I spilt my tea over a story at ABC News Online last Thursday.
Entitled ‘Murray River flows at record low', without quoting a specific source, it stated:
“The water level in the Murray River is at its lowest since records began more than 100 years ago.”
I rang a couple of friends that live beside the River last Friday and they said it still has lots of water in it.
Yet less than 100 years ago, in 1914, it ran dry.
Indeed the ABC News Online piece goes on to explain that South Australian irrigators are still receiving 80 percent of their water entitlements so there must be a bit of water still in the river.
I contacted the ABC and they replied that it may take up to four weeks for a detailed response.
I contacted the Murray Darling Basin Commission and they explained that despite record low inflow:
"Because of the weirs and the provision of regulated flows downstream of dams, water levels are higher than historical minimums.”
It would appear that the ABC has confused record low inflows with record low water levels – a significant error in the scheme of things.
The story then goes on to quote water expert Peter Cullen and South Australia’s Minister for the Murray, Karlene Maywald, lamenting the catastrophe.
But there is no catastrophe because despite the dry weather, the dams and weirs that everyone loves to hate, have served their purpose so far – they stored water when it did rain, so the river can keep flowing during this extended drought.
Picture taken of the dry Murray River bed at Riversdale on 1st January 1914 – courtesy of Daryl McDonald.
Oh dear, I fear we're about to get friendly. Just in case, I'd better tell ya to get a woody weed up ya.
Captain Matchbox eh? As we suspected. There may be some things in common after all.
Thats alright, Pinxie, I need to balance the demands of my gallery for vanquished enemies and the need to inform. And I must admit to suspecting that you may have a massochistic streak there somewhere. Did you ever hear the Captain Matchbox Woopee Band sing "The Massochism Tango"?
thanks for the (unemotive) response Motty
Pinxie, this "unnatural smoothing of peaks and troughs" is already being addressed by small bunds that enable conventional flood irrigation of the Red Gums. One doesn't need a flood to achieve flood irrigation. And in any event, according to Vic Eddy, the Forest Manager of Glenn Avon Station, there is widespread evidence of regrowth expansion onto previously non-forested land. So the shortage of water cannot be too severe, if it exists at all.
The other issue of 'unnatural' flows during drought is entirely anthropogenic and imaginary. To date there is no science that can even begin to establish a case that a run of good years would produce 'adverse' outcomes. That is all the unseasonal flows do, mimic a 'better' year.
And all the conjecture on this causing some sort of disequilibrium is just that, untested speculation loaded with value judgements.
The easiest way to knock this stuff on the head is to let the wildlife cast their vote. List all the species that benefit by way of longer season and improved survival and larger populations etc and compare with those that are adversely affected. But don't hold your breath for the losers.
Motty you didn't actually address Micheal's point ie about historical seasonal/annual variations in flows, about the 'unnatural' smoothing of peaks & troughs. Have another bash at it (because it is intrresting to read yr posts, just that yr delivery diminishes the substance).
Really Michael. It seems that all the Murray Cod in the irrigation ditches are having some considerable difficulty comprehending your notion of "poison". In fact, there are entire riverine ecosystems that have been duplicated in robust fecundity in all this "poison" of yours.
And given that a full 1.25 million megalitres of the claimed 1.5 million ML needed to "restore" the Murray is merely "height water" then it must be "poison" too. Height water is the volume of water needed to fill up the river itself so that the remaining 0.25 million ML can flood the adjacent Red Gums.
A 1 in 6 delivery ratio seems like a really inefficient way to irrigate a paddock. In fact, an ancient Egyptian Shaduf might be a more cost effective pump. And a whole lot cheaper than wasting $125 million worth of water, and foregoing $600 million worth of produce, to deliver a lousy $25 million worth of water to a regrowth choked forest.
But then these farmers are just as bad as the wildlife. They think green science is bull$hit too.
".............irrigation water is classed as a loss to the riverine ecosystem even when it flows the full length of the river to the irrigator."
Yes thats right Ian M. Not only is the water stolen from the riverine ecosystem, but it is also forced along the river when it should be barely flowing, causing even greater damage to the ecosystem through artificially prolonged moderate flows. This water then becomes the equivalent of poison for the riverine ecosystem. It would be much better if it was taken out and sent down a channel instead.
The people involved in trying to keep the riverine ecosystems alive, do their best to keep this "poison" water out of the ecosystems along the river.
There are so many environmental `records` being broken these days -- record drought, record high temperatures, record high sea levels -- that I can't help but take them with a grain of cynicism.
Although I am waiting for the satirical headline `Record high levels of records broken` to appear ...
So, did they blame the irrigators (downstream) for the "record low inflows" into the dams (upstream)?
Or did they blame these "record low inflows" on the farmers who have been clearing woody weeds and actually improving catchment water yields?
I bet they didn't blame the "record low inflows" on the 3 million hectares of National Park in the high rainfall parts of Vic/NSW that was bunt out in 2003 and is now undergoing vigorous regrowth in response and allowing only minimal runoff?
That 3 million hectares has undergone substantial vegetative change as a result of public sector fire management incompetence that is likely to have reduced water yields by between 1.5 million and 3 million megalitres.
And I bet they didn't give any credit to the SA irrigators for the valuable environmental services that their irrigation water provided as it flowed almost the full length of the river to the delivery point.
Yes folks, in the gonzo green accounting system used by MDBC and all the various "State of the Environment" farces, irrigation water is classed as a loss to the riverine ecosystem even when it flows the full length of the river to the irrigator.
Let one of these clowns sign off on that sort of crap as "a true and fair view" in a set of corporate financials and see how long a stretch they would serve.