OVER the last decade, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, and other groups, have successfully lobbied for the environmental needs of Australia’s river systems to have a guaranteed first priority call on water. This became reality with the Water Act 2007 that not only gives environmental needs priority over industry and community, but within this category, environments listed under international conventions are given particular priority.
The Water Act 2007 imposes a legal limit on the amount of water that can be diverted for non-environmental purposes and, through implementation of the Proposed Basin Plan, will result in a significant transfer of water from food production to the environment.
The Proposed Basin Plan does not specify where the new environmental water recovered under the plan will be used i.e. which environments will benefit most. However, it is generally acknowledged that most of the water will be sent to the Lower Lakes in South Australia. This is because the legislation specifies that the new diversions limit must preserve the environmental values of key sites within the Murray Darling Basin in accordance with international conventions (i.e. these environments are first priority). The Lower Lakes are vast coastal lagoons at the termination of the Murray River that are listed as freshwater lakes under the international Ramsar convention. According to key reports the lakes are currently suffering from inadequate freshwater flows.[1]
According to the Proposed Basin Plan the Murray Darling Basin, presumably including the Lower Lakes, can be returned to ecological health if 2,750 GL is returned to the environment. But South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has signalled that unless this figure is increased to somewhere between 3,500 and 4,000 GL South Australia will launch a High Court challenge because this is how much water is needed to preserve key environments just in South Australia.
Such a legal challenge from South Australia would likely be prefaced on the Proposed Basin Plan failing to met the objectives of the Water Act 2007; in particular that the Basin Plan must be prepared to give effect to the relevant international conventions.
Indeed, given current arrangements and despite relatively large volumes of water being channelled down to these lakes, including during the recent drought, they are an ecological disaster. However, the solution is not more fresh water.
Because the Lower Lakes are Ramsar listed, the Australian government is obliged to report on their ecological health at regular intervals. In the last report the Australian government acknowledged that ‘the site’ had been in ecological decline for at least 20 to 30 years prior to listing in 1985, with the rate of decline increasing since listing in part due to drought conditions. In particular the Australian government acknowledged that nearly half of 53 key functions were described as being ‘of alarm’ and a further third ‘of serious concern’.
A key issue for the ecological health of the Lower Lakes is the sea dykes (the barrages), that have dammed the estuary. To quote Bob Bourman from the University of Adelaide and coworkers [2]:
“Originally a vibrant, highly productive estuarine ecosystem of 75,000 ha, characterised by mixing of brackish and fresh water with highly variable flows, barrage construction has transformed the lakes into freshwater bodies with permanently raised water levels; freshwater discharge has been reduced by 75% and the tidal prism by 90%.”
Peter Gell from the University of Ballarat writing in the recently published The Sage Handbook of Environmental Change has commented that the natural state of the Lower Lakes was tidal, that the lakes have been incorrectly listed as freshwater in the International Ramsar Convention, and that until their natural estuarine character is recognised it will be difficult to reverse the long-term decline in their ecological health.[3]
*******
[1] See in particular ‘The Murray Futures Lower Lakes and Coorong Recovery: Securing the Future: a long-term plan for the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth’. According to the plan ecological values of the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth can only be maintained if there are adequate freshwater end-of-system flows and thus the key long term management action is to secure adequate freshwater. The planning document does not specify the specific amount of water required but suggests a mean total end of system flow of 5,550 GL would result in improved management.
[2] Marine Geology 170:141-168
[3] See Chapter 27. Human Impacts on Lacustrine Ecosystems, page 595
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I heard recently a discussion on the ABC where SA farmers wanted some of the barrages upgraded because storms drove sea water back through them causing brackishness of the Lower Lakes water. But I thought that they have said the mouth is not estuarine.
If the Murray mouth was not an estuarine system for thousands of years pre 1930s then remove the man made and artificial barriers and let it rip.
I thought the idiot greens types were promoters of nature and natural systems, but this just proves that they are really just anti development.
How can this ramsar listing be allowed to be based on fraud and lies? If SA takes this to court then the opposing legal team should present all the facts and truth to the court. Everyone knows that prior to 1930s the lakes had periods of mixture of fresh water and sea water for thousands of years, so surely this truth should be presented to the court.
Ramsar listings include many much higher developed areas than the Murray mouth and lower lakes and they are essential bits of gear for wildlife pres.
However to invoke pristine enviro claims in the name of Ramsar sites is exactly the opposite of what Ramsar is all about.
It is this long term historical human development of the whole length of the MDB that makes planning for major changes impossible to get agreement on.
The upstreamers maybe need to get a study on how by removing the barrages, the Mulloway will surge upstream and devour the Carp and everyone will live HEA.
I suppose “tidal prism” means tide bore and if this has been reduced by 90% as a result of the barrages it’s no wonder the Murray mouth and Coorong have got serious problems.
Not to mention the lower lakes in drought times.
And as to “problems” with wide ranging changes between salt and fresh water environments, this is the case at the mouth of every stream that ever ran into the sea and fishermen know it’s the best place to pump bait, catch fish, net prawns and make money for the least effort.
SD – it’s the same at Lake George a few Kms further down the coast. Here they discuss the salt/fresh water system in a lake without barrages.
Thanks John. Yes, it’s all about maintaining that sea connection. I remember being fascinated by salmon in Alaska leaping into the mouths of fast flowing stormwater pipes just so they could swin [climb] up the tiniest creeks and drains to spawn. Seeing a 50 pound chinook salmon laying its eggs in a mountain trickle where it couldn’t even float blew my mind. Talk about survival of the fittest!
Probably one of the reasons our mullet populations have decreased is because of restricted sea connections in some of these streams. They breed and thrive in fresh water and move into the ocean when it suits them. It’s a world wide problem, intertwined with over-use of stream water but also they are easily caught in big numbers in estuaries and along beaches.
With agribusiness, as with AGW, it’s getting ever harder for science to get the message out because of hubristic ideology. But here the idiots seem to suddenly swap sides:
http://irregularclimate.planet3.org/archives/green-madness-how-green-movement-lost-its-way-alienated-public
SD, although the lower lakes fishery is probably only worth 5-7 m, you guys can’t get away from the fact that 70% of the natural fresh water flow has been clobbered somewhere upstream today and the people of Adelaide still demand a fair share of the drink.
SD
For a ling time now, the water flowing down the river was Guaranteed and steady, despite drought conditions.
Unlike in the past where it varied between flood and no water, and it’s beyond belief that there are still some like gav who try to blame the upstream users.
What do they want? The lot? Most likely the only thing that would satisfy them, and b….r the rest.
“70% of the natural fresh water flow has been clobbered somewhere upstream ”
I think that means it was used to grow food and generate wealth and employment.
California also has complex water issues, which I don’t really understand. If I can get a handle on the MDB issues, part of that may be transferable to my home state. I understand some of the competing interests: commercial fishermen, cotton farmers, and rice farmers on the one hand; versus dairy farmers and perceived environmental treaty obligations (based upon flawed studies) on the other hand. That said, here’s my stoopid question of the day:
If the barrages are torn down, where would Adelaide get it’s water? Would it be feasible for that city to tap into the Murray further upstream, above the mixing zone? Or would large-scale desal be necessary?
Larry – it would require a Weir , some suggest a lock, to be built at or below Wellington. That would ensure Adelaide a secure fresh water supply from the MDB in abundance such as now or through drought.
Larry,
Adelaide uses a total of 200 Gl per year.
Some years most of this comes from the Murray, in other years like the current, it will hardly draw any from the Murray because its own local storages are full. It has a desalination plant under construction scheduled to provide up to provide 100 Gl by the end of 2012. And Adelaide is already recycling more than 20 Gl with this amount likely to increase.
The offshoots for Adelaide are about 100kms upstream of the Lakes but below Lock 1. Under current conditions the barrages could be opened with out any threat to Adelaide’s water supply.
But under the new plan South Australia wants an additional 4,000 Gl. So Adelaide needs a maximum of 200 Gl from the Murray, but they want at least another 4,000 Gl.
For more background on the politics read http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Murray-Estuary_Sydney-Institute-Paper-2.pdf
Robert et al.
Extractions, calculated as an average, are about 42 percent, that’s using the Murray Darling Basin Authorities own figures that have been used in the Proposed Basin Plan. This is about the same as the level of water extraction from the Yarra. See above link for the references and comparison.
Of course once upon a time much of the flow spread across the floodplains of the Riverina and never made it to SA anyway. See a previous blog post for how improved upstream land management means less water for South Australia, here http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/12/healthy-country-means-less-water-for-south-australia/
Gavin,
Ignorance isn’t only what you don’t know, it can be what you do know that is not correct.
I should have added that some of us users upstream try darned hard to return most of our water diversion to the MDB river systen.
For Larry’s benefit; I live in the Capital City, Canberra where our water catchment makes up part of the Murrumbidgee flow from the Great Dividing Range. This river can be the major MDB tributary after considering the artificial contribution of the massive 1950’s Snowy Hydro Scheme, built in part to supplement new irrigation areas in near desert areas to our west. That very flat country had a vast network of old water courses that could easily channel greater diversion.
On the other hand, I met a retired farmer from Leeton today who had recently been knee deep in water through his remaining part of the property after heavy rains there and he said the local flood was unprecedented. That’s before their canals picked up our lot! I said our weather men are onto these large natural events as a sign of warming.
Had we allowed the rivers of the MDB to be natural, i.e opened all the locks and weirs it would have died over that past 2 years. The native inhabitants would have burrowed down and survived, the newcomers would have died, bye bye European carp.
sorry – I meant the last 4 years at the height of the drought.
John and Spangled
Google this reference
Ryan, DA et al. Conceptual Models of Australia’s Estuaries and Coastal Waterways: Application for Coastal Resource Management. Geoscience Australia Record 2003/09
To understand how different estuaries are classified and to understand why the Lower Murray is probably more similar to Southern NSW estuaries because it has a positive hydrodynamics… afterall is the only snow fed South Australian estuary.
Fascinating places… estuaries.
Jennifer; before posting tonight, I read the “Living Murray” Doc
here
http://www2.mdbc.gov.au/subs/dynamic_reports/foundation_report/6.html
As a water user and local lobby, my family and I have a stake in these deliberations.
“Extractions, calculated as an average, are about 42 percent, that’s using the Murray Darling Basin Authorities own figures ”
Thanks, Jen. But 70% being “clobbered” has a much better emotional effect.
It’s like the unprecedented flood of 2012 that had a (probably more severe) precedent in 1852, not to mention 1925 and 1950. If you keep insisting on the uniqueness of recent weather catastrophes, the emotions will take over. Name of the game.
that 70% was a quote related to remaining fresh water passing the sea barrage
Gavin,
That 70% figure? Clobbered? SA needs a drink?
Seriously?
Some of us users? We try damn hard?
How much water have you personally diverted back to downstream use?
Did you know that in the last 30 years irrigators have committed over 3.000 GL for other uses? Did you know that OZ farmers are considered amongst the best and most efficient in the world? Did you know that OZ farmers compete on the world market with NO direct/ongoing subsides? Did you know that irrigated agriculture is actually something that Australia is really good at?
I also think you have totally misinterpreted the retired farmer from Leeton. I am from Leeton and although spectacular, the recent flooding events were NOT unprecedented. It also had NOTHING to do with the ‘bidgee flood and the bulk of the water will have zero impact on SA and the Murray.
Actually Gav, it’s pretty clear from your Canberra perspective, you have almost no clue about what you’re posting here.
Has it ever occured to you how many Canberra PS wages are paid by producers in inland Australia?
Your comments about complexities is also highly misinformed. It was not agriculture per se that has created issues it was most definitely the poor implementation of water policy by clueless politicians and bureaucrats.
Unfortunately for all of us, including SA, they’re at it again and this time they’re using false claims about the environment to sucker people like you.
Check your assumptions against the cold hard facts Gavin.
That 70% figure in particular is way off kilter. . . way off!
Canberra has NOT tried damn hard to return anything much at all, in fact Canberra now diverts MORE water from the ‘bidgee catchment! The only contribution from Canberra is political spin and deliberate complications based on nefarious and unproductive international treaties and manufactured, unrealistic and ill defined ‘high level principals’.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/14/eco-narcissists-their-last-chances/
Oh dear
Its Off Topic I know, but it would seem that the historical record of the doomsayers/warmistas is less than edifying, and their complete misrepresentations and manipulations have a very long history.
The WWF and sundry GW academics have a very poor record of being honest and even remotely right.
So Flannery wasnt alone.
…..so what faith can one put in anything they say about anything including the MDB
Gavin,
Which has the greater moral virtue fresh water passing the sea barrage or fresh water used to feed,clothe,house and furnish people ?
The viability of these Ramsar Wetlands is much more at risk from the barrages than it is from any reduction of fresh water from upstream.
Remove the barrages and the whole Ramsar site as well as the local fishing industry would improve progressively.
Gavin,
As Jen points out, that 70% figure is way off! You have no way to justify that figure at all because you claimed it was from upstream use.
Also Gav…what have you personally tried so hard to return?
Did you know that irrigated agriculture has committed over 3000GL to other uses in the last 30 years? That’s because they have become increasingly efficient and increasingly innovative….they’re not clobbering anyone.
You comments about Canberra are also false….go check the data….in the last 30 years Canberra has in fact diverted MORE water from the ‘bidgee catchment!
The contributions from Canberra has nothing to do with water entitlement and everything to with unproductive and adversarial naive poltical spin!!!!
You also appear to have totally misinterpreted the comments from the retired Leeton resident. I am from Leeton and I can assure you that although spectacular, the recent flooding events were NOT unprecendented. Many of us have seen some or all of this happen before. They also had almost nothing to do with the ‘bidgee flood and this water will have negligeable impact on the Murray river or SA.
It is not agriculture per se that has historically made this issue comlex, it is the bi polar politics and the very poor implentation of water policy.
They’re at it again and this time they’re using unsubstantiated claims about the environment, in particular the Murray LL environment.
Check the facts Gavin….it’s not hard to find them….especially your assertion about Canberra and that 70% figure.
OOPS!
sorry Jen…my comments got doubled up somewhat as I posted again thinking that I had messed up posting the first one.
My apologies to your readers.
Dear Folks; I do actually grow fruit and veg with hand watering after battling for the right to continue using this city’s supply after major restrictions. However the outcome from that recent drought period is all Canberrians are using less to such an extent we face increased charges despite increasing town growth
http://www.actewagl.com.au/Environment/Water-statistics-and-weather/Water-consumption-and-rainfall.aspx
and gals; why is my 70% reduced Murray River barrage flow quote wrong?
“why is my 70% reduced Murray River barrage flow quote wrong?”
Why is it right? That might be the case in a small flood but in the last couple of years I’ll bet those barrages have seen at least 90% of the possible water that would have flowed over them even with no upstream irrigation.
IOW a 10%, not 70%, reduction from a massive flow. And most of that 90% wasted in 0.05 mm SLR.
SD; Why is it right?
Mate; although my interest in this issue goes way back and my recollections are foggy I can still seize on the facts. And for your info while Jen continues to refer to the Yarra and other Victorian studies related to the MDB issue, I’m here cause I was there doing water projects prior to Dartmouth.
Now; lets suggest that you argue with this doc.
http://www.basinplan.com.au/media/user_documents/pdf/37871/burge-1297220072.pdf
Today we have the technology for everyone to get a proper view of the big picture. Try this instead of reading mere opinion.
http://riversmart.net.au/Flowtracker.htm
cheers
You are claiming that 70% of what would have flowed out the mouth in a natural state has been captured by irrigators.
Just remember the natural soakage of this huge area applies in either case and the last lot of flooding on top of full storages and a flowing river would mostly not have been required by irrigators.
To claim they took 70% of the net outflow of that is rubbish.
It’s like claiming that big floods upstream in highly farmed and irrigated areas reduced similar big floods downstream by 70%.
SD; the irrigation upstream is but one part of the problem for flushing flows in the lower lakes.
Given I always refer to our domestic water use as priority, you haven done any homework at all. At the end of all man made river works is the 1890’s Happy Valley Reservoir and ever growing Adelaide suburbs. Its the reason our driest state thrives. Murray water feeding the pipeline needs to loose some it’s salt load naturally because it can’t be extracted in normal town water treatment plants, hence barrages downstream to limit perceived marine influences.
If SA depends on continuous flow of fresh Murray water to survive it may as well give up now.
The most efficient storage for fresh water is more dams above Lake Alex where greater volumes can be stored with less surface area, certainly not the barrages.
But the main problem is that because the country at the lower end is so flat, water can’t be stored anywhere at any depth which then allows excess evaporation. Maybe SA should purchase that big hole over in Kalgoorlie, cut it up into transportable sizes and install it in the middle of Lake Alex.
They could probably get all the pieces on the one train and rail it across the Nullabor. Wouldn’t weigh much.
Yes Gavin,
We all get it that there is a political ‘trade off’ scenario occuring.
Has it occured to you that it has not produced any practical worthwhile results?
The mantra is to keep the Murray Mouth open 9 years out of 10 and you’re mostly right that it has very little at all to do with that.
What Jennifer is pointing out very clearly is that the ‘justifications’ and the ‘assumptions’ for this process are rather dishonest.
You have also been rather dishonest as well.
Your 70% figure was expressed this way and I copy/paste your comment:
you guys can’t get away from the fact that 70% of the natural fresh water flow has been clobbered somewhere upstream today and the people of Adelaide still demand a fair share of the drink.
That is dishonest Gavin and Jennifer explained why the figure is incorrect.
You then went on to say :
I met a retired farmer from Leeton today who had recently been knee deep in water through his remaining part of the property after heavy rains there and he said the local flood was unprecedented. That’s before their canals picked up our lot!
That is also incorrect and dishonest on 2 counts…..
1) It is not unprecedented….it has just been a while since it happened and….
2) Your lot had absolutely nothing, zip, nada,zero to do with it. The canals here have never and will never be flooded by the ‘bidgee. The very few affected by the ‘bidgee were nowhere near Leeton!!!! Our floods in the MIA were caused by the Mirool system and it doesn’t make its way directly back to the ‘bidgee.
So Gavin….
Maybe you need to stop pretending you are standing on some type of higher moral ground?
I also question why you would think it is even remotely sensible that we would ‘trade off’ sustainable productive capabilities to supply a ‘happy valley’ lifestyle?
How about we start pressuring our govts to actually invest in the correct infrastructure and technology to support the growth of towns and cities and stop allowing them to snatch resources from other areas using false environmental claims???????
If growth in SA has proven to be unsustainable….how is snatching productive water entitlement from elsewhere going to be sustainable in the long run?
It might sound like an easy fix….but it isn’t.
SD; Happey Valley Res etc was built to enhance the meager Adelaide water reserve gulf side of the hills. Damming the Murray was dropped in favor of Dartmouth after considerable discussion. Too salty, too muddy.
Deb; sorry if I had you suffering unecessillary the backwash from the Bidgee after unprecedented local flooding in your patch of the irrigated lands. But you can’t say our visitor lost all his hand tools down there for nothing
When I was listing precedents to this years flood, I left out that whopper deluge in 1974. My carelessness is unprecedented!
Of course, the loss of someone’s hand tools in 2012 may well be unprecedented. The important thing – the only important thing – is to get that word “unprecedented” into the text.
For quality spin, you need your key words. And “unprecedented” is a spin word whose value is…
UNPRECEDENTED!
Good effort trying to duck for cover Gavin,
The point was you were making ‘higher principle’ comments and they were fundamentally incorrect.
Also Gav, it may surprise you to know that on a per capita basis inland irrigation communities have learned to do way more on less than Canberra could even contemplate. City dwellers have only very recently come to understand the value of concepts like recycling and composting and growing their own vegs.
You may also be shocked to learn that on a per capita basis, inland communities grow far more fruit and vegs and hand water them for personal use than your Canberra residents, they ALSO grow food and fibre and manufacture it to supply places like Canberra!
Your whole ‘consumption versus production’ argument and attempting to prove that the urban environmental elitist position has some moral superiority to those people upstream who have apparently ‘clobbered’ SA is spectacularly disconnected from any robust empirical data.
Who is actually clobbering whom Gavin?
Check the data.
Canberra is most certainly not the community leader in this instance. It is in fact trailing far and away behind. While you may believe you personally ‘do the right thing’ I can only say congratulations for that. However, the data does not back up your assertions and comments.
You guys are funny – talk about twisting statistics to suit your story. – perhaps examine how big flows can skew a flow distribution. Just to be controversial I dont think Gavin is that far out with his 70% statement. Perhaps Dr Marohasy could give us a lesson and summarise the flow statistics for barrage out flows and how the big floods skew the average? The key impact has been on teh low to moderate flows, not the big flows. If farmers have too much water, they dont pump as much out do they…
The food grown in the Basin does not go to feed the starving masses. A proportion is sold to Australian families but how much is sold overseas to maximise value? I’m not saying farmers shouldn’t be trying to export and make money but lets all be honest and dont bring in feeding the masses as an argument.
Yes Farmers deserve the right to earn a living and yes they should be able to access water, the issue is how much is sustainable and the poor policies implemented in the past handing our water licences inappropriately. Pollies in your own state are to blame, liberal, national, labour – they are all the same and are the ones to blame.
A Basin plan is needed to fix that mistake it just seems that the posters on this blog dont agree with that. The barrages are a furfy in the argument if you ask me
“The food grown in the Basin does not go to feed the starving masses.”
Can’t argue, can we? People in Australia pay money for the food and eat it. Some of it gets exported in exchange for money, then someone overseas eats it. But it’s not going to feed the starving masses! We have to admit it. No airlifts to Ethiopia from Deniliquin this week, guys.
“Just to be controversial I dont think Gavin is that far out with his 70% statement.”
“The barrages are a furfy in the argument if you ask me”
I get it, I get it. Our Green Betters have found a dam they actually like. Now I wonder what’s so appealing about that one single dam. Let’s see: massive waste of a critical resource, rock-bottom conservation values, damaging to rural employment and production…
Yep, it’s a GREEN dam!
Deb; in case you missed a point or two way back, I worked for industry manufacturing all kinds of products including food, also urban infrastructure doing quality control as well as bulk supply of water among other things. Job loss was almost a constant across that spectrum.
On another note; while in communications, some 80,000 Telstra type employees quickly became redundant while right sizing that industry the new age. Very few people can stay in one job today.
The barrages are a furfy in the common use of the word and so is Jen’s comparison with the Lower Yarra with its 40 odd % diversion for mainly domestic purposes. That’s why I introduced the real loss for the lower lakes as they are at about 70% with all things combined.
Robert; don’t forget that the Dartmouth concept has impacted on Victoria’s ability to grow.
No Sebastian,
The part where Gavin is correct is that we’re all witnessing an obscene power play between the States and the Federal Govt for control of the approx 2% to 4% (depending on which modelling you want to use) of water that is stored and therefore fully maneagable in the MDB.
The 70% figure is the furfy in this instance because it is assuming there is a ‘magic number’ and also assuming that our MDB bears some similarity to fully regulated river systems in places like Europe and America.
Both of those assumptions are fundamentally incorrect.
The natural ecological state of our inland river systems is ephemeral or as Dorothea MacKellar penned a ‘land of drought and flooding rains’.
The natural ephemeral wetland environment has just proved in a spectacular manner that it is perfectly capable of thriving and that it actually NEEDS the boom and bust cycles that are the NORMAL cycles.
While regulated somewhat, our river systems are not the same as those OS, partly because our regulatory systems are woefully past their use by dates and we have made some rather conspicuous mistakes (the barrages and management of the LL and Coorong being one of the most obvious but definitely not the only one).
We have had successive state and federal governments of all colours refusing to invest in sensible upgrades of infrastructure and also refusing to acknowledge that the problems we are now facing…especially that much stated ‘over allocation’ problem….was caused by poor implementation of regulations and policy when water was seperated from the land. Our state and federal regulatory bodies did either not know about or did not have the guts to deal with the issue of ‘sleeper licences’ and allowed them to be ‘woken up’ and traded for other purposes. I’m betting the latter is the correct assumption because those regulatory bodies were able to turn over a rather amazing short term buck by allowing those sleeper licences to be irresponsibly traded in that manner.
SA bought up a lot of those licences and they proved to be esentially empty air space when inflows got low and it was not possible to convey the water to SA. They have discovered that their ‘cheap fix’ has made them exceptionally vulnerable.
Jen is right that the whole water debate has been duplicitous in the extreme.
Gavin also does allude to this but he too is being duplicitous and staying faithfully ‘political’ in his observations.
Our politicians of all colours have used the politically popular notion of ‘environmentalism’ to avoid doing what really needs to be done and also to point their fingers at the wrong culprits.
Don’t you find it ludicrous that we have used ‘international conventions’ like Ramsar to deal with uniquely Australian issues?
The reason this process is fast unravelling is that the REAL PROBLEM was not an environmental problem and also the environmental assumptions that have been used are incorrect. ‘Mother Nature’ has just demonstrated she doesn’t need our help in the manner that is being loudly proclaimed by the current political agenda!
It was in fact the HUMAN ENVIRONMENT not the natural environment that suffered in the drought.
The lesson we should have learned is that successive State and Federal Govts have encouraged progress and development WITHOUT backing it up with enough secure access to water and IGNORING the fact that our natural inland environments are highly highly variable.
The 70% figure or pretty much any figure you would like to come up with is a total furfy because our MDB systems have zero respect for long term averaging and conforming to a model that has to fit inside a financial year, Juky 1st to june 30th.
It is ludicrous and impractical in the extreme!
Deb, I could say hot waffle but I can recognize your real problems now.
Your farming community and township is not below the major storage of lakes Burrinjuck, Eucumbene, Jindabyne, Blowering Dam and so on.
Neither is it on my “Essential Road Atlas of Australia”.
Gavin,
The Murray Bridge Pumping station pipeline supplies the Adelaide Hills with water and then flows into the Onkaparinga River near Hahndorf down the river to the Mount Bold Reservoir. Mount Bold Reservoir is used to top up the Happy Valley ( storage reservoir only ) as is the Myponga Reservoir in the Southern Fleurieu Peninsular which is filled by local streams. Happy Valley will become the storage reservoir for the desalination plant when that comes on stream. The River Murray at Murray Bridge had an average weekly salt level of 702 EC from the 7/01/2009 to 30/12/2009, peaked at 790 EC 11/02/2009. The Lower Lakes pumping was shifted back upstream to Tailem Bend for potable water for the Lower Lakes. A new pump station was built at Jervios to supply the new irrigation pipeline from Jervois through to Currency Creek which doesn’t include the Lake Albert farmers. The salt level at Tailem Bend during the same time period above reached 1230 EC therefore to protect the potable water from Tailem Bend which also supplies the South East down to Keith it has been suggested to build a new LOCK (Lock Zero) below Tailem Bend to protect Adleaide’s water supply.
gav, old chap, I think there is a lot missing from your essential road atlas.
We are indeed below all of them Gav and all of those you mentioned were designed to supply our area ( and many others) with relatively secure storage. Canberra is above those structures and does not rely on them.
I’m not paricularly concerned about your atlas but perhaps you need to refer to it before you make claims such as the above?
You clearly have misunderstood how the MIA was designed and how it works and obviously you’re also unclear about where it is. Maybe you should have asked that retired Leeton farmer you referred to earlier?
The ‘bidgee storages are a vital resource for this area but the bidgee does not flood us. It was designed that way on purpose.
Sebastian,
If there are a billion malnourished humans and Australia takes out of production enough water to feed ten million doesn’t that mean more people miss out ? How does it work ?
Surely it’s better to grow stuff and sell to the hungry markets than send fresh water to the Southern Ocean,isn’t it ?