Jennifer Marohasy has been campaigning to have the barrages – a form of dam – removed from what most of us would think of as the mouth of the River Murray. While much has been made of the fact that the Murray often doesn’t run into the sea, hardly anyone is aware that it is stopped from doing that by a series of dams.
During the Federation plus 100 drought that we have just experienced, water was being siphoned off from higher up the Murray and Darling to keep the lakes at the mouth of the Murray full. If they had been in their natural state the tide would have done that for free, and saved a considerable amount of water for upstream communities.
On Line Opinion first published Jennifer’s controversial views on the lower lakes in August 2008.[1] We did that because they made sense. The current arrangements with the lakes are obviously artificial, and their listing as a RAMSAR wetland is just as obviously mistaken.
Media Watch contacted Marohasy on Friday seeking answers to a list of questions with the intention of going to air tonight. If another program behaved like this they would run the risk of making a star appearance on Media Watch. Marohasy formed the opinion that the story had already been written. That seems a reasonable point of view.
Certainly the questions that Media Watch put to Marohasy indicated that they either had done no independent research about the lakes, or were incapable of understanding simple physical concepts. The questions about her sources of income were bizarre and mostly irrelevant, but obviously intended to frame her as a stooge for some group or another…
Read more here: //www.ambitgambit.com/2012/03/12/media-watching-her-watching-them/
********
Saving the Coorong by Restoring Its Native State Available Online here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7762
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi Jennifer,
Re, “If they had been in their natural state the tide would have done that for free, and saved a considerable amount of water for upstream communities” how would it ever possible to return the Murray Darling Basin to be returned back to the previous ‘natural state’?
Natural CAN NEVER be re-instated!
The evidence from diatoms clearly shows that for the past 7000 years Lake Alexandrina has been part of a tidal estuary. This is confirmed by salinity measurements in 1939 at Milang, and historical maps. It would certainly be a move in the right direction of restoring the natural estuary to remove a giant artificial wall blocking the flow of water from the ocean. In their natural state, estuaries around the world do not have giant walls blocking sea water flow.
Only in South Australia, apparently.
Comment from: Peter R. Smith OAM March 13th, 2012 at 11:37 am
Natural CAN NEVER be re-instated!
8000 bush regeneraters are waiting for clarifiacation.
Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
Perhaps the name of this show should be changed from “Media Watch” to “Consensus Defense”?
Hi Koalabear,
We all know that prior to the Barrages seawater invaded the Lower River Murray and in 1915 was recorded upstream from Younghusband and at times probably further up.
Returning the ‘natural environment’ is nigh impossible given the massive infrastructural changes along the River Murray.
Those ‘giant walls’ do not just block the sea water but ensure from the Barrages to Lock 1 remain potable!
Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in.
In their sties with all their backing
They don’t care what goes on around
In their eyes there’s something lacking
What they need’s a damn good whacking.
George
Peter,
You need to desist with that line of argument.
No one is saying that the entire system needs to be returned to natural.
If we did that, SA would have to be evacuated, especially in drought sequences.
If we did that, SA would definitely be the state that would suffer the most.
As I said at the last post, that is a spectacularly myopic argument from your perspective.
The point is that some of the things we have done have since proved to be counter productive and unsustainable.
We need to find better solutions and learn from our mistakes.
SA could actually learn from other coastal communities and find ways to make its proximity to the coast an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
The RAMSAR listing can be ‘changed’ to an estuarine wetland. Wetlands can be of different varieties and still be listed. RAMSAR even has a form with how to request the change.
There are many estuary restoration projects in the USA. Here’s just one http://1.usa.gov/uTgldO that won a national award.
Peter,
Once again as the spokesman for Lock Zero you have failed to metion it. Once again all you mention :-
Those ‘giant walls’ do not just block the sea water but ensure from the Barrages to Lock 1 remain potable!
Please from now on mention Lock Zero below Tailem Bend up to below Lock 1 at Blanchetown as the main pool to protect the potable water from Tailem Bend, Murray Bridge, Mannun, Swan Reach and the irrigation pump station at Jervois. Don’t even metion the barrages to Lock 1.
Remember from now on it is :-
Lock Zero below Tailem Bend up to below Lock 1 at Blanchetown is the new pool for Adelaide’s
potable water supply.
Dear Peter R Smith
Have you read the Report on the SA government website “An Environmental History of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong” by Fluin Haynes and Tibby September 2009. You can get this by just putting the title into Google. It appears that “all” do not agree about the extent of salinity of the Lower Lakes. Look at the map in this document Figure 6. See the clear distinct division between esturine and fresh water at Point Sturt at the southern entrance to Lake Alexandrina. This pretty coloured map does not accord with what you have written and your assumptions about what we all know.
Please do look at this document and pause to think about what you have written.
Hi Debbie,
I am sorry whilst people continue to mention ‘natural environment’ for Lakes Alexandrina and Albert I will continue along the same argument, as it is impossible as from another point how can ‘natural’ be returned when the flows down the River Murray have been decimated since ‘natural?’
Re, “If we did that, SA would have to be evacuated, especially in drought sequences. If we did that, SA would definitely be the state that would suffer the most” why would we be the ones to suffer most as we would have the last of the water, remember you keep reminding me water flows down hill?
I also realise you won’t accept or can’t accept the tidal situation near the mouth of the Murray, how can we learn from areas that receive two tides per day!
Hi Susan,
That’s right change the listing so your lakesneedwater group can get their way, selfish!
Hi Sean,
Re, “Once again all you mention :- Those ‘giant walls’ do not just block the sea water but ensure from the Barrages to Lock 1 remain potable!” I did not introduce the term ‘giant walls’ so was trying to make a point!
The contributors have to start using Lock Zero as it will at least, or may, mean they understand our plight!
Hi koalabear,
Yes I have the hard copy of that document and Figure 6 is showing what would happen during sufficient flow down the River, what about times like we experienced during the drought?
Peter: The caption for the figure is:
Figure 6: Summary diagram of information from Figures 2-5 showing the extent
of the Murray River estuary before barrage construction as inferred from
diatom-based evidence.
If you read this, look at the map and then look at wkat you have written they are not consistent.
Peter re :-
Hi koalabear,
Yes I have the hard copy of that document and Figure 6 is showing what would happen during sufficient flow down the River, what about times like we experienced during the drought?
Doesn’t that map look very similar to Mike Geddes slide 3 and a couple of other slide maps re estuarine condtitions in the Lower Lakes.
At a meeting in Goolwa he was asked “What about an actual lock,not a weir, a lock ?
“Now I haven’t considered a lock I’m not exactly sure what you mean by a lock and not a weir. It would have a lock within the system yes well certainly if we were goingto have some sort of barrier the Wellington weir proposal which is no longer proposed is certainly not the way to go”. He was working on the idea of a virtual weir.
Peter,
without the upstream storage and irrigation networks the Murray runs dry in drought.
Water does run downhill but the Murray River is not a pressurised pipe that can be switched on and off at the bottom.
SA has greatly benefited from the upstream storages.
SA would most definitely fare the worst if we dismantled all the regulatory systems and storages as by Summer the flows at the bottom of the system would be far less on average than they are now.
Your argument that flows have been decimated is nonsense. Flows have been regulated and one of the advantages is that SA gets supply in traditional low flow sequences.
I think also that most people agree that SA needs extra work (like lock zero) to protect supply.
Of course you can learn from other areas, your last question makes no sense. What does 2 tides a day have to do with it?
Your area is not the same as the rest of the MDB, it is influenced by its proximity to the coast.
That could be seen as an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
Most people who live near the coast see the inherent advantages.
For some reason you see that as a disadvantage.
Listen to Sean.
“flows have been decimated”
Those pesky Roman soldiers still at it?
When will someone stop them putting one in ten to the sword?
Apparently they are hacking away in the lower lakes or round-about.
Hi koalabear,
I understand but if the Barrages were removed and we suffered another drought and we will without Lock Zero being constructed near Wellington seawater would contaminate the Lower River Murray to Lock 1.
Hi Sean,
Yes Sean that is my point and I have read Mike’s paper and had a discussion with him.
Hi Debbie,
Oh Debbie it is all about East of the SA/NSW/Vic border isn’t it?
All infrastructure (and yes I know this is impossible) includes all storages then SA get the last of the water.
The storages were (I may be wrong) for the betterment of the Murray Darling Basin and the River Murray and yes we have ‘benefited from the upstream storages’ that is why they were built for everyone’s benefit!
Re, “SA would most definitely fare the worst if we dismantled all the regulatory systems and storages as by Summer the flows at the bottom of the system would be far less on average than they are now” no we would get massive flows as the Basin emptied but would be the last to get new flows, totally natural!
RE, “I think also that most people agree that SA needs extra work (like lock zero) to protect supply” sadly it seems most of SA and most of people in the Eastern States DO NOT understand and many DON’T CARE about the troubles in the Basin, apathy!
Re the tides the area under discussion, from I.M. “I think the impact of tidal intrusion has been overstated because the local tidal regime makes serious intrusions the exception rather than the rule. Given that half of each monthly lunar cycle involves very minimal tidal variation, and 16 hours of each remaining daily cycle also involves either minimal variation or outflow, then high tides can only occur for 1/6th of the year (ie 1/3rd of 50%).”
One day you MAY accept the fact that that proximity to the coast without the Barrages will during rimes of low inflows see the mouth closed and once again dredges with be back in action.
Re, “Most people who live near the coast see the inherent advantages” but like you do not totally understand the River’s mouth!
“Listen to Sean” I do on these sites and when we speak on the phone!
Hi PeterW,
We humans are greedy and since we arrived in the country we have really just raped and pillaged and used water as it is an infinite resource and whilst that has seen massive population growth and given this country its wealth it has had adverse effects on our streams, creeks, rivers, natural wetlands and backwaters, yes we have decimated natural flows!
Peter RSmith,
I just have to interupt my greedy raping and pillaging and supporting massive populations (otherwise known as farming) long enough to ask you who you think should miss out ?
With a billion malnourished humans it seems pretty obvious that if you lock a renewable resource like Murray Darling water away from sustainable production like farming it must add to the sum of human misery.
So who do you think should miss out and why ?
Is it a case of save the Murray,starve the poor ?
Peter,
No …it is not just about east of the borders….that is the SA parochial, political claims.
Of course the storages were built for everyone’s benefit….that’s the whole point.
This is why you lose cedibility:
“We humans are greedy and since we arrived in the country we have really just raped and pillaged and used water as it is an infinite resource and whilst that has seen massive population growth and given this country its wealth it has had adverse effects on our streams, creeks, rivers, natural wetlands and backwaters, yes we have decimated natural flows!”
Our regulatory systems on the rivers have little to no effect on the majority of streams, creeks and natural wetlands. They are completely ephemeral and the recent breaking of the drought has proved in a most spectacular manner that they are perfectly fine. Apart from the SE drainage works in SA severely hampering the Coorong and a few other examples elsewhere, the majority of them in the MDB have exploded into life. You should see what’s happening here in those natural ephemeral streams, creeks and wetlands….nothing at all to do with the rivers or river regulation.
The flooding of the rivers have not been stopped by the regulatory systems either Peter….that’s because our natural ephemeral and highly variable climate/environment knows how to take care of itself.
Not that averages work well when describing our system (because it is so highly variable) but of the 350,000 GL (repeat GL) that falls in the MDB (on average) only 2% is stored….yet that is the bit that everyone is scrapping over and making wild unsubstantiated claims over.
The rivers and the back waters are a different story.
Despite your hyperbole, the majority of the river regulation story is a good story.
SA has benefited equally from river regulation and made its fair share of mistakes.
Of course people understand the river mouth Peter.
You do realise don’t you that other coastal communities have to use dredges as well? A closing, unpredictable, inhabited, river mouth is not unique to SA.
It is indeed the ocean that wants to close river mouths and shift them around.
The human communities want them to stay open and stay put.
That’s the actual problem.
Using fresh water from upstream as the sole way to solve that problem has proven to be unsustainable. Other coastal communities who have similar issues have worked out better ways to solve the problem. SA could indeed learn from them.
(and yes we all know it’s not EXACTLY the same…but it is indeed similar enough)
Also, Peter, water is a RENEWABLE resource in the MDB. It is also highly VARIABLE. No one with half a brain has ever claimed it’s INFINITE.
That’s just extremist, environmental, counter productive, emotional, PR trash.
Your use of the word ‘decimated’ is also similar trash (ie no factual basis whatsoever).
The drought decimated inflows, not river regulation. We now have the exact opposite problem. Existing river regulation can’t mitigate that either. That would be because the storage and regulatory systems were neither built nor designed to mitigate either of those things.
They were built to store water in times of excess inflows to be used wisely for human consumption in the inevitable times of low inflows.
The recent drought has just taught us that we need to do more of that.
The more recent flooding has taught us that the idea that storages can assist the environment during flooding or drought is completely, laughably ridiculous and probably bordering on irresponsible.
Hi Dave,
With proper management of water in the Basin and that which flows into the Basin NO ONE misses out, it’s that simple!
This about this country’s future to provide for itself and once we get that RIGHT then we can then look at our overseas neighbors. Also we should stop allowing overseas country’s interests purchasing huge tracts of primary producing land!
Re, “With a billion malnourished humans it seems pretty obvious that if you lock a renewable resource like Murray Darling water away from sustainable production like farming it must add to the sum of human misery” one day you and others (hopefully before it’s to late) may realise our population and those who are coming to Australia need to be fed, clothed and be employed.
Re, “So who do you think should miss out and why?” NOT US!
And re, “Is it a case of save the Murray, starve the poor?” what a stupid statement!
Hi Debbie,
No Debbie, I regret, with many people it is about borders, even Yes Minister Knowles delivers different presentations in different areas.
Re, “Our regulatory systems on the rivers have little to no effect on the majority of streams, creeks and natural wetlands. They are completely ephemeral and the recent breaking of the drought has proved in a most spectacular manner that they are perfectly fine” until the next time.
Re, “Apart from the SE drainage works in SA severely hampering the Coorong” sorry you do not understand the SE drainage system, so come down have a look and I will promise to get the right people to explain the situation to you.
Another joke, “nothing at all to do with the rivers or river regulation.”
The reason the flooding can’t be stopped is because IT CAN’T BE STOPPED!
I agree we have all, including SA, have benefited and yes we ALL have made our share of mistakes.
Re, “You do realise don’t you that other coastal communities have to use dredges as well? A closing, unpredictable, inhabited, river mouth is not unique to SA” we believe we can minimize or do away with the need for dredging at about $3000-per day which we have to pay for.
Once again visit the area and find out how the mouth operates.
No we COULD NOT learn for them, differences.
Re, “No one with half a brain has ever claimed its INFINITE” the way that some people/communities use it are you sure, ask the country’s you have/are exhausting their ground water?
Water is one of the most valuable resources on this planet so maximising the use is paramount so may be on your way to SA you could visit the Wimmera and find out how to pipe water from the source and the pipes travel in a STRAIGHT line for source to area of requirement.
Until what next time Peter?
There will undoubtedly be more droughts, more floods and everything in between.
It appears you have completely misunderstood the point about the natural ephemeral environment.
You are also repeating unsubstantiated and emotional waffle about our water resources.
Most (not all) water resources have recharged and replenished and storing ‘environmental water’ had precious little to do with it.
Inflows have NOT been decimated by regulating, they have actually been ENHANCED including for SA.
The culprit behind decimated inflows was the drought not the regulatory systems.
The only way to use ‘infinite’ would be to call the MDB ‘infinitely variable’ and ‘ infinitely unpredictable’.
I agree that the ‘politics’ are border related, but most practical and interested people do not see it that way.
We need to put all the practical solutions on the table (including yours). We need to build on the successes and fix the mistakes. We also need to recognise what have proved to be unsustainable practices.
I tend to agree there WERE some problems with groundwater, but they have been mostly fixed.
That also goes for salt incursions in many areas.
You have problems in SA and they need to be fixed too.
I find your comment to Dave illuminating.
You seem to believe someone has to miss out?
Why should that be the case Peter?
That would be advocating a political divide and conquer tactic.
Not a smart move for SA. SA does not have the numbers.
Let’s go for a win/win solution that does not require the removal of productive resources from sucessful inland communities and does not require jamming up the storages for ‘the environment’.
Your solution may not be the best solution for everyone.
Has it ocurred to you that there might be better, more practical solutions that actually recognise that our system is ‘infinitely variable’?
Until the next drought I may not see it but it will come.
Re, “I tend to agree there WERE some problems with groundwater, but they have been mostly fixed” I don’t believe our ground water problems have even been looked at as the MDBA have tried to tell me that the GAB and the MDB are not connect but they couldn’t supply the information to back up that statement.
I have serious concerns for the GAB and I am seeking answers.
Re, “You have problems in SA and they need to be fixed too” we have salt inception schemes but more needs to be done!
Regarding a better plan I am open to ALL ideas but regret will not consider removal of the Barrages!
Peter,
Regarding a better plan I am open to ALL ideas but regret will not consider removal of the Barrages.
You left out :- and not allowing sea water in even at the times of drought. You will be okay at the times of drought because of Lock Zero which also gives you a new pool level all the way to below Lock 1 at Blanchetown. Like the Goolwa Channel with the construction of the Clayton Regulator with 27 GL being pumped out of Lake Alexandrina to bring Goolwas pool level up to 0.75 M AHD which allowed the use of the Lock at the Goolwa Barrage from October, 2009 through to Easter 2010. The only area to suffer this time is Lakes Alexandrina and Albert themselves as they don’t have to supply any potable or irrigation water, this time the new section above Lock Zero is protecting Adelaide’s water supply and the LRM river banks. Better still open the automatic gates on the barrages and allow the sea water in and stop the Lower Lakes ever going below sea level again as a few scientists have suggested. No Clayton or Currency Creek regulators this time round and when the floods return it will correct itself as it has done this time. The only other thing we should look is what a another scientist has suggested and that is turning Lake Albert into a transit lake by building a channel with a automatic gate between it and the Southern Coorong.
Sean
Peter said:”Regarding a better plan I am open to ALL ideas but regret will not consider removal of the Barrages.”
So far there were dozens of ideas put forward by others, all practical, most rejected by Peter, yes he grudgingly supported some in a strange fashion but he never ever stated unequivocally why he objects to the removal of the barrages?
What is his reason?
Hi Mark A,
Why didn’t you ask me the question as I am the spokesperson for Lock Zero and NO seawater in Lake Alexandrina.
OK Peter I’m asking.
But in all fairness, most of Jennifer’s and others’ proposals rest on historical and well supported facts.
You simply stated that you oppose, but not given any reason why?
PS. please none of this “come down here and walk and see”, I did and I did more that that I researched.
Thank you
Mark A,
What is his reson ?
I don’t really know, my little friend Coorong Mullet believes he is only interested in Lock Zero looking after between d/s Tailem Bend and d/s Lock 1 at Blanchetown ( Section 1 ).
As I have suggeted before you can split your old LRM into two new sections.
Section 1 can still be called the LOWER RIVER MURRAY and section 2. The LOWER LAKES. As mentioned earlier in another blog, the Lower Lakes section can be lowered to 0.5 M AHD and save 694 GL as the potable and irrigation water no longer comes out of the Lower Lakes, has been transferred to Tailem Bend. Lower River Murray with Lock Zero in place protects Adelaide’s potable water supply.
The Lower Lakes can now be run as a seperate identity and in times of drought the automated gates of the barrage can be opened to stop the lakes going below sea level ever again e.g. once it reaches 0.15 M AHD open the gates and bring it back up to 0.5 M AHD.
Peter wants section 2 called Lakes Alexandrina and Albert.
Hi Mark A,
Let me deal with Sean first.
Hi Sean,
We have discussed this many times but firstly I didn’t know you could talk to fish and re, “he is only interested in Lock Zero looking after between d/s Tailem Bend and d/s Lock 1 at Blanchetown” you have no idea I have a passion for the Murray Darling Basin and we are putting forward what we believe is best for the BASIN.
If my only interest was Lock 1 to Lock Zero life would be much simpler as I wouldn’t give stuff-all about Lakes Albert and Lake Alexandrina or the rest of the Basin and that would lower me your level!
Hi Mark A,
We believe that by upgrading the Barrages so as they no longer leak and are able to be remotely operated in conjunction with tides, reinstating the Narrung Narrows the interchange of water between Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert can lower the EC level in Lake Albert from 5000EC to close to 1500EC.
By constructing Lock Zero (Similar to Torrumbarry Weir) pool level in the River between Lock 1 and Lock Zero can be maintained at +0.75-AHD during the times of sufficient inflow and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert can be maintained at +0.6-AHD.
During times of low inflows the pool level in the River can be lowered to +0.5-AHD – the level that ensures all off-takes for potable water for most of SA will be secured and all other River infrastructure will be also be secure.
By holding water above Lock Zero and after allowing the pool level in Lakes Alexandrina and Albert to drop to +0.2-AHD that level can be maintained so as to ensure acid sulphate soils can remain covered by pulsing water through Lock Zero and in dire times lower the River pool level to lower than +0.5-AHD taking into account River infrastructure.
Allowing seawater into Lake Alexandrina would raise the EC to above 1000EC which is our desired maximum EC level and it would be near impossible to be able to totally get rid of the salinity.
I hope that answers you question.
So Peter,
The bottom line is that a great deal of work needs to be done in SA.
So why is the rest of the basin being held to ransom and why is SA always claiming they need more water and then more water and then more water?
Unless the problems there are correctly analysed and fixed, more and more and more water from productive use upstream is not going to fix anything and only cause real problems for inland communities.
Flushing with extra water is not the answer. Storing that extra water when it is obviously not needed (like now) only creates problems elsewhere because the storages were not designed for that purpose. The Murray River is also an extremely inefficient delivery system.
Your arguments about everyone else except SA having to use pipes from ‘the source’ do not make good sense either.
Your source is the upstream storages in your ‘low inflow’ regime, where’s your pipe?
In times of low inflows, the Murray is NOT your source.
Check where SA’s 3 years of critical supplies were kept. It was not in the Murray River.
Most of your arguments until this last post are advancing an ‘ us or them’ approach.
If SA continues to do that, nothing will be solved.
Re groundwater, I agree there is insufficient information about its ability to recharge. However you don’t seem to know that groundwater use and monitoring has been radically changed in the last 20 years. In NSW usage has been radically reduced.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/murray-darling-crisis/premier-claims-he-was-not-invited-to-murray-darling-public-meeting/story-e6frg6px-1226298626296
This is the political gumph that keeps emanating from SA Peter.
Nothing will get solved if your politicians keep carrying on like this. The politics associated with water is absolutely woeful and apparently becoming worse is SA.
We need practical, sensible long term solutions that take notice of MDB variability and MDB delivery constraints and the REAL DEMANDS being made on the storage systems.
Your Premier is still talking about water being returned for ‘environmental needs’.
” This is despite Mr Weatherill since November demanding more water be returned to the river system for environmental needs and threatening to scuttle the national plan with a High Court challenge if he did not get his way. ”
“I think in SA there has to be a bit of a consideration as to whether or not we make a start on a more secure plan that provides that security that people tell me they want, or whether communities want their Premier to go for broke, as he seems to be saying he wants a big number or else,” Mr Knowles was quoted as saying.”
A big number or else?
Hi Debbie,
Re, “The bottom line is that a great deal of work needs to be done in SA & So why is the rest of the basin being held to ransom and why is SA always claiming they need more water and then more water and then more water?”
Yes there is much to be done in SA and the rest of the Basin and how are SA holding, “the rest of the basin being held to ransom?” what’s this about more water and then more water?
You are 100% correct, “Unless the problems there are correctly analysed and fixed” but “more and more and more water from productive use upstream is not going to fix anything and only cause real problems for inland communities” is crap!
Re, “Storing that extra water when it is obviously not needed (like now) only creates problems elsewhere because the storages were not designed for that purpose” storages are storages and must be managed properly releasing water when fresh water is becoming available.
You are again 100% correct, “The Murray River is also an extremely inefficient delivery system” do you have an alternative.
And more crap, “Your arguments about everyone else except SA having to use pipes from ‘the source’ do not make good sense either” we do not have open channels in SA we converted to more efficient methods years ago!
Re, “In times of low inflows, the Murray is NOT your source” it’s not yours either as you source your water from the Murrumbidgee, but the Murray is the source for many water users.
More crap our source is the River but if you wish our water for other than river flow to be piped go right pipe it but you pay for it as the River whilst not efficient is moves water much much cheaper than pipes and electricity!
I see, “critical supplies” as a different allocation/entitlement.
It’s not about, “If SA continues to do that, nothing will be solved” the right decisions have to be made by the right people before we can get things done.
Your last comment worries me, “Re groundwater, I agree there is insufficient information about its ability to recharge. However you don’t seem to know that groundwater use and monitoring has been radically changed in the last 20 years. In NSW usage has been radically reduced” only a couple of years ago NSW were selling ground water licences and the Basin plan acknowledges 2600-Gigalitres of extra groundwater will be extracted per year in NSW!
Also where did you get the figure, “350,000 GL (repeat GL) that falls in the MDB (on average)” if only that was correct there would be no water problems?
Re your second post I cannot control our Premier says or does but when I speak to him I do in conversation often criticize some of his actions, I hope you do the same.
I have also informed him that we should accept this plan and get it passed through Federal Parliament and re Craig (Yes Minister) Knowles I don’t pay much attention to what he says.
NFF have the rainfall figs Peter.
You did a spectacular job of missing the point of that post.
I also suggest you check your comments re groundwater in NSW, you have been somewhat misinformed. There is no ‘extra’ in the timeframe we are all discussing. There is actually less. Check the legislation.
And no, we pay from the source, including the very short distance that is delivered by the Murrumbidgee.
Our water travels mostly through highly efficient, gravity fed, irrigation networks that include channels and pipes.
There is almost no carbon footprint to deliver water here and very little wastage, although there is of course always room for improvement.
Not like what happens to convey water at your end.
BTW, the Murrumbidgee storages had rather a lot to do with helping the LRM survive the worst of the drought.
We also were put into negative allocation so that critical supplies could be ‘conveyed’ to SA.
I don’t deny the necessity of doing that. Critical supplies are essential.
I do however find it annoying that you continue to chant that we don’t understand how it works.
Peter,
Re:- Comment to Mark A
Allowing seawater into Lake Alexandrina would raise the EC to above 1000EC which is our desired maximum EC level and it would be near impossible to be able to totally get rid of the salinity.
I hope that answers you question.
You don’t have to open the barrages leave them closed like they did 2009, 29/04/2009 Goolwa 30,440 EC, 8/04/2009 Meningie 11,680 EC and 1/07/2009 Milang 5930 EC. The other bonus for keeping them closed ACID SOILS.
I will get back to later re my mate Coorong Mullet will be having a chat in couple hours.
” And you coming down to my level”.
Please,Please, Please don’t do that it is the last thing I want.
Remember I told you a long time ago I will where the clown tag etc. for you but please speak to the Eastern States properly. We get no help here in S.A. so let’s get the people from across the border know that we don’t have fresh water ideas.
Sean,
I think you are on the right track there.
Leaving the barrages closed during the drought did nothing to help with either salinity or acidity.
If we want to solve the problems that occured there during the drought, they can’t be solved by pushing through more fresh water….because….there wasn’t and won’t be any more water.
I know Peter thinks there will be…but he clearly doesn’t really understand what it takes to get water to SA from the upstream storages via the Murray river in low inflow sequences….he also doesn’t seem to understand the ‘environmental damage’ that is wreaked upstream by doing it either….let alone the human consequences.
There are plenty of people in the eastern States who would like SA to get help with their water woes.
It is really difficult to offer suggestions and offer help when we are always accused of being ‘selfish’ and ‘not understanding’.
The politics surounding this issue are absolutely woeful….and that includes eastern state govts.
Practical minded business people and water managers could very likely solve most of the stated issues if they were given the opportunity.
The problem you have there is not an ‘environmental’ problem…it is most definitely a man made problem.
It will need a sensible and practical ‘man made’ fix!
Muddying that up with ‘environmental politics’ is not getting any of us anywhere.
It is also extremely duplicitous of the ACF and the SA Govt to pretend the issue is primarily an ‘environmental’ issue.
That approach has created an ‘us or them’ debate which is only heading us towards more trouble and SA is unlikely to benefit from that at all.
Peter is correct that the rivers have been regulated and therefore no longer ‘natural’ from the top to the bottom….but that has actually been largely beneficial to all, very much including SA.
Trying to manage the extremes of our highly variable climate from the current storages is however an impossibility unless we build more of them that are designed for those specific purposes.
He is incorrect about the streams, creeks, lakes and lowlands etc, in the Eastern States. They are ephemeral and are affected very little by the rivers or their regulation. It is possible to give them a boost from the rivers, but that is not waht would have happened ‘naturally’.
They have also recently proved in a most spectacular manner that they are perfectly fine and don’t need our ‘regulation’ help.
The same is true of the Coorong. It is not affected greatly by the Murray River. If it is still in trouble after the last 2 seasons, then clearly something else is causing the issue. There has been no shortage of environmental water….quite the opposite in fact.
The infrastructure and works in SA are tired and outdated. They are in serious need of repair and upgrading. SA also needs to recognise that it must back up its development aspirations with adequate and efficient water storage and water conveyance….that is true of the Eastern State Govts, (including their major cities) as well.
‘Over allocation’ is only a problem because not enough attention has been paid to the infrastructure that is necessary to back up continued growth and development.
It has very little to do with inland irrigated agriculture (including upstream SA)…which has progressively updated far ahead of anything our state govts have done and has given many 1,000’s of ML back for re use elsewhere.
Peter,
Hi Sean,
I didn’t know you could talk to fish . Peter remember I am Irish.
Coorong Mullet is his nickname, he is 5 ft. 8ins. tall loves fishing in the Coorong and then eating his smoked Mullet from the Coorong .
and re, “he is only interested in Lock Zero looking after between d/s Tailem Bend and d/s Lock 1 at Blanchetown” you have no idea I have a passion for the Murray Darling Basin and we are putting forward what we believe is best for the BASIN.
Well Peter Coorong wants to know why spend all that money on automating the Goolwa Barrage if you aren’t allowing sea water into the Lakes. The idea of Lock Zero is to protect the area mentioned above by having a stable pool level at all times even in times of drought and low river flows plus protecting Adelaide’s water supply. You are now saying that you don’t want the Lakes to go above 1,000 EC. During the drought Tailem Bend reached around 1,300 EC and that didn’t stop the Governments from building new potable and irrigation pipelines. They may decide 1,300 EC is near enough and not build Lock Zero and at the time of drought we will see 2008 – 2009 revisited.
Peter in the meantime Coorong and I will stick this plan
1. Build Lock Zero
This creates a new pool of 0.75 M between Lock Zero and D/S Lock 1. The new pool level
will eliminate the damage the Lower River Murray suffered during the drought.
2. Re-Engineer the barrage gates
The Barrage gates to be a automated system and with proper management be able to control the water levels of Lakes Alexandrina and Albert.
3. Drought Lake Level a minimum of 0.15 M AHD
The Lower Lakes when they reach 0.15 M AHD the gates to be opened and allow sea water in. Gates during this period to control the tidal and water conditions in Lakes Alexandrina and Albert.
4. Lake Albert channel to the Coorong with a automated gate to allow flushing.
A little footnote Peter :-
Water levels upstream of barrages dropped to about 0.4m (at low tide) in the last couple of days as a result of the increased gate openings.
This has brought water levels here down closer to natural levels with tidal fluctuations.
No storm, no real winds, no king tides just a normal high tide but salinity at HI Bridge shot up to 41,051 EC at 6am this morning.
Hi Debbie,
If that much rain fell in the Basin why are we having a problem that is far in excess of what is needy for all with plenty to spare!
Re, “You did a spectacular job of missing the point of that post” no I didnot.
Sorry the NSW Government is going to allow an extra 2,500-Gilalitres for commercial use to be extracted each year starting this year or next year.
Re, “And no, we pay from the source, including the very short distance that is delivered by the Murrumbidgee.
Our water travels mostly through highly efficient, gravity fed, irrigation networks that include channels and pipes” channels (like the River as you point out so often) cannot be efficient!
And re, “Not like what happens to convey water at your end” what’s the difference?
Hi Sean,
Pitiful!
Hi Debbie,
Re, “Leaving the barrages closed during the drought did nothing to help with either salinity or acidity’ no but it did stop the EC level in the River Murray remain low enough to allow SA’s off takes to deliver ‘critical human needs’ water!
And Debbie, “I know Peter thinks there will be…but he clearly doesn’t really understand what it takes to get water to SA from the upstream storages via the Murray river in low inflow sequences….he also doesn’t seem to understand the ‘environmental damage’ that is wreaked upstream by doing it either….let alone the human consequences” more CRAP!
Do you really understand the Coorong?
Hi Sean,
We really don’t need to be continually reminded your Irish!
Until the Barrages are totally upgraded and automated especially to stop the leaking the management cannot be operated efficiently making the most of stopping seawater entering and maximising the tides during releases.
The off takes do not pump when the River Water reaches about 800EC and we have always ‘been saying’ that Lake Alexandrina should remain at less than 1000Ec and know it can be managed by Lock Zero.
NO SEAWATER IN LAKE ALEXANDRINA!
Peter,
What you are saying Tailem Bend would have stopped pumping water quite a few times during 2008 and 2009. I think they would have streched it to 1,000 EC maybe even 1,150 EC similar to the figure you are quoting for Lake Alexandrina. Murray Bridge in 2009 had a weekly salt level of 703 EC and with the new 100 GL desalination plant coming on stream for Adelaide I believe the Government will leave things the way they are. If we have another drought well it will be 2008,2009 and 2010 revisited and we will still have no Lock Zero but S.A. has gained its water supply. The big question is will it be 200 GL plus the 100 GL ( 300 GL ) or will it still be 100 GL from the River Murray plus 100 GL from the desalination plant. If Adelaide’s total is still to be 200 GL,using 2009 as a model the amount to flow into S.A. will increase to 1235 GL which leaves a defecit of -615 GL which means Lakes below sea level again and I suppose the Clayton Regulator will be built again. The big bonus this time is the Lower Lakes now have their potable and irrigation pipelines. The shortfall will be once again d/s Lock 1 to the barrage.
Peter,
What do you mean by ‘do you understand the Coorong’ ?
Are you trying to claim that the SE drainage works have not been a major factor in the decline of the Coorong or are you claiming that the Murray has a huge influence on the Coorong seperate from the influence of the barrages? Or what exactly?
Only approx 10% of the Coorong was ever naturally influenced by flows in the Murray.
It is similar to a lot of the Ramsar listed wetlands in my patch. We can boost them from the river if we want, but that is not where they traditionally got their water supply.
We can boost them because of the irrigation networks.
We haven’t needed to boost them this season….in fact they have way too much water and are causing a type of ‘reverse effect’ on the irrigation assets.
The Coorong is mising out very badly because of those SE drainage works aren’t they?
It highly amuses me that you think you have made a point by quoting something and then saying such things as ‘pitiful’ and ‘more crap’.
The rainfall figures are fine Peter….they are the average from accross the whole basin and of course much of it is lost to evaporation, runoff to low land areas, underground recharge, soil profile, unnamed and untapped ephemeral water ways, transpiration in forests and grasslands, out to sea and so on.
Contrary to popular belief, not much of the total rain ends up in the MDB rivers and it never has.
You did also miss the point of the post, because the point was everyone is scrapping over the approx 2% of total rainfall figs (on average) that ends up being stored for community use.
It is just a little bit ludicrous don’t you think?
And I’m sorry….if we’re talking about the AMOUNT of groudwater extraction in the period we are discussing….the total figure is indeed LESS…even if the NSW Govt is about to consider 2,500GL for commercial use….you need to check.
Note also that it is not about ‘irrigation use’…you also need to note WHERE those licences will be granted and explain WHY that is a problem for SA and the Murray or anywhere else for that matter.
The difference?
That would be the amount of ‘conveyance’ water that is necessary to get water to SA via the Murray. Have you ever actually checked how much that is and where it has to come from if we are in low inflow sequences? Have you ever heard about the damage done to the banks upstream and also the natural ephemeral nature of the river ecology in order to ‘convey’ water to SA? You seem to be oblivious to the distances involved and the huge losses that are involved.
Our area does indeed use a small section of both the Murrumbidgee and sometimes the Tumut rivers to convey water. It is by far the most inneficient section but it is only a very short trip (by comparison) and we pay for every drop of that, including the losses.
That is not what happens in SA.
Yes, once the water finally gets there, you(like us) have excellent irrigation systems but the issue is actually getting it there when flows are critical.
That’s the difference.
In fact, we paid for the conveyance and the losses to SA in the middle of the drought. I would actually understand that Peter…because I was one of those who paid dearly.
I repeat, I don’t necessarily deny that needed to be done but I’m finding your attitude to that and your deliberate misunderstanding of it, spectacularly unimpressive.
And a little footnote Peter,
I’m fine with Sean reminding us he is Irish…it’s important to him….it’s no different to you continually reminding us about your pedigree.
So Sean, please know that I am not one of the ‘WE’ …I find your posts well written and thoughtful and constructive.
Debbie,
Spot on. The only thing I forget to do is tell everyone they are clowns or they are talking crap.
The Coorong that is correct. The RAMSAR agreement has done very little for the Coorong the only real beneficiary is the Lower Lakes and Adelaide’s 200 GL water supply.
Hi Debbie,
Yes, Debbie that is exactly what I am saying, the South East drains did have an adverse effect on the Coorong but now redirecting the drains at a cost of over $10-Million would do more harm than good, the Southern Lagoon needs to be pumped out to the Southern Ocean.
The Coorong especially the Southern Lagoon needs to be replenished that means pumped out so fresh water can inject life back into that Lagoon!
Re, “Only approx 10% of the Coorong was ever naturally influenced by flows in the Murray” yes that maybe the figure but unless the hyper-saline water is removed from the Southern Lagoon it cannot fully recover.
Re, “The Coorong is missing out very badly because of those SE drainage works aren’t they?” yes and no but it is now far passed that direction to recover the Southern Lagoon!
I believe the figure is far too high and I am seeking clarification.
What we are, ‘scrapping over’ is the belief that the Barrages needs to be removed!
My problem with extraction from the GAB is WE need to find out the connectivity/connection between the GAB and the MDB and continue, where possible to replenish the GAB and protect the Gab it may one day be needed of survival if we ever face a massive drought extending of 20 or more years!
Conveyance water about 800-Gigalitres what is, as I have asked before your solution?
Your joking, “You seem to be oblivious to the distances involved and the huge losses that are involved” get on the same page please Debbie and as I have said previously you have never seen bank collapsing and the associated infrastructure damage like we experienced during the drought.
When I attended a conference in Victoria in 2010 and displayed the photographic evidence people from all over the Basin upstream of Lock 1, including along the Murrumbidgee and the Lachlan couldn’t believe the damage!
Do you really expect SA to pay for our entitlement and conveyance water, it is OUR part of the agreement signed in an attempt at FAIRNESS.
Re, “That is not what happens in SA” more fairy tales our irrigators DON’T use channels and pay from source of extraction and if they don’t use their entitlement just leave it in the River.
Oh I am sorry thank you for your help during the drought as it seems we got off scot free so at tomorrow’s meeting with industry/irrigators and the Minister I will tell them that only Debbie paid the high price, thanks again!
I regret my attitude but I am fighting to manage below Lock 1 to lessen pain not increase it and as for, ‘your deliberate misunderstanding’ what a joke!
Re, “it’s no different to you continually reminding us about your pedigree” I have no pedigree, born not far from the Murray into a poor family.
Hi Sean,
The RAMSAR, you are correct, ‘has done very little for the Coorong’ actually nothing!
I regret I don’t get, “the only real beneficiary is the Lower Lakes and Adelaide’s 200 GL water supply.”
Peter,
1985
The RAMSAR agreement was this the cheapest way for the SA Government to build a new 200 GL reservoir for Adelaide’s water supply without using any concrete and other raw materials ?
As you acknowledge the Coorong gets very little of the remaining 1650GL, it all goes to The Lower Lakes which evaporates around 850 to 1,000 GL per year and supplied them with their water supply. In 2009 the water supply was transferred back upstream to Tailem Bend with new potable pipelines around the Lakes. A new pump station was built for the new irrigation pipelines to supply water from Jervois down as Currency Creek. Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert are still receiving their RAMSAR agreement amount of water even though they have transferred the pumping back upstream to Tailem Bend and Jervois.
Well at least you are living up to expectations Peter,
I clearly said that I understood because I was ONE of those who paid and I also clearly stated that I did not deny that it needed to be done because of those circumstances.
Your attitude to that therefore remains spectacularly unimpressive…and your attempt at sarcasm is woeful.
Re solutions?
There are many and they all require further engineering works to fix what is clearly a man made problem.
If SA has messed up the Coorong with the SE drainage works…then SURELY SA needs to come up with a solution rather than resting on impractical Ramsar listings and demanding more water from upstream.?
All the other listed sites have recharged naturally in these last 2 seasons…why hasn’t the Coorong? There is no shortage of water coming down the Murray, but we still have people claiming it’s because of upstream irrigation.
Do you know how much 800GL actually is Peter and how that was actually appropriated?
As Sean clearly points out…there is a very practical solution that most people could probably understand and live with… but you’re not listening.
And Peter
BTW:
Do you really expect SA to pay for our entitlement and conveyance water, it is OUR part of the agreement signed in an attempt at FAIRNESS.
Re, “That is not what happens in SA” more fairy tales our irrigators DON’T use channels and pay from source of extraction and if they don’t use their entitlement just leave it in the River.
While I’m now tempted to just say “more crap” let me do a little better than that.
I agree it was a political attempt at fairness…15% of my entitlement (which I still pay for) goes towards that happening every single year.
However, the political argument is still that there is not enough water and SA is still being treated unfairly and that SA is the only State that suffered in the drought.
SA still wants people like me to pay more for that as well…in extra water as well as for the extra conveyance. It is an ‘us or them’ argument that you are advancing and has long left the ‘fairness’ thresh hold far, far behind.
While some of our irrigation is from extremely efficient, gravity fed, purpose built and paid for channels…every thing else about your second sentence is no different here. We also use a lot of piping where necessary, we pay from the source and any unused water stays for the river.
The point remains that you refuse to recognise what is REALLY required to keep the lakes fresh in low inflow sequences and the storage regime you are advocating that has ‘just in case’ water attached is going to harm inland communities, including your own upstream SA irrigation communities.
And Peter…straight from the horse’s mouth… NSW Office of Water …..last week.
Water recovery for MDB rivers in the past 25 years.
* 860GL/yr surface water …(note that is PER YEAR!!!).
* 942 GL reduction in groundwater entitlements in 6 major alluvial aquifers since current WSP.
* 64 GL reduction in GAB extractions
* Cumulative credit in NSW under MDB caps on diversion is 3,582GL….that’s actually a credit Peter, that means extra water in the rivers over and above everything else that we have given for re use.
In anyone’s language that is a lot of water.
Please take note of the official groundwater figs….as you can see, you have been somewhat misinformed on this issue.
Please listen to Sean and stop repeating ACF unsubstantiated waffle about our water resources and pretending that all your problems are caused by upstream irrigation and bad management in the Eastern States.
Also…the politics is essentially scrapping over the use of the storages….the barrages are just a part of that…albeit a very contentious part.
To be honest, many of us don’t really care whether they stay or go or get upgraded….what we want to see is a solution that protects SA’s water supply WITHOUT creating even more hardship and angst upstream in normal and low inflow sequences and WITHOUT abusing those lakes again and exposing those acid sulphate soils.
Hi Sean,
Thanks for that though I don’t agree with your belief about the reason for the RAMSAR agreement.
Hi Debbie,
I am not saying, “SA has messed up the Coorong with the SE drainage works” as at the time what was carried out was a good idea what I am saying the SA Drainage can no longer be part of the solution.
Also re the Coorong, “then SURELY SA needs to come up with a solution rather than resting on impractical Ramsar listings and demanding more water from upstream” and we are not, “demanding more water from upstream!”
This seems a strange question from you, “All the other listed sites have recharged naturally in these last 2 seasons…why hasn’t the Coorong” you obviously don’t understand the LRM, Lakes Albert, Alexandrina and the Coorong.
AND I AM NOT, “claiming it’s because of upstream irrigation” and what other people claim is not within my power to change.
You believe the Barrages should be removed and it is not within my power to change your mind.
Re, “Do you know how much 800GL actually is Peter and how that was actually appropriated?” no of course I don’t and your, “attempt at sarcasm at sarcasm is woeful.”
Re, “As Sean clearly points out…there is a very practical solution that most people could probably understand and live with… but you’re not listening” no I am hearing but disagreeing!
If you NO longer have any open channels in your irrigation system that’s great but all the others are inefficient.
And no we are not saying, “SA is the only State that suffered in the drought” many our problems still remain in the LRM and as the actual repair bill is probably $100-Million and there is no money in the purse.
Thank you for the facts and figures.
I hear Sean and I DO NOT repeat, “ACF unsubstantiated waffle about our water resources and pretending that all your problems are caused by upstream irrigation and bad management in the Eastern States.”
As for, “Also…the politics is essentially scrapping over the use of the storages….the barrages are just a part of that…albeit a very contentious part. To be honest, many of us don’t really care whether they stay or go or get upgraded….what we want to see is a solution that protects SA’s water supply WITHOUT creating even more hardship and angst upstream in normal and low inflow sequences and WITHOUT abusing those lakes again and exposing those acid sulphate soils” we are not creating or trying to create, “even more hardship and angst upstream in normal and low inflow sequences.”
Peter,
You do quite often repeat ACF waffle about our water resources. Scroll back up to your post about rape and pillage and finite resources etc as just one example.
There is also nothing wrong with well designed gravity fed channels that are built through country and soils that do not leak.
Replacing them with pipes creates no benefit to SA or anywhere else. Your comments about wasteful channels versus pipes is also repeated, unsubstantiated waffle.
I do not necessarily believe the barrages should go. What I believe is that ALL sensible options should be put on the table and openly discussed in the light of what we have all learned. What is clear is trying to maintain the status quo there has proved unsustainable and that ‘extra flushing’ is wasteful and does not achieve measureable or worthwhile results.
Our problems with water resources is NOT an environmental problem and while people continue to pretend it is, we are solving nothing and heading towards more trouble.
Our problem is we have not upgraded and enhanced our storage and infrastructure in line with progress and development and despite your blustering otherwise SA is just as guilty if not more so than every other MDB state.
The most annoying aspect of all is that people like you buy into the ‘it’s all the fault of irrigated agriculture’ waffle, when quite clearly, irrigated agriculture has done more about efficiency measures and given back more water for re use than any other sector.
I also notice your reluctance to accept hard facts like those groundwater figs and the rainfall figs.
If we ignore reality in favour of naive and impractical ideology, we won’t be able to move forward.
The money and the solutions are available Peter. What we’re missing is the political will.
Hi Debbie,
I am not a fan of the ACF and whilst I am always concerned about our environment that has absolutely NOTHING/ZIP to do with the LRM management or the Barrages and my comment, “about rape and pillage and finite resources” is how I believe we have behaved.
Are you on the same planet, “There is also nothing wrong with well designed gravity fed channels that are built through country and soils that do not leak” and of course there is no EVAPORATION?
“Replacing them with pipes creates no benefit to SA or anywhere else” and you complain about conveyance losses from the River Murray.
Oh Debbie, are we changing our mind, “I do not necessarily believe the barrages should go?”
Please note the below from the, “Hansard notes from the recent Senate Estimates which talks about the lower lakes” From David Dreverman evidence,
We have no evidence of the Murray Mouth closing other than in 1981, when it closed during a period of low inflows. It would have closed between 2002 and 2009 but for our efforts with dredging to keep it open. When I refer to the Murray Mouth, I am referring to the exchange of water between the ocean, the Coorong and the Goolwa Channel. Sometimes people will talk about the closure of the mouth as they flow across the barrages, which connect the river to the Coorong and the Goolwa Channel. But there is no evidence anywhere that the actual mouth, which is between the two sand spits, has closed in the 4,000 or 5,000 years that that piece of land has existed.
Captain Sturt walked from somewhere near where Goolwa is today to the mouth, and the mouth was open the day he went there. What you are referring to is where he describes in the diary that when he reached Lake Alexandrina he noticed a change in water quality, which was effectively an increase in salinity. So he arrived there at a period of relatively low flow, when there was an exchange between the ocean and the Lower Lakes.
I think the authority accepts that the Lower Lakes at times was an estuary. Our modelling indicates that in the order of seven per cent of the time Lake Alexandrina would have had elevated salinity and Lake Albert, because of the way it is connected, takes a lot longer, once it gets saline, to flush back out. Our modelling shows that, if I remember correctly, about 17 per cent of the time Lake Albert would have had elevated salinity.
The challenge is that, once the first drop of water was taken out in the late 19th century for irrigation, the mix started to change and the durations of time that the lake was an estuary increased. By the time we got to the mid-1990s, with the caps imposed, there was a significant reduction in flows in the river. So, if we did not keep those lakes fresh with barrages, it would not just be an estuary; it would end up with long periods of hypersaline condition, as you see at times of drought. We have seen that in the southern lagoon of the Coorong as well. That is the condition that would come about. Keeping the barrages in place is probably the best way to keep a healthy, working system.
I actually operate the River Murray. I am not the one responsible for basin planning, but I will just say that, as I understand it, when you are operating for Basin Plan modelling runs the targets for flows at the barrages are met by endeavouring to meet all the upstream targets. So they are not on the critical targets. It is not meeting the Lower Lakes and Murray mouth targets, that is critical; it is meeting some of the further upstream targets. So if you get enough water in transit to meet the requirements of the environment further upstream you should meet the requirements at the Lower Lakes.
The only way to return those lakes to a natural condition would be to turn off all irrigation and demolish all dams in the Murray-Darling Basin. Other than that, you will have impacts. Even from 1902 to 1930, at relatively low rates of diversion compared with today, communities were experiencing unacceptable increases in the estuarine condition.
The barrages were commissioned in 1939. In 1938 I think it was the first year they put in a salinity monitoring device at Milang, on the western shore of Lake Alexandrina, many kilometres from the Goolwa Channel. It was certainly saltier than the sea—it was in a hypersaline condition in that period. It would have been a time similar to that you described, where there was little flow coming down the system and the tides going in and out each day. But quite quickly from when you have got a river flow to when you have got no freshwater flow, that Lower Lake turned hypersaline.
We actually looked at that when we did modelling during drought, because we considered during drought letting the sea into the Lower Lakes and concluded that water body would become hypersaline very, very quickly. We concluded at the end of the drought that it was a good thing that we had not let the sea in. It would have created a lot of problems that would have taken a long, long time to get over and we would not be in the situation where Lake Albert is less than 5,000 a day, because Lake Albert would quite quickly have gone hypersaline and it would have taken a long while to recover.
Re SA building more storages, as I have asked where?
I get sick of being accused of, “it’s all the fault of irrigated agriculture” what a load of crap I about no BLAME so get over it.
I know the political will is missing and I keep telling them that to.
As far as rainfall and inflow into the Basin is concerned the 350,000-Gigalitres is WRONG and that is from all my sources and I am seeking a more realistic figure, are you sure you haven’t added an extra zero?
Not complaining Peter,
Just pointing out inconsistencies.
SA is the state that is continually complaining.
I have also not changed my mind.
I have always said that if SA wants to keep the barrages and keep the lakes permanently fresh, then SA needs to figure out how to do that WITHOUT advancing an ‘us or them’ argument and also to stop pretending that it is an ‘environmental’ problem.
I thought you had discussed sensible storage alternatives with Ian Mott?
Also Peter, for SA to keep throwing up that ‘you would have to dismantle all regulatory systems’ argument, is advocating self destruction for SA.
In the last drought there would have been no water in the LRM.
Your storage and infrastructure systems are in serious need of upgrade and enhancement, that’s the real problem.
Put ALL the options on the table. That way you might have a great chance of some visionary solutions.
It’s also a bit silly to use that evaporation argument in the context of gravity fed channels. It is a zero carbon footprint method and evaporation is NOT a huge issue.
Leaking channels is the problem.
Most of them are gone or going.
Hi Debbie,
I didn’t realise there was NO evaporation from channels and whilst I am fairly well up on zero carbon and footprints I don’t agree as evaporation from open channels in the Eastern States is calculated to about 730-750-Gigalitres!
I have had a long discussion with I. M. re alternative storages, turkey dams, deepening existing, lining existing and a number of other ideas this is not a do straight away task.
There are some schools of thought that believe the leaking is beneficial!
Peter,
By saying the lakes will be Hypersaline what EC levels are you talking about ?
Peter,
Re “We actually looked at that when we did modelling during drought, because we considered during drought letting the sea into the Lower Lakes and concluded that water body would become hypersaline very, very quickly. We concluded at the end of the drought that it was a good thing that we had not let the sea in. It would have created a lot of problems that would have taken a long, long time to get over and we would not be in the situation where Lake Albert is less than 5,000 a day, because Lake Albert would quite quickly have gone hypersaline and it would have taken a long while to recover.
Why don’t you get David Dreverman to do some modelling for you re Lock Zero
Hi Sean,
I didn’t mention hyper-salinity it was in David Dreverman’s evidence to the Senate Estimates and I dan’t know the EC figure for hyper-salinity.
Davis is employed by the MDBA (in case you didn’t know) and they are aware of our idea but are not buying into the discussion.
Peter,
DEFINITELY DON’T USE DAVID DREVERMAN’S MODELLING FOR LOCK ZERO.
The Ausralian News May 28th., 2010
“FLOOD WATERS WON’T REACH MURRAY MOUTH”
MDBA Ex. Director David Dreverman told a Senate Estimates Committee.
Why aren’t they buying in Peter?
Wouldn’t have something to do with a lack of political will to come up with practical, long term solutions by any chance?
Wouldn’t be because they’re really only interested in re prioritising storages and changing regulatory rules would it?
A pity you don’t understand that your insistence on trying to complain about the eastern states, repeatedly making unsubstantiated and negative comments about our water resources, refusing to put ALL options on the table and personally attacking anyone who has a different view to yours (actually based on sound water management principles) is playing straight into their hands.
Until we recognise the need for flexibility and stop this counter productive, parochial BS, then nothing good will happen.
We need to be honest about the real problem we need to solve and stop pretending that jamming up the storages with environmental ‘flush water’ is going to solve anything.
Every basin state has made mistakes and they all require fixing. If we allow it to continue as a State versus State and Environment versus irrigated agriculture debate, we all lose, including future generations.
The MDBP is a lose/lose plan because its terms of reference are totally myopic and based on false assumptions.
The ‘environ ment’ it claims it wants to assist does not exist in reality. Our natural MDB environment is ephemeral and always has been. The MDBA cannot successfully assist that with current storages and current regulatory systems.
Recent evidence indicates that attempting to assist flooding is bordering on irresponsible.
I know you can’t see it, but your plan also requires the re prioritising of storages and changing of regulatory rules.
Sean sees that problem and so does Ian Mott and many others.
I accept that you don’t understand but unfortunately you are advancing an ‘us or them’ argument because you are operating from the position that water resources are ‘finite’ and that the ‘status quo’ MUST be maintained at any cost in the Lower Lakes.
You are also claiming that it’s not possible for SA to fix up some of its own mistakes or for SA to access other storage possibilities. Those are counter productive and completely usubstantiated sweeping statements.
Your comments re carbon footprints, the use of gravity and some highly outdated evaporation figs is more of the same.
Piping gravity fed, leak free channels in the MIA will not deliver worthwhile benefits to SA or any other area.
The only beneficiaries would be the extra regulatory bodies and the companies who supply the pipes and pumps.
Debbie,
March, 21st. 2012 Peter referred you to David Dreverman’s report to the Senate committee.
As you can see The Australian actually wrote an article on the report.
The Ausralian News May 28th., 2010
“FLOOD WATERS WON’T REACH MURRAY MOUTH”
MDBA Ex. Director David Dreverman told a Senate Estimates Committee.
My information shows that on the date of the article, the Goolwa Channel -0.024 M AHD and a salt level 20,950 EC and by end of August, 2010 the channel was up to pool level of 0.767 M AHD and salt level was down to 18,470 EC. By November the channel was 0.652 M AHD and salt level was 2,044 EC. By these figures you can see that the Flood Waters did reach the mouth and that Goolwa Channel had been reduced from sea water (18,000 – 30,000 EC) down to brackish water. Lake Alexandrina reached 0.0 mm AHD on the 4th. August, 2010.
Hi All,
What is your surface Water Salinity level ?
EC (uS/cm)
0 – 800 Very Low Same as rain and tap water
800 – 2700 Low A healthy level for aquatic inertebrates and plants
2700 – 5300 Medium Maimum drinkable level for livestock
5300 – 10,000 High Some freshwater animals and plants will die
> 10,000 Very High Most freshwater animals and plants will die
46,000 – 70,000 Extreme Same as sea water
e.g. Sea water at Goolwa is 55,000 EC
Hi Sean,
David is probably correct but I would have thought some would reach the LRM but the expected raise in pool level at Mannum is only about 4-inches.
Hi Debbie,
Of course it’s political will but I won’t give up!
I don’t think is only about, “prioritising storages and changing regulatory rules would it?”
One day Debbie you will understand that only by conversation do we learn and I am not, once again, in the blame game and welcome all options being put forward so the discussion can be full and fruitful and arrive at a conclusion!
And all conversation must be based on, “on sound water management principles’ and 100% total efficiency
And ONCE AGAIN I am not about, “jamming up the storages with environmental ‘flush water’ is going to solve anything” the storages are for entitlement water!
Re, “Recent evidence indicates that attempting to assist flooding is bordering on irresponsible” yes but because of really bad management of storages and mitigation facilities!
Re, “I know you can’t see it, but your plan also requires the re prioritising of storages and changing of regulatory rules. Sean sees that problem and so does Ian Mott and many others” if you mean by removing the Barrages Ian and Sean do not agree!
Listen Debbie, I understand and I AM NOT INTO THE US OR THEM GAME, THIS IS A NO BLAME SITUATION!
About the ‘status quo’ being maintained, if you really understood the LRM you may understand!
The mistakes, which are not all ours, can be fixed!
Thanks Debbie, but I do understand gravity fed!
Hi Sean,
What’s the difference from flood water and water?
Peter,
Hi Sean,
David is probably correct but I would have thought some would reach the LRM but the expected raise in pool level at Mannum is only about 4-inches.
Peter you lost me David Dreverman’s report to the Senate was May, 2010 not Not March 2012.
As you can see The Australian actually wrote an article on the report.
The Ausralian News May 28th., 2010
“FLOOD WATERS WON’T REACH MURRAY MOUTH”
MDBA Ex. Director David Dreverman told a Senate Estimates Committee.
My information shows that on the date of the article, the Goolwa Channel -0.024 M AHD and a salt level 20,950 EC and by end of August, 2010 the channel was up to pool level of 0.767 M AHD and salt level was down to 18,470 EC. By November the channel was 0.652 M AHD and salt level was 2,044 EC. By these figures you can see that the Flood Waters did reach the Murray Mouth and that Goolwa Channel and not only that Lake Alexandrina reached 0.0 mm AHD on the 4th. August, 2010. Peter what model does he use ?
Hi All,
Apart from one solitary gate at Boundary Creek, all gates have been closed presumably in anticipation of tonights change and tomorrow’s sea swell.
Flow to SA increasing quickly as is flow over Lock1 which is now 27 GL/d.
Peter you asked :-
What’s the difference from flood water and water ?
Being Irish and talking to my mate Coorong :-
Flood water is when you are not allowed to take Cockles from Goolwa Beach and water is when you are allowed to take Cockles from Goolwa Beach.
Peter,
I have never read where Debbie has suggested removing the barrages. How can she be suggesting that if Debbie is telling you to listen to Sean and you know where I stand on that matter.
Peter that reminds me is there any chance of you being able to get a copy of David Dreverman’s modelling for me.
Hi Sean,
R, “Peter you lost me David Dreverman’s report to the Senate was May, 2010 not March 2012” WAS Tuesday, 14 February 2012.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22committees/estimate/40e11b0a-2fbd-48e2-a290-a121fd0386bd/0000%22
Re D. D’s. modelling I will ring him next week as I am going to a MDA meeting at Swan Reach today and Adelaide for the weekend.
Thanks for the info Sean,
It would be wonderful if people would listen to ‘real’ figures rather than ‘airy fairy’ computer generated nonsense!
It amuses me that people think if they repeat nonsense enough that it can become a ‘truism’.
It is also a shame that the rhetoric coming out of SA is so completely parochial.
I suspect that SA will suffer the most from this behaviour.
We are only getting ‘political outcomes’ which have nothing at all to do with achieving long term practical results.
Peter,
Thank you.
“We actually looked at that when we did modelling during drought, because we considered during drought letting the sea into the Lower Lakes and concluded that water body would become hypersaline very, very quickly. We concluded at the end of the drought that it was a good thing that we had not let the sea in. It would have created a lot of problems that would have taken a long, long time to get over and we would not be in the situation where Lake Albert is less than 5,000 a day, because Lake Albert would quite quickly have gone hypersaline and it would have taken a long while to recover.”
I wish you luck in the next drought, looks like it’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 revisited the Lower Lakes being allowed to fall below sea level and collapsing river banks all the way back to below Lock 1. Not one mention to the Senate committee of a Lock below Tailem Bend and not one S.A. Senator asking about one. With a bit of luck Goolwa Channel will get the Clayton Regulator as the dirt has been stored nearby.
I’m with Sean,
Why weren’t they mentioned?
Pandering to the politics perhaps?