live on Wallaga Lake.
It’s one of many tidal/estuarine environments in this area.
Despite Peter’s continuous banter about ‘understanding’ I have often visited the LRM, the Lower Lakes and also tbe winery districts in SA. I understand water use/management there as well as the result of the SE drainage works.
And Peter, Mark A is right on the money re your attitude.
I think SA is a beautiful place, but the attitude to water management and recognising environmental influences is rather behind tbe eight ball.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a false assumption, it is still a false assumption.
Comment from: Mark A February 18th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
My whole point was that being polite and civil to each other has nothing to do with being wrong or right.
Any argument rests on its merit not on how loudly or often you state it.
Calling someone an idiot as some here do, contributes nothing to the debate.
If you don’t mind I don’t think we have much to say to each other on this or probably any subject.
Mark A,
Very well put.