THE key plank of the national water reform agenda in Australia, the Murray Darling Basin Plan, was presented to the Australian Parliament on 22nd November 2012, and was passed with the support of the Coalition on 29th November. There was a dis-allowance motion, but that expired earlier this week. The same day, Tuesday 19th March 2013, Federal Water Minister Tony Burke was reported crowing that the implementation of the plan is now “irreversible” and that the Basin will now benefit from “an extra 3,200 billion litres of water a year”.[1]
What nonsense. There is no extra water. There will simply be a redistribution of water to the Lower Lakes. That is what the plan is in essence all about, more water for South Australia and in particular a massive artificial lake system that has been in ecological decline since the building of 7.6 kilometres of sea dyke in the 1930s. [2]
Public statements from The Minister have made much of the need for the “extra” water to keep the mouth of the Murray open [1]. But this is also a lie.
Along the NSW and Queensland coastlines local governments recognise that river mouths must be constantly dredged to maintain safe passage for boats and to avoid flooding of communities in the lower reaches. This was particularly the case recently following ex-cyclone Oswald with the associated storm surges throwing up sand that blocked river mouths.
But when it comes to the Murray’s mouth, rather than the local Lake Alexandrina council paying for some dredging, the federal Water Minister promises thousands of gigalitres of freshwater from upstream to scour the mouth!
Mr Burke repeatedly justifies the new Basin Plan with the explanation that by taking 2,750 gigalitres of water from food producers and sending it down to the Lower Lakes the Murray’s Mouth will be kept open 90 percent of the time [3].
We surely are a rich country if we can afford to spend between $3.4 and $5.5 billion in freshwater, water that could otherwise be used to grow food, to keep this narrow and shallow channel open to the Southern Ocean.
But the story as repeated by Mr Burke is actually even more bizarre because the sea dykes that the Minister never mentions, block the flow of freshwater to the mouth.
The sea dykes have also limited the potential for scouring of the Murray’s Mouth by the tides of the Southern Ocean.
Indeed back in 1856, South Australia’s Surveyor General George Woodroffe Goyder recognised the potential of the Mundoo channel to scour the Murray’s Mouth. He suggested the natural process of deepening and widening the Murray’s sea mouth be enhanced by cutting through the rock bar across this channel thus further concentrating tidal water inflow and river water outflow. The rock bar is of calcareous sandstone and a relic of sea level rise about 125,000 years ago. Instead over the last 156 years government policy has worked to stop the tide and block the channel.
***
[1] Watershed moment for our mighty River Murray as Murray Darling Basin plan becomes fixed. March 19, 2013. By David Jean and Tim Dornin http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/watershed-moment-for-our-mighty-river-murray-as-murray-darling-basin-plan-becomes-fixed/story-e6frea83-1226600145482
[2] There are five sea dykes, known locally as barrages, and their impact on the lower Murray is explained at the Lakes Need Water website http://www.lakesneedwater.org/the-case-for-an-estuary
[3] Draft Murray Plan: Tony Burke, Radio National, Breakfast, April 12, 2012 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/draft-murray-plan-tony-burke/3945288
For a more detailed overview of the situation read ‘Save the Murray: Restore the Estuary’ available for download here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Murray-Estuary_Sydney-Institute-Paper-2.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Two million tons of salt per year accumulating in Lake Alex and Albert and they don’t open the barrages?
Seems like a fake solution to me.
If you look at salinity levels throughout the system, they are currently low. Probably artificially low. Certainly artificially low in Lake Alexandrina.
Also there has been a salt mine on the shores of Lake Alexandrina since the late 1800s, producing salt from groundwater… http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/93803/mj50_salt_production.pdf
I helped a mate desalinate his vineyard in Mildura 30 years ago and it was a big problem in the whole area.
Lowering the water table was all it needed. Opening the barrages might help.
If the barrages were opened the lakes would become on average more salty, particularly during Autumn. It was once part of the estuary. Remember that map..
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/03/minister-caica-ignorant-of-history-of-lake-alexandrina/
Agreed Jen, but wouldn’t the catchment generally be less salty [I bet that naturally-studded-with-cypress area helped lower the WT] and the acid sulphate soil problems in drought time would be less.
The locals naturally want to keep their fresh water lake but it is really going to cost the rest of the MDB and the taxpayer to maintain this unnatural system.
SD
“but it is really going to cost the rest of the MDB and the taxpayer to maintain this unnatural system.”
And since when was that a consideration in the greater scheme of things?
Hey Spangled
Its a huge catchment… about 14 percent of Australia, more than one million square kilometres.
Removing the barrages would have an affect at the most to lock 1 and only then during prolonged drought. Lock 1 is nearly 300 kms upstream.
The Murray is about 2,500 kms long.
Salinity was a real issue in the Central Murray Valley until drainage programs were put in place that as you suggest, lowered the water table. Lowering the water table and then managing it at the lower levels solved the problem. I detailed this in a monograph published in 2003…
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/449/myth-and-the-murray-measuring-the-real-state-of-the-environment
At the time everyone said, but once the drought breaks, salinity levels will come back up again. But they are still going down, including in the main channel of the river.
Jennifer thanks for this post and you’re right salinity isn’t the problem it was decades ago.
BTW Ian McNamara on ABC “OZ All Over” suggested playing this song by Trace Adkins to celibrate earth hour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72AVXpeo_ZI
He loves this song and played it just before the 7.45am news this morning. Just thinking of Luke and his mates burning all those candles etc to save the planet.
Good on you MACCA.
There is a very big elephant in the room, it is the squillion dollar tourist industry upstream.
Echuca area has strict rules regarding river use relating to bank erosion and tourism. Historically because of this sensitivity and the Barmah Choke water is often run via the Mulwala Canal , Edward and Wakool rivers to supply to SA at peak times.
The water now required to be sent down will destroy major tourist beaches etc all the way down, as
the canal etc cannot take these floods.
Mildura and Renmark cannot escape this either.
WE are talking about continuous , man made flooding.
I have a tenuous hope that after all the Green votes are in at the Federal election all will slide into the “too hard ” basket. – Fingers crossed.
The truly big secret is that – after ‘closing down’ the Darling Anabranch and replacing it with water piped up from Wentworth , to ‘save water – There is now proposed to be ‘ infrastructure’ put into a reopened Anabranch to regulate releases from Menindee Lakes. The whole Menindee system is totally disposable and was not mentioned once in the first MDBP
YEP!
Absurd is an entirely appropriate word choice! Truly absurd.
All I can do is relate this to Swan River – where CY O’Conner blasted the rock bar blocking the Fremantle harbour, now the Swan River always has water – be it sea water or flood water.
As for salinity the bores near the river seem to do a good job of greening the foreshore, so I dont think that is a problem.
Algae, sharks, dolphins, birdlife and boats seem to the problems now. The upstream wineries do OK in the swan valley.
Getting rid of the rockbar is a no-brainer.
Peter R. Smith OAM – MANNUM – I see we are back to the same old same old bash SA and our Lake Alexandrina and Albert and the economic future of the River Murray and Lakes downstream of Lock 1 at Blanchetown.
Jenifer yes we all know there is no extra water it is a figment of the MDA’s imagination!
The Barrages are not a ‘sea dyke’ and the Alexandrina Council could never afford the continual cost of dredging without nearly tripling the council rates!
Your comment, “Indeed back in 1856………” in case you have not noticed a lot has happened since then, the Snowy Mountain Scheme, the controls on Lake Eucumbene and Jidabyne, Dartmouth Dam, Hume Weir, the reconfiguring of the Menindee Lakes, Locks, Weirs, the control of the River Murray creating Lake Mulwala and Mulwala chanel, thousands of kilometres of irrigation channels the controls on Lake Victoria, many other restrictions to flow throughout the Murray Darling Basin and of course the construction of massive farm dams in Queensland devastating flows that once flowed down the Darling. Whilst all of these have been for the better there is still much to be done to ensure equality.
Let us also be well aware that the creation of Lake Mulwala was a trade off for The Barrages as it was seen as to difficult to construct a Lock near Wellington near the entrance to Lake Alexandrina.
I had the following printed in papers in my area and I feel it is relevant to this discussion.
I love the entire Murray Darling Basin including the River Murray
We have greatly appreciated the “I love the River Murray” campaign as the river has been my greatest passion since my first years spent by the River Murray as far back as 1945. I have seen the best and worst of the River from times of extreme drought to, etched in my memory, the 1956 flood.
Over the years it has been heart breaking to see the River change from being a clear (As far down as six or so feet) to a muddy River filled with European Carp and the rubbish people discard without thought.
The Murray Darling Basin begins in North Queensland Rivers as they feed the Darling River which then running into the Murray as it winds its way from the Great Diving Range before emptying into the Southern Ocean after refreshing Lakes Alexandrina and what no longer seems to get a mention LAKE ALBERT.
Lake Albert seems to no longer get mentioned yet the area surrounding the lake is rich with an irrigation history set up to be an irrigation and industry hub with three phase power readily available and many millions of dollars of underground piping, pumps and centre pivots etc.
But there is one major problem Lake Albert is unusable for irrigation with the EC level at between 3,500 and 4,000 and whilst there was a pipeline installed during the drought it is only for stock and domestic (no irrigation water) and the cost of that water is as much as $100,000 dearer than lake water.
Please powers to be please don’t forget Lake Albert it is time for a major regeneration of all infrastructure, time to see the Narrung Narrows properly dredged, the ferry causeways removed, some dredging of the Lake and a connection installed between Lake Albert and the Coorong!
Lake Albert is a major part of the Murray Darling Basin and it needs major support.
spangled drongo – Yes we do open The Barrages when flow is sufficient to move the salinity out of the Basin’s mouth without letting salt water to flow back in!
jennifer – Whilst the salinity levels throughout the system, they are currently low Lake Albert water is un-usable!
spangled drongo – Lowering the water table can only be achieved by lowing the level of the Lakes, no brainrt!
jennifer – Estuarine history for as far back as 7,000 is only between 18-20%!
spangled drongo – Re, “The locals naturally want to keep their fresh water lake but it is really going to cost the rest of the MDB and the taxpayer to maintain this unnatural system” so would you if you lived and worked in the area, “Remembering that the construction of Lake Mulwala was the trade off for THE Barrages!”
Johnathan Wilkes – If the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert were invaded by sea water the Lower River Murray downstream of Lock 1 (Blanchetown) would become contaminated therefore causing billions of dollars of
irreversible damage!
jennifer – Re, “Removing the barrages would have an effect at the most to lock 1 and only then during prolonged drought. Lock 1 is nearly 300 kms upstream” the damage would be irreversible is that area is expendable?
Neville – You are correct the salinity is not as big a problem, as it was decades ago, except after a prolonged drought when the salinity builds up requiring a good flush!
Ian Thomson- Your post is spot on its more than just about downstream of Lock 1 but about Australian’s being educated about the Murray Darling Basin as the importance of the entire Basin!
Debbie – Oh Debbie, please when are you going to think about the entire Basin not just your area, what absurd is people’s mis guided conception of the Lower River Murray aren’t the population of SA entitled!
Rossco – An interesting post but I can assure you the two areas are like comparing chalk and cheese!
Good point Rossco,
Completely shutting down an estuary has not proved successful anywhere else either!
Hi,
Good too see people are still alive and Jennifer is still sprinting. Lock Zero is still in the pipeline here in S.A. and is now being talked about in Queensland. This is what I was trying to get Debbie Buller, David Boyd and John Cox etc. to do through the National Google internet address why Lock Zero was so important just in this section of the River Murray protected and work on downstream from Lock Zero to the Barrages.
A report has just been released in S.A. regards to the damage done during the last drought from downstream of Lock 1 to Welllington. The summary of the above report pages 3 to 5 has a total initial spend of up to $15.8 then ongoing maintenance. The report lists :-
1 East Front Road, Mannum ( up to $2 million )
2 Caloote Southern Residential Area (up to $1 million )
3 Woodlane Reserve ( up to $600,000 )
4 Riverfront Road Murray Bridge ( up to $12 million )
Plus heap of other areas between below Blanchetown’s Lock 1 and the Barrages.
MORE IMPORTANTLY BETWEEN BLANCHETOWN’S LOCK 1 AND DOWNSTREAM LOCK ZERO BELOW TAILEM BEND.
$15.8 MILLION COULD BE A DEPOSIT ON LOCK ZERO and the ongoing maintenance costs ( savings ) can go towards the payments of its construction.
I emailed the Coffey and received this reply.
Thanks for your enquiry Sean,
I am not aware of Coffey being approached about building a new lock. And I do not know if it has been seriously considered by the government. Perhaps you would like to take your suggestion to The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources or your local politician?
Best wishes,
Alan
ALAN MOON
Senior Principal
Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd
As you see at least they replied more than what some Govt. Depts. and Politician did.
Peter you say Lake Alexandrina would not remain saline like the Coorong. Remember 95% of the water flows out through the Goolwa Channel unlike the 5% in the Coorong therefore you could see Lake Alexandrina back to reasonable levels within 3 years. Lake Albert as knowl I believe that should be connected to the Southern Lagoon by a channel.
Hi Sean,
No votes in commonsense mate. You are on a limb
So true Ian!
Good for you Sean. I still think we need a dept of common sense! Especially for the management of natural resources. Now that we’re supposedly in ‘implementation phase’ of this ‘absurd’ plan (it really is the most appropriate word Jen 🙂 ) the usual suspects are now FINALLY (bold) realising that it can’t be practically and sensibly implemented!
Like doh!
Hi All,
A little trivia re :-
“A windy period in the Lower Lakes recently”
Since early this month the strong winds have seemed to be more from the NW to W culminating in the very strong winds last Thursday 21st. March,2013 but also lasting to today as a series of fronts come through.
These NW winds have slopped water through the narrows separating the Northern and Southern Lagoons of the Coorong and in the last few days have raised water levels in the Southern Lagoon by up to 0.3m and decreased salinities at Cattle Island (about halfway down the Southern Lagoon) from 126,000EC to 107,000EC.
And all this with minimal river water flow through the barrages!!!
These winds have also caused salinity at Goolwa (the Bridge) to increase to 5000EC and here to 3000EC.
And in Lake Albert the salinity at Waltowa to drop slightly but more amazingly the pH to drop from 8.8 to 7.1. Where did that acid water come from?
Thought I might try and see if changes in wind direction were a random or more regular event and was also amazed at the attached.
I wonder whether the MDBA modelling takes water driven water into account.
Peter R. Smith OAM
Reur comment yesterday, in part:
Lake Albert may have a rich irrigation history but hasn’t that and the good-time farming businesses been defunct for a long time?
There have been marginal lands throughout Australia that have been excellent for a decade or so but then as part of natural cycles they go sour. The USA is a classic example what with its so-called dust-bowl in the 1930’s. Prior to that big hot drought was what seemed to be a future limitless harvest and farmers worsened the growing ecological disaster by massively investing and increasing cultivation.
I recall that at the height of the recent (not unusual) Oz drought that a barrier was constructed between the two lakes and there was talk of abandoning Lake Albert and/or flooding it with sea-water.
I further understand that improving its current chemistry sufficiently for irrigation and dairy remains a difficulty…. And there are doubts that the recent never-to-happen rains will be sustained…. A la costly imperatives for desalination plants.
If a solution can somehow be found, do you believe that Murray-Darling Basin irrigation productivity and township viability should be sacrificed, for lil-old lake Albert vested interests, and if so, why?
Peter R. Smith OAM
Sorry, in my post a short while ago, I inferred that the Lake Albert area was a relatively small and unimportant aqua-culture area compared with the vast MDB, and queried the cost-effectiveness of your hopes of trying to restore your Lake at the cost of the MDB.
I also mentioned that the recent drought and rainfall variability was not unusual. The BOM rainfall records may not be reliable, particularly in the early days, but the following time-series data may be indicative and worthy of your review.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=5
Furthermore, there is much evidence of more severe drought in the early 1900’s, including photos
Hi Bob,
The farming (dairies) around Lake Albert only stopped because of the drought when there was no water available for irrigation. A pipeline was constructed from Tailem Bend to Meningie and a little beyond but was to supply Ralkan and stock and domestic water nil for irrigation and that water cost as much as $100K more than the Lake Albert water.
The USA example does not stack up against this area. Yes a barrier was constructed (against the populations concerns) and when it was to be removed only about 60% was removed and we never heard about, “abandoning Lake Albert and/or flooding it with sea-water” though some preliminary studies were begun before the rains came. Sea water into Lake Albert was never part of any studies or mentioned and where would of that water been sourced and at what cost?
Re, “I further understand that improving its current chemistry sufficiently for irrigation and dairy remains a difficulty…. And there are doubts that the recent never-to-happen rains will be sustained…. A la costly imperatives for desalination plants” if the Narrung Narrows were dredged to pre drought depths and the ferry causeways were removed we believe the Lake would return to less than 1200EC – useable!
Re, “If a solution can somehow be found, do you believe that Murray-Darling Basin irrigation productivity and township viability should be sacrificed” there would be no sacrifice as there would be NO extra water required, it is not about extra water but proper management and re, “for lil-old lake Albert vested interests, and if so, why?” vested interest, you must be joking what about equality?
We all know about the Federation drought but much has changed since then, ie, the Snowy Mountain Scheme, the controls on Lake Eucumbene and Jidabyne, Dartmouth Dam, Hume Weir, the reconfiguring of the Menindee Lakes, Locks, Weirs, the control of the River Murray creating Lake Mulwala and Mulwala chanel, thousands of kilometres of irrigation channels the controls on Lake Victoria, many other restrictions to flow throughout the Murray Darling Basin and of course the construction of massive farm dams in Queensland devastating flows that once flowed down the Darling. Whilst all of these have been for the better there is still much to be done to ensure equality. Queensland devastating flows that once flowed down the Darling. Whilst all of these have been for the better there is still much to be done to ensure equality.
Let us also be well aware that the creation of Lake Mulwala was a trade off for The Barrages as it was seen as to difficult to construct a Lock near Wellington near the entrance to Lake Alexandrina.
Hi Peter,
The general assumption that those big holding schemes in Qld hold water back from the Darling is mostly wrong . Cubby Station was overlooked for a Govt buy back for that reason.
The water there is now of course owned by a company wholly owned by the Chinese Communist Party. So you won’t see it again anyway. Called “Overseas Investment ‘, it is.
Much of the water in the major Murray storages wouldn’t have rushed down to your lakes either. It would have detoured through most of Northern Vic and Southern NSW.
I always come back to -What is wrong with spending a relatively small amount on giving Lower Murray farmers access to wholsale price guaranteed , piped irrigation water ?
The powers that be thought nothing of piping Murray water to Melbourne from the North .
Peter,
I am astounded!
From your comments above I can probably guarrantee that I care way more about what happens in SA than you care about impacts upstream.
Here are somd facts:
a) SA is guaranteed 1850GL from upstream storages BEFORE people like me are allocated one drop of water. That includes extra for conveyance. That’s why people like me had a NEGATIVE allocation in the depth of the drought.
b) If not for the storage and irrigation systems upstream the Murray River would have RUN DRY on several occaisions between 2000 and 2010 and probably for over 12 months during 2006/07/08.
c) The relevant authorities did everything they possibly could to ensure that all essential water requirements were met all the way to the bottom of the system.
d) Agriculture suffered everywhere in the drought NOT just in SA.
e) The SA govt abused the lower lakes and refused to use the extra option of allowing the acid soils to be covered by sea water, which would have happened naturally under those circumstances (one of those 20% occasions).
Hi Ian,
Whilst you have some valid points the State Government will not agree to supply irrigation water and it is not just about an area around Lake Albert that needs fresh water for living with the same rights as other places and out flora and fauna are also really suffering.
Hi Debbie,
Your first comment is crap I care about Australia, the entire Murray Darling Basin an its future as the food bowl of Australia!
By the way we also had, “me had a NEGATIVE allocation in the depth of the drought” and is not about the “me.”.
Point “b” I realise that but mainly because of bad management.
Point “c” yes I also realise that accept weir pools in SA could have been lowered!
Point “e” that’s bullshit as the studies were undertaken to investigate the invasion of sea water but the risks were too high as sea water allowed to invade would have done so to Lock 1 at Blanchetown.
Hi Ian,
I don’t know if I’ve missed something, but when you said;
”The powers that be thought nothing of piping Murray water to Melbourne from the North”.
Where you referring to the controversial ~billion dollar pipeline from the Goulburn which was shut down shortly after it became functional?
Hi Debbie,
I see that amongst Peter R. Smith OAM’s offensive responses to you, that of some relevance are a couple of newspaper reports in my file concerning item e).
Prof Tim Flannery had this to say at the height of the recent (far from unusual) drought. Extract from: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/heroic-action-sought-for-lakes/story-e6frg6p6-1111116892042
Hi Bob Fernley-Jones,
We (South Australians’) are well aware what Professor Flannery and many others said during the decade of serious drought, we felt like the rest of Australia with no way out we saw the acidification of especially Lake Albert and many irrigation narrow water channels but we remained totally opposed to any invasion of sea water!
How many more times do I have to explain invading sea water would have contaminated the Lower River Murray to Lock 1 at Blanchetown and the ramifications would have been catastrophic!
Re, “Point “e” that’s bullshit as the studies were undertaken to investigate the invasion of sea water but the risks were too high as sea water allowed to invade would have done so to Lock 1 at Blanchetown” I take nothing back Debbie’s point “e” was bullshit and we get sick of listening to crap!
Peter – If you’d read the link Bob gave you would have read that a weir was discussed in the proposition of Prof Tim Flannery. That’s the Welllington Weir which is always proposed when returning the lakes back to salt.
Hi John,
Re, “If you’d read the link Bob gave you would have read that a weir was discussed in the proposition of Prof Tim Flannery. That’s the Wellington Weir which is always proposed when returning the lakes back to salt” I have read both articles and heard Professor Flannery on this subject a number of times and spoke to him when he visited Mannum some time ago.
He says, “I think it’s time for quite heroic measures that will be somewhat risky and probably unpopular,” he said. “One of the things that could be done is a barrage built higher up the system and for the Lower Lakes to be flooded by the sea” and the State Government were contemplating a ‘temporary weir’ near Wellington.
Also said was, “Professor Flannery said the saltwater flooding would stop evaporation of 1300 gigalitres a year and the acidification of soil exposed on the dry lakebeds” the real figure is about 900-Gigalitres and Menindee Lakes evaporate 43% more than Lakes Alexander and Lake Albert but all blame is seemingly aimed at SA!
The cost of the ‘temporary weir’ was I believe about $50 Million of which $15 Million was spent, sorry I mean wasted!
The bottom line is if Lake Alexandrina were to be scapegoat the cost of infrastructure would be astronomical and the damage would irreversible. What we are seeking NOT more water but is the restoration of Lake Albert to lower the EC level of over 4,000 to closer to 1,000 and a better management regime!
Hi Bob FJ,
Yes I was referring to the Goulburn pipeline Melbournites are mostly blissfully unaware that the Goulburn runs to the “endangered” Murray.
Yes it was shut down , because it was not needed after all the rain ( and because of the embarrassing ties to the desalination plant ).
Now they are selling the water back to the farmers on an annual basis – until they want it again.
What I was saying is, that when city votes are at risk , they would build a pipeline to the moon.
And Peter, on the basis of some of the stunts pulled over the MDBP , the SA Govt is way overdue for a lesson in manners.
It would be hard for them to look good knocking back a free pipeline built with Federal money. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been splashed around during the whole absurd circus.
Building a pipeline would be small change.
Wildlife seems to like estuaries even more than acid lakes too.
Peter,
Why not one mention of Lock Zero. I thought you were the spokesperson for LOCK ZERO. Now they are going to spend another $15.8 million repairing the River banks in four different places between downstream of Lock 1 to Murray Brodge re “The Coffey Report. Other areas from lock 1 to Wellington haen’t been costed yet. THIS IS THE AREA THAT WILL BE PROTECTED BY LOCK ZERO.
The Lock Zero idea hasn’t run away yet .
Professor Flannery “The Australian” 12th.July, 2008.
“Heroic actio” sought for lakes”
Like some politicians never replied to emails I sent asking him to confirm this action or was it suggested by the powers to go quiet on the idea.
Mike Geddes “A Freshwater-Driven for the Lower Lakes,MurrayMouth & Coorong” public meeting, 22nd.April,2010 in the Goolwa when following up with him on this idea was very hard to contact,finally gave up as I did with Tim Flannery.
Hi Debbie,
I’m a little embarrassed that I dropped an end tag; / ; in my html format coding in my earlier comment. Here the comment is reformatted below the line, making it easier to understand, and for the second article from the SMH, I’ve also expanded the extract and added bold emphasis, partly in the hope that Peter R. Smith OAM might understand what it says this time.
______________________________________________________________
I see that amongst Peter R. Smith OAM’s offensive responses to you, that of some relevance are a couple of newspaper reports in my file concerning item e).
Prof Tim Flannery had this to say at the height of the recent (far from unusual) drought. Extract from: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/heroic-action-sought-for-lakes/story-e6frg6p6-1111116892042
And this extract, before the “never to happen” rains returned: http://news.smh.com.au/national/radical-plan-to-save-sas-lower-lakes-20081114-66sd.html :
But of course, when the rains came, [ie worst-case scenario did not happen] that was all put aside.
Incidentally, it was ironic that I heard today that the Victorian government proposes not to buy de-sal water from the embarrassing Wonthaggi plant (committed by the previous labour government) until 2016, although the public will variously pay significantly for certain contractual aspects
Peter, the Menindee Lakes are naturally occurring lakes as part of the Darling river and are part of it’s flood plain, to compare it to lake Alexandrina is ridiculous.
Peter R. Smith OAM,
I wish you would not use “the royal wee” when making your assertions! For instance, taking just one of yours; this sticks out like dog’s balls, and I ask some questions:
1) Your we membership is?
2) How has we modelled the data, and with what statistical inferences etcetera?
3) If the Narrung Narrows and whatnot were to be restored to what is claimed to be the true earlier conditions, how are those earlier conditions to be established?
4) As an engineering principle, potential return to a more satisfactory chemistry for farming irrigation whatever, would require simple mixing dilution via addition of fresher water and probably circulation between the dead-end lake Albert and lake Alexandrina through the narrows. This needs to be elaborated in your team modelling.
5) Further-on in your comment you claim; ”…there would be NO extra water required, it is not about extra water but proper management…” Are you claiming this fix even if recent rainfall patterns are not maintained, and if so, how/why?
6) If it were as straight-forward as we claim it would seem to be well worth pursuing, but presumably there are other authoritative analysts and policymakers, let’s call them they, that are not convinced. That is despite that what you dream of would be relatively trivial in cost. Are you able to explain why your allegedly cost-effective arguments have failed?
7) Does we have a technical submission to, and a response from, the MDBA or any other significant authority of relevance?
Hi John,
Re, “The Menindee Lakes are naturally occurring lakes as part of the Darling River and are part of its flood plain, to compare it to lake Alexandrina is ridiculous” but are engineered to hold back water flowing from Queensland into the Darling River on the way to the River Murray. Engineered similarly to the work done to create Lake Mulwala and The Barrages to hold back the sea water. All three engineered to create a fresh water reserve!
Hi Bob,
Re, “…if the Narrung Narrows were dredged to pre-drought depths (sic) and the ferry causeways were removed we believe the Lake would return to less than 1200EC – useable!” I don’t know anyone from my area or who lives and works in the Lake Albert area or who understands the Narrung Narrows who doesn’t agree with the statement or the 5-Point plan put forward (which includes dredging the narrows).
So in answer to your point 1) Your we membership is? How long is a piece of string?
Point 2) The modelling has been done many times by many academics, Government departments over and over again and another study is underway!
Point 3) If the Narrung Narrows and whatnot were to be restored to what is claimed to be the true earlier conditions, how are those earlier conditions to be established? If you know the area you would know the interchange of water between Lake Albert is nearly zero because of the condition of the narrows!
Point 4) During previous times when EC level rose some shandying did occur and as I have said the modelling has been done.
Point 5) How many times must I re-iterate it is not about extra water just our available water and when available our share of un-regulated flow!
Point 6) These ideas have been put to our own State Government, the Federal Government and the MDBA and many agree but it is always funding that stops any action!
Point 7) If you care to read all the submissions put in you will find there are many from my area or from persons who live and work in the Lake Albert area or who understand the Narrung Narrows who doesn’t agree with the statement or the 5-Point plan put forward (which includes dredging the narrows).
You are kidding Peter – the Menindee Lakes and Lake Mulwala are naturally fresh water – Lake Alexandrina isn’t, therefore you can’t compare the two.
Hi John,
You didn’t read what I wrote, “Re, “The Menindee Lakes are naturally occurring lakes as part of the Darling River and are part of its flood plain, to compare it to lake Alexandrina is ridiculous” but are engineered to hold back water flowing from Queensland into the Darling River on the way to the River Murray. Engineered similarly to the work done to create Lake Mulwala and The Barrages to hold back the sea water. All three engineered to create a fresh water reserve!”
Yes naturally fresh but engineered to be water reserves. Lake Alexandrina’s fresh water history is approximately 80% of the last 7,000-years and The Barrages were constructed to maintain a fresh water reserve to supply the Lower River Murray area and pipelines to supply Adelaide and surrounds, Whyalla and the West coast, the South East, towns along the Lower River Murray, irrigation and industries many miles from fresh water supplies as do Menindee Lakes and Mulwala.
Also as previously pointed out The Barrages were a trade for Lake Mulwala!!
Hi Peter,
80% of the last 10,000 years ? You’ve been listening to the CAICA report .
For the last 20 years or so the Menindee infrastructure was mainly used to keep water OUT of the Greater Darling Anabranch and reserve an emergency supply for Adelaide.
Hi Ian,
The 80% figure is from the MDBA and re SA’s water our entitlement is stored in Hume Dam as an agreement signed I believe 2011.
Ian
“reserve an emergency supply for Adelaide.
peter
“SA’s water our entitlement
emergency supply normal entitlement
like politicians, ignore ignore and it will go away, no it wont!
Hi Ian,
I must be thick as I can’t see what you point is as there is no emergency supply being held for Adelaide but SA’s entitlement (when water is available in the MDB for all State entitlement supplies) is held in the Hume Weir by agreement.
Hi All,
A matter that my little friend Coorong Mullet and I have dicussed re Sea Water into the Lower Lakes with LOCK ZERO IN PLACE.
Sea Water into the Lower Lakes
Try to work out how much flow is required to keep the Lakes reasonably fresh during drought periods. This is based on flow/evap values only and does not take into account the hydrodynamics of keeping the Mouth open and how much water that would need. Figures have rounded up or down various values to make calcs quicker, but the resulting table does give an idea of what is needed.
1. Up to 20,000 hectares of acid sulfate soils were exposed in the Lower Lakes � this is the same acid that’s in car batteries.
Answer :
The acid sulphate soils of the Lower Lakes could have been avoided by the barrage gates being opened and allowing sea water in and would have prevented the Lakes levels dropping below sea level, – 1.00 M AHD. The gates during a drought and those intermediate dry years then only allow enough fresh water to be used to prevent hyper-salinity not water level. i.e. operation changed from maintaining levels to maintaining salinity below a set level.
As a starting point the end of drought year 1 actual conditions of the past drought viz lake at sea level with a volume of 1000GL and EC 4000. The table shows the EC of Lake water at the end of Y2, Y3 etc with variuos scenarios. Have also used 1000GL/y evaporation.
1000GL/y seawater 500sea/500fresh 1000 fresh 1500 fresh
End of Year 1 4000 4000 4000 4000
Year 2 54,000 29,250 4500 2750
Year 3 104,000 54,500 5000 2125
Year4 154,000 79,750 5500 1850
Etc
And that analysis did not take into account fresh water from rain or local runoff.
The conclusions are clear irrespective of the flaws in this sort of analysis. If there was absolutely no river flow then the lakes would become hypersaline.
But it only requires 1500GL/y (say 5GL/d) to keep the lakes fresh although this amount may not keep the mouth open.
This sort of figure to keep the lakes fresh seems to explain the fact that lake salinity has been fairly constant over time up to the drought even though extraction rates have been increasing.
And of course during a drought period the 2 million tonnes of salt is ridiculous and is more likely to be less than 100,000 tonnes to zero depending on the flow.
Peter R. Smith OAM,
Re your frequent use of we. I’m very surprised by your responses to the seven points that I raised and I even wonder if you are unaffected by embarrassment for yourself in the eyes of logical thinkers. I repeat my questions in italics and comment on my understanding of your responses in regular font:
1) Your we membership is?
You don’t know, but you think that everyone living in the immediate region has a vested interest in having a constant supply of freshwater, regardless of the natural estuarine history of the region.
2) How has we modelled the data, and with what statistical inferences etcetera?
You don’t know how.
3) If the Narrung Narrows and whatnot were to be restored to what is claimed to be the true earlier conditions, how are those earlier conditions to be established?
You don’t know, and your response seems to be more related to 4)…. And BTW, I doubt that there could be significant natural mixing from circulation through the narrows, see 4).
4) As an engineering principle, potential return to a more satisfactory chemistry for farming irrigation whatever, would require simple mixing dilution via addition of fresher water and probably circulation between the dead-end lake Albert and lake Alexandrina through the narrows. This needs to be elaborated in your team modelling.
I did not ask IF modelling had been done because your assertion giving data would have to be based on modelling. I asked; how was it done etcetera, and you did not answer the question
5) Further-on in your comment you claim; ”…there would be NO extra water required, it is not about extra water but proper management…” Are you claiming this fix even if recent rainfall patterns are not maintained, and if so, how/why?
I don’t understand your response…. It appears to be indirect. Perhaps you could elaborate?
6) If it were as straight-forward as we claim it [further dredging the narrows] would seem to be well worth pursuing, but presumably there are other authoritative analysts and policymakers, let’s call them they, that are not convinced. That is despite that what you dream of would be relatively trivial in cost. Are you able to explain why your allegedly cost-effective arguments have failed?
If your argument was demonstrably cost-effective then there must be some other reason than cost for it not to proceed. Presumably the discourse has been for over a year, and the projected costs are relatively minor compared with say the dredging of the Murray Mouth and the risks of flooding from continuing growth of Bird Island
7) Does we have a technical submission to, and a response from, the MDBA or any other significant authority of relevance?
OK I wondered; what is this five-point plan that you allude to? So, I did a Google search and found the following manuscript from Alexandrina Council to MDBA from just over a year ago. The five-point plan is apparently from the regional irrigator’s association. I think that their 4th proposal: …channel at the southern end of Lake Albert to the Coorong… is rather interesting and might result in increased circulation but possibly adversely(?) (from the Coorong?) Has we or the irrigators had any response from MDBA?
From Alexandrina Council to MDBA:
On page 12 of 31, an extract:
Identify a means of supporting the Meningie Narrung Lakes Irrigators Association’s 5 point recovery plan for Lake Albert (as a matter of urgency):
a. Remove the Causeway
b. Remove the Bund in total
c. Dredge the Narrung Narrows
d. A channel at the southern end of Lake Albert to the Coorong (support for
this is pending the outcomes of an EIS/ feasibility study and Indigenous
cultural approval)
e. Return natural flows to the southern end of the Coorong
Hi Bob,
It is obvious that you did not read and understand my answers, so I will try again!
Point 1) No one who is a member of or was a member of the Lower River Murray Drought Advisory Group, the Murray Darling Association Region 6, Meningie Narrung Lakes Irrigators Association, South Australian Murray Irrigation, Lower Murray Irrigators but you could always visit the area and ask the local population!
Point 2) A number of studies were undertaken by SA Water in reference to allowing sea water to invade out Lakes and the final decision was to maintain the status quo!
Point 3) It is pretty simple remove the causeways and dredge the Narrows to the depth prior to the construction of said Narrows and interchange of water between the Lakes could be restored (No extra water required)!
Point 4) I am not an engineer what I am saying is, “remove the causeways and dredge the Narrows to the depth prior to the construction of said Narrows and interchange of water between the Lakes could be restored (No extra water required)!”
Point 5) You don’t understand because you do not understand how that interchange occurred! I will try to explain it to you or you could visit the area and talk to the Lake Albert irrigators. When the causeway and the Bung were put in place interchange ceased. Prior to that when the Murray River had a good flow water flowed in the Northern entrance of the Narrows and flowed out the Southern entrance
Point 6) It is easy to explain, “Are you able to explain why your allegedly cost-effective arguments have failed?” our Government seems to be like so many others who believe the problems have mainly been eliminated and do not wish to spend any more especially on Lake Albert as they have shown by their removal of some $14M from their contribution to the MDBA coffers for much needed maintenance throughout the Basin.
Dredging the Murray Mouth costs were approximately $2m per annum!
Point 7) As I have said there were many submissions to the MDBA re responses I have not heard of ANY responses!
Re the 5-point plan it was put forward at a meeting held on the 4th November 2011 at the Meningie RSL (a meeting at my request facilitated by Region 6 of the Murray Darling Association at which MDA Region 6 delegates from Alexandrina Council were in attendance).
From the minutes I took: –
1. Remove the causeway – constructed 1960,
2. Completely remove the Bung – constructed during the drought,
3. Dredge the Narrows – to the original depth and remove undergrowth,
4. Investigate the construction of a connection between Lake Albert and the Coorong,
5. Take appropriate action to restore Southern Lagoon – Study has been undertaken to pump out the Southern Lagoon of the Coorong – cost $42M.
Re the, “channel at the southern end of Lake Albert to the Coorong” we are still calling for that investigation. Re,”
Has we or the irrigators had any response from MDBA?” at this stage we have been told it is on the desk awaiting action.
The Councils of MDA Region 6 Mid Murray, Murray Bridge, Alexandrina are all totally supporting the Coorong Council re the 5 points.
I hope this time I have helped but the best way would be a visit.
Peter,
At the height of the recent drought and at the beginning around mid 90s Hume was EMPTY. An emergency supply WAS held in the Menindee Lakes for Adelaide.
Hi Ian,
My apologies I was not referring to, “mid 90s Hume was EMPTY” but during the last prolonged drought when Menindee was way down and there was a mistake made in how much water it held and Broken Hill was in serious trouble with water tankered in.
Peter,
Alexandrina Council is a Fresh Water and Fresh Water only it is not interested in listening to any other alternatives just like the S.A. Govt. Peter Marsh and I had 2 meetings with Peter Croft and both times blunty told us the S.A. Govt’s. policy was Fresh Water and Fresh Water only. The same people approved the Clayton Regulator filled the section between Clayton and the Goolwa Barrage which was – 0.805m AHD up to 0.75m AHD and then gave approval to use the barrage between the long weekend in October, 2009 through to Easter,2010 when the level went back to -0.059m AHD.
Peter in the same period what happened to your neck of the woods, collapsed river banks etc. ect. the only real problem was Oscar W siting on the bottom of the River at the, was able to move it the next day because of a wind change raising the River level slightly.
Lake Alexandrina returned to 0.0m AHD on the 4/08/2010 holding 1138.2 GL (67.15%).
THE S.A.Govt. still maintains the Fresh Water embassy “The Hub” at Milang.
The S.A. Govt. the same person as Minister and now Premier during this time, how much water has he donated back to River Murray from the desalination ZILCH.
That’s OK Bob,
I understood your point.
Peter!
BH was far from the only place that was in serious trouble and had water tankered in.
Your explanation re Menindee is very vague and highly misleading.
I sincerely wish you would listen to Sean and look in your own back yard!
Hi Sean,
Many have tried to convince Alexandrina Council that 1000EC or less at Pomanda Island is what we should aim for.
Hi Debbie,
Whilst I was not aware of every place that needed water tankered in, sorry I read as much as I can.
Re listening to Sean and whilst we speak quite often I will not agree with his view that sea water should have been allowed to invade into Lake Alexandrina!
Peter R. Smith OAM,
I will try and find time later to address your proliferating diversions from the questions I’ve asked, but meanwhile, I’ll present one potentially valuable study to you for your contemplation. That is with the assumption that you can understand what a time-series histogram-graph portrays. I present to you (again) a histogram of rainfall records in the Murray-Darling Basin according to our BOM. I’ve selected what they term as a five-year smoothing as portrayed in the black line, which as an engineer I consider to be the most sensible choice in the context of the periodicity variability. The filtering, if any, is not declared by the BOM, so I assume such to be absent. Alternatively, if it were covertly say Gaussian, then 7-year smoothing might be a reasonable arbitrary choice, and you might play with this as an extension of what I suggest below.
So, please go here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=5
This particular plot gives the annual rainfall according to the BOM in the MDB since 1990. Above on that page are various drop-down menus where you can explore seasonal data and linear trends, and whatnot.
You say that The Causeway was constructed in 1960, which is some 52 years ago! How about you analyse the BOM data since then? Why is it argued to remove the causeway in recent years?
Peter,
So you are prepared along with the Alexandrina Council to do exactly the same as they did in 2008,2009 and 2010. Build the Clayton Regulator again allow Lake Alexandrina Council and the S.A. GOVT. FILL THE GOOLWA CHANNEL back up to 0.75m AHD and have favourable boating conditions through to the Coorong with the use of the Goolwa Barrage Lock again while upstream of Clayton Regulator right through to below Lock 1 falls below -1.034m AHD once again. To me your Lock Zero is more important than trying to convince the Alexandrina Council and the S.A. Govt. trying to keep the Lake at 1,000 EC.
I give you the information again as it has already been proved after the last drought how fast Lake Alexandrina can return to the lower EC level. This can be achieved much quicker with Lock Zero in place as the fresh water only has to replace the area between downstream Lock Zero and the barrages, not all the way back to below Lock 1 at Blanchetown.
The acid sulphate soils of the Lower Lakes could have been avoided by the barrage gates being opened and allowing sea water in and would have prevented the Lakes levels dropping below sea level, – 1.00 M AHD. The gates during a drought and those intermediate dry years then only allow enough fresh water to be used to prevent hyper-salinity not water level. i.e. operation changed from maintaining levels to maintaining salinity below a set level.
As a starting point the end of drought year 1 actual conditions of the past drought viz lake at sea level with a volume of 1000GL and EC 4000. The table shows the EC of Lake water at the end of Y2, Y3 etc with variuos scenarios. Have also used 1000GL/y evaporation.
1000GL/y seawater 500sea/500fresh 1000 fresh 1500 fresh
End of Year 1 4000 4000 4000 4000
Year 2 54,000 29,250 4500 2750
Year 3 104,000 54,500 5000 2125
Year4 154,000 79,750 5500 1850 Etc
And that analysis did not take into account fresh water from rain or local runoff.
The conclusions are clear irrespective of the flaws in this sort of analysis. If there was absolutely no river flow then the lakes would become hypersaline.
But it only requires 1500GL/y (say 5GL/d) to keep the lakes fresh although this amount may not keep the mouth open.
This sort of figure to keep the lakes fresh seems to explain the fact that lake salinity has been fairly constant over time up to the drought even though extraction rates have been increasing.
And of course during a drought period the 2 million tonnes of salt is ridiculous and is more likely to be less than 100,000 tonnes to zero depending on the flow.
In today’s world it’s no longer a problem when not locating sound bedrock for river footings, when today, the use of friction piling has very much become the accepted alternative.
One recent example is the Hindmarsh Island Bridge where friction piling was successfully used to hold this massive structure in place.
The Goolwa barrage also sits on this type of footing whereas the upstream Swanport Bridge above upstream Wood Point is built on red Murray Bridge Granite.
When Lock Zero is built concentration should then be on upgrading the Goolwa Barrage so that it has automatic gates, not the antiquated single sleeper ( one at time ) system that they now have.
Peter as you know 95% of the water that comes downstream flows out through the Goolwa Channel and only 5% flows out the Coorong.
One other thing has been noticed over the last month i.e. the effect the wind has on the Lower Lakes and Coorong.
The other day of strong NW to SW winds and EC rose to 10,000 upstream of Goolwa and Tauwitcherie Barrages (even though there were no gates open at Goolwa) and 16,500 upstream of Boundary Ck Barrage. This is the third week this month that this has happened. It was the 9th or 10th of MarchNo. It was the date when NWesterly winds started to prevail.
As a result the salinities in the lower Coorong and Lake Albert have started to decline. This was not a result of “environmental flows” nor the MDBA plan but just a result of the change of season.
I can’t find my notes on this at the moment but there has been changes ph levels in Lake Albert during this period which may also been caused by the wind.
Hi Bob,
Re, “You say that The Causeway was constructed in 1960, which is some 52 years ago! How about you analyse the BOM data since then? Why is it argued to remove the causeway in recent years?”
Some people have complained about the causeways since there construction but since the constructing of the Narrung Bund the interchange has been virtually non-existing. Also in the last 52-years the extractions have increased hugely!
Hi Sean,
Come on Sean you know full well I was always against the Clayton Regulator and the Narrung Bund! I think other than boating another reason for the Clayton Regulator was the Tour Down Under as it would have looked bad to see a stinking mess shown all over the world.
Re, “To me your Lock Zero is more important than trying to convince the Alexandrina Council and the S.A. Govt. trying to keep the Lake at 1,000 EC” no not the Lake at 1000EC an EC level of 1000 or less at Pomanda Island.
Re, “The acid sulphate soils of the Lower Lakes could have been avoided” by better management and some lowering of Weir pools between Lock 1 and the border.
Sean, you don’t have to convince me I know it is possible to construct Lock Zero in the Lower River Murray and the upgrading of The Barrages is a necessity!
Peter,
Re :-
I think other than boating another reason for the Clayton Regulator was the “Tour Down Under”.
Well Peter it wasn’t the Tour Down Under as that was in January,2009. It just happened to be “The Wooden Boat Festival” 7th., 8th. and 9th. March 2009, Adelaide Cup long weekend. On the 6th. March,2009 water level at the Hindmarsh Island Bridge -1.034m AHD and I took a photo of the Oscar W actually sitting/stuck on the bottom of the River at the wharf, fortunately there was wind change during the day that raised the water slightly and they were able to refloat in time for the opening day on the Saturday. Google Wooden Boat Festival it will tell you that “In 2009, despite low water levels the organising committee presented a full program of events. There were three days of great entainment for the family. The poor conditions resulted in free entry to the Wooden Boat Festival in 2011. It was October,2009 when the Goolwa pool was raised to 0.75m AHD and by March,2010 it had returned to below sea level, -0.057m AHD at the Goolwa bridge. The winter rains brought the Goolwa channel back to 0.767m AHD and Lake Alexandrina 0.0m AHD by the end of August, 2010.
The S.A. Government therefore allowed below Lock 1 to the Clayton Regulator to remain below sea level from before January,2009 ( I didn’t record figures in 2008 ) right through to the 4th. August, 2010. At least this area was lucky enough to get potable water pipelines and some were supplied with a irrigation pipeline as well, but not all. I wonder why ? Was it too costly for the farmers on the eastern side of the Lakes or was it because the irrigation pump station is at Jervois ( the western side ) that made it too difficult to lay the irrigation pipeline accross the river and down alongside the potable pipline to farmers on the eastern side.
Hi Sean,
You are probably correct I am sure the Clayton Regulator or the Narrung Bund was not constructed with the Murray Darling Basin in the Government’s thoughts and most of those who visited the area during that time really probably could not have cared anyway except the boaties!
This State Governments record on the Murray Darling Basin and the Murray Darling Basin is abysmal most of what they have done has only been to secure votes!
They wasted more than $2M on the, “Save the Murray” campaign and are now not paying their $ millions contribution to the MDB for asset maintenance! They keep telling us they are broke but not broke to spend billions where the votes are which is not along the River Murray!
Peter R. Smith OAM,
I asked you a question about the relatively recent claim by you and your pals in the regional irrigator’s associations as to why The Causeway should be removed after 52 years, given the BOM rainfall record which I asked you to study. You responded with no mention of such study only with the following comment:
My question was solely about The Causeway, (whilst irrelevantly, I agree the additional bund-barrier need not be there in times of good catchment flows). You make a claim that [upstream irrigation] extractions, (where reportedly about ¾ of the nation’s food is produced), have increased hugely since 1961! Do you have any data to support your claim of: hugely?
You might like to consider that in the past, camels have been able to walk across the Murray when it was unregulated by upstream dams and whatnot. Nowadays Murray “water activities” are popular, and I’ve even read somewhere that water tomfoolery deaths have exceeded deaths on the local roads. Houseboats are prolific too, where camels would now have difficulty to tread.
You failed to mention that there have been good increases in water storage and regulating capability since 1961. The most important are way upstream including the addition of the Dartmouth Dam, and modest expansion of the Hume to about six “Sydarbs”. (which latter is deliberately drawn-down low each autumn to regulate flow downstream). Then of course there are the Menindee Lakes as discussed by Ian on page 1, and more.
You also failed to mention other infrastructure and productivity improvements including what comes immediately to my mind, (maybe some more might crystalize in my shower tomorrow morning):
• Reduced seepage and evaporation losses from irrigation channels, (including some closures)
• Improved efficiency irrigation techniques
• Development and selection of more tolerant plant varieties
• Regional cropping changes
• Laser levelling of paddocks. (I knew some very keen farmers near Shepparton in the 1970’s)
• The following graph suggests an increase in CO2 (Carbon dioxide) levels from about 307 PPM to about 390 PPM since 1961. http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/image3b.html Not only does increased CO2 enhance plant growth as a basic carbon-life-form food, but it has also been shown to reduce water transpiration (loss) as a consequence of reduced breathing need through reduced size leaf pores. (stomata)
• Genetic engineering?
• The MDBP?
• Food productivity worldwide has kept abreast of population growth, ignoring regional conflicts, bio fuel production and whatnot.
Hi Bob,
Re, “My question was solely about The Causeway” with the non total removal of the Bung the problems caused by the causeway and the associated vegetation have increased please read the following, “Point 5) You don’t understand because you do not understand how that interchange occurred! I will try to explain it to you or you could visit the area and talk to the Lake Albert irrigators. When the causeway and the Bung were put in place interchange ceased. Prior to that when the Murray River had good flow water flowed in the Northern entrance of the Narrows and flowed out the Southern entrance, that interchange of water from Lake Albert to Lake Alexandrina was continuous with a decent flow regime.
I will try and source the increased use of water figures but if you think extractions have not increased since 1961 and when the cap was introduced you are totally behind the 9-ball.
Yes most people or probably all people who know about the Murray Darling Basin know that camels (even people) used to be able to walk across the River Murray in times of drought (my mother told me how she walked across the River on 1915) of course that was before the Lakes, Dams, Weirs, Locks and The Barrages were constructed. There is no use trying to compare issues in the Basin before and after.
Re, “You failed to mention that there have been good increases in water storage and regulating capability since 1961” I did not say there have been no increases!
I am the first to agree there have been many, “infrastructure and productivity improvements including what comes immediately to my mind.”
• Reduced seepage and evaporation losses from irrigation channels, (including some closures) –There is still massive losses from irrigation channels!
• Improved efficiency irrigation techniques. — But still the use of channels – inefficient!
• Development and selection of more tolerant plant varieties – Agreed!
• Regional cropping changes – Agreed! Laser levelling of paddocks. (I knew some very keen farmers near Shepparton in the 1970’s) – Agreed but all lazer leveling downstream of Lock 1 were ruined during the height of the drought!
• The following graph suggests an increase in CO2 (Carbon dioxide) levels from about 307 PPM to about 390 PPM since 1961. http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/image3b.html Not only does increased CO2 enhance plant growth as a basic carbon-life-form food, but it has also been shown to reduce water transpiration (loss) as a consequence of reduced breathing need through reduced size leaf pores. (stomata)
• Genetic engineering? – Agreed!
• The MDBP? – A long way to go before it is finished!
• Food productivity worldwide has kept abreast of population growth, ignoring regional conflicts, bio fuel production and whatnot.
Of interest. Passed on by a friend , may be more there.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/draft-for-comment-macquarie-marshes.html
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/draft-for-comment-river-murray.html