LATE last year several of my friends sent off postcards as part of the Australian Environment Foundation’s Rivers Need Estuaries Campaign. You can still send a postcard and sign the petition here:
There is a choice of message, for example:
Dear Senator,
Maintaining artificial freshwater lakes using 7.6 kilometres of concrete barrages has:
1. Destroyed the Coorong-Murray River estuary;
2. Diverted water from upstream environments and communities to keep these artificial lakes supplied;
3. Not improved the water security of Adelaide.
I ask you to support moves to:
1. Remove the barrages from the Lower Lakes to restore the Coorong-Murray River estuary; and
2. Relocate Adelaide's water take-off to a proposed lock downstream from Tailem Bend.
Signed K. Smith
******
Just today there has been a flurry of responses from Simon Birmingham Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray-Darling Basin to postcards sent last December. The Senator is mostly replying with a form letter as follows:
Dear Ms Smith
Thank you for your email regarding the Lower Lakes.
Firstly, in regards to basin reform, I encourage the Gillard Government to return to the reform process put in place by the previous Coalition Government. Labor has spent only a fraction of the $5.8 billion set aside by the Coalition to invest in efficiency upgrades. A sustainable solution to the Basin requires the Government to get serious about investing in the efficiency of the Basin.
Australians deserve a plan that gets the balance between the environment, communities and jobs right. Before the election Prime Minister Gillard promised to implement whatever the MDBA presented. I hope Minister Burke will take a more pragmatic position and ensures that we get a good plan based on robust evidence – not just any plan.
The Coalition is listening to people across the Basin and is working hard to ensure a sensible outcome is found. An outcome which restores the health of the environment, provides a strong future for regional communities and sustains Australia's record as a food producing country.
In regards to the Barrages however, I must strongly disagree. There exist very real and very serious environmental consequences if the river does not, with at least some regularity, flush through the Lower Lakes and expel chemical, salinity and sediment build ups (much of which are the result of agricultural run-off) to the sea.
Many people that advocate removing the barrages separating the Lower Lakes and Coorong, which would essentially turn the lakes into a permanent saline state, do not extend the argument about natural state upstream. When Charles Sturt sailed down the river in 1832 there were no locks or weirs and minimal diversion for irrigation.
There were, no doubt, during periods of drought, occasions when the Lakes and Lower Murray did have sea water incursions, however, when drought passed, the volume of water which regularly flowed through the system and into the Lakes pushed salt water back through the mouth. Man’s management of the system and use of water nowadays prevents such regular flushing as nature would have done.
Turning the lakes into a saline ecosystem ignores that they have been largely freshwater, even before the barrages were built, and are of great ecological importance. I encourage you to download the 75 page document entitled ‘A Freshwater history of the Lakes’ available at http://www.gwlap.org.au/docs/A%20Fresh%20History%20of%20the%20Lakes%202004.pdf
If the barrages were removed and lakes were flooded with seawater without significant additional fresh water flows, it is highly likely that they would turn into a dead sea and, during periods where there is little water to flush the salt and sediment through the mouth, the ecosystem may collapse, with salinity and problems spreading up into the main channel.
The recent drought has shone a spotlight on a problem that should have become evident with the closure of the Murray Mouth back in the early 1980’s. Fixing this will require trade-offs – there is no going back to the natural state of the river, but equally maintaining healthy communities along the river requires us to keep it healthy from the mouth up.
It is our responsibility to ensure that we get the balance between the demands of social, economic and environmental needs right. I will certainly be judging the MDBA Basin Plan against all of these criteria.
Once again, thank you for bringing your concerns about the Murray-Darling Basin reform process to my attention.
Yours sincerely
Simon Birmingham
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray-Darling Basin
******
Several of my friends have emailed me pleased to receive this response and asked how they might best “engage” the Senator in discussion. Others have indicated to me they are angry that the Senator dared quote ‘A Freshwater history of the Lakes’ by Sim and Muller to them.
I am providing the following information for those wanting to reply to the Senator. And I encourage detailed replies. In fact consider emailing the Senator on this issue even if you haven’t received an email from him – or sent him a postcard. His address is senator.birmingham@aph.gov.au. You might consider copying your reply to your local federal member and also Tony Burke, the federal water minister. His address Tony.Burke.MP@environment.gov.au
Suggested information that could be included in a reply:
Dear Senator
The Lakes Don’t Have a Freshwater History
I am surprised that the best information you can provide in support of keeping the 7.6 kilometres of barrage across the bottom of the Murray River is the report by Sim and Muller ‘A Freshwater history of the lakes’.
This report is essentially a compilation of historical anecdote from early European visitors and settlers suggesting that the lakes contained fresh water. This is not disputed, but the same lakes were often full of brackish water and occasionally seawater. In estuaries water quality is always changing: with the tides, with the seasons and with the climate in the upper catchment. To say that the lakes were predominately fresh and therefore must be always kept fresh is to suggest a steady state when none existed.
Charles Sturt Found Salty Water
You quote Charles Sturt sailing down the river in 1832, it was in fact February 1830, and that this was before locks, weirs and diversions for irrigation. Exactly! And what did Captain Sturt report? He wrote that Lake Alexandrina changed from initially fresh to suddenly salty as he sailed across it and that the Mouth was closed over with sand bars and shoals. Indeed before irrigation the lake was not always fresh and before irrigation the Murray’s Mouth often closed-over. So we should not be concerned by these events and there is no reason to blame them on upstream irrigation.
Without the Barrages the Lake Would Not Become a Salt Marsh or Dead Sea
Like many South Australians you appear concerned that without the barrages, and given current upstream diversions for irrigation that the lake could turn into a salt marsh or at least a dead sea.
There are many very salty lakes in South Australia. But unlike most lakes in South Australia that are dependent on local rainfall, in contrast the Murray is feed from the Snowy Mountains in NSW and Victoria. This provides a regular flush of freshwater each spring.
Lake Alexandrina, even with upstream diversions, still has what is called a "positive hydrodynamics" meaning freshwater inflows are greater than evaporation. In fact freshwater flows into the Lower Lakes are still very significant. So there is no risk that the lakes will become a dead sea.
The Tides of the Southern Ocean Could Flush Out Chemicals and Sediment Build-up
Senator, why would you want to use precious freshwater to flush the lakes and expel chemical, salinity and sediment build-ups when the tides of the Southern Ocean could do the same job with seawater? Back in 1856 South Australian Surveyor General George Woodroffe Goyder suggested that the natural rock bar across the Mundoo channel be removed to improve tidal inflows and outflows along the Mundoo channel and thus improve natural scouring of the Murray’s Mouth.
Why not remove the barrages and let the tides of the Southern Ocean flush the Lower Lakes of chemicals and sediment build-up. This is the natural solution and the solution for every other major river system in Australia.
Yours sincerely
K. Smith
I think Ian Mott is a tosser.
More sleaze and shimmy from Jennifer. Readers can see for themselves that I referred to both in the same sentence. They will also observe that you are using this as a device to avoid answering all the more relevant questions, like why you apparently think the public have no right to ALL relevant information, not just the factoids you choose to give them from the drop down menu.
And if Tony Price did not have a serious retention deficit he would have recalled that I directed readers on how to go to any point on the calendar and arrow through a full monthly sequence of tide graphs or more. And I gave specific direction to observe both April 2012 and October 2011 to get a better picture of the annual variation. But this doofus accuses me of cherrypicking.
And gee wiz, he went all the way to Portland Vic for what he apparently believes was broader confirmation. Try checking out the patterns for Gippsland, Eden, Pt Kembla and Yamba on the East Coast, where a peak tide is 2.5 metres, there are two each day, and they are much more symetrical, and you might start to figure out why I might regard a 30cm tide as not being a real tide at all.
Note that the further from the mouth we go the more the tide signal is degraded. So a 30cm tide out on the ocean will only be 20cm inside the mouth and only 10cm at the barrage. And the narrower and shallower the mouth becomes the more degraded the signal becomes.
Readers will by now be starting to recognise Price using the same MO as Jennifer. Launch into a protracted contest over syntax while ignoring the key elements at issue.
Are the tides generally asymetrical or not?
Does that asymetry involve a shorter period of rapid inflow followed by a longer period of outflow?
And does this differential speed of flow produce greater inflow of sand than the outflow is capable of removing unless outflows are augmented by large volumes of fresh water?
And in the absence of the pre-barrages 12 million megalitres of irrigation water, how can the removal of barrages facilitate a properly functioning tidal regime if the mouth has already closed?
And by the way, hot shot, were there any storm surges in the April data? You do recall, I hope, that I said "aside from storm surges there are only 4 or 5.." You do understand, I hope, that tide tables are revised to incorporate prevailing weather? And you do appreciate, I hope, the probability of storm surges in April?
Ian said April 28th, 2012 at 11:14 am:
"If Tony was capable of interpreting a table he would know that the BoM tables also display a similar change in pattern for Victor Harbour."
Ian - there you go again! You just can't raise your discourse above ranting and insult can you? I CAN SHOUT TOO - which rather proves my point.
If you were capable of reading the information on the WillyWeather web page you'd know that the tide data for Goolwa Beach is actually BOM data for Victor Harbor:
The Data
Tide times data has been adjusted for daylight saving where and when applicable. WillyWeather interpolates its tide times for many locations by converting the tide forecasts provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for standard ports, and data from the Australian National Tide Tables. The tide times on the Goolwa Beach tides page have been adjusted by 0 mins for low tide and 0 mins for high tide to the official tide times for Victor Harbor. Tide height data is for Victor Harbor, no adjustment has been made.
http://tides.willyweather.com.au/sa/fleurieu-peninsula/goolwa-beach.html
I can not only read a tide table, I can avoid cherry-picking periods shorter than the lunar cycle to "prove" my argument. You consistently refer to tidal range, though anything above MSL cares not a tinker's cuss what the tidal range is, but peak tides. Though the data on your favourite tide site has a coarse resolution of 0.1m ( BOM says Victor Harbor is consistent with the Murray mouth), it's within +/- 5 cm of the BOM data, so I can use the WillyWeather charts for quick analysis. Over the period 1st April to 28th April, peak tides were as much as 0.6m above MSL, almost double the 0.35m your tidal range suggests.
Your statement
"There is generally only one tide each day, and that is only during the 50% of the lunar cycle when they even take place at all. And, aside from storm surges, they only exhibit a tidal range greater than 70cm on 4 or 5 days each month.”
bears little examination. "When they even take place at all" is saying that there are no tides whatsoever for 14 of the 28 days? You need a reality pill, or to take off your blinkers. There are two distinct tides, though often of disparate heights for 14 of the 28 days 1st-28th April 2012. Minimum daily tidal range is 0.3m, maximum is 1.1m, peak tide is 1.3m. I've estimated MSL as 0.7m which is being generous, and means that peak is at least 0.6m above MSL, and there are 8 other days with identical peaks.
Not that it really matters, as I've said, but there are 11 days this month with tidal range OVER 0.7m, not "4 or 5". I invite anyone to count them. March 1-28th shows 12 days over 0.7m range. Portland VIC exhibits very similar data and tidal characteristics when I compare it with the WillyWeather charts, generally within +/- 5cm on any particular day, and I've posted hourly charts for Portland covering 1-14 Feb, split into two periods to show the tides clearly here:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b2wY9zm6DTw/T50bqsvBePI/AAAAAAAAAxQ/Lxg5ecMJ3hM/s1600/Portland+VIC+Feb+01-14+2012+Hourly.gif
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9oJarv3pfAM/T50bqpQFnsI/AAAAAAAAAxU/UBCC3hnElLs/s1600/Portland+VIC+Feb+15-29+2012+Hourly.gif
Data trumps blinkered bluster anyday.
Ian,
You keep flipping and flopping and changing the figure! Not a good look.
Just before you wrote that evaporation was 1252mm and now you are saying it is 784mm?
Output from the most recent CSIRO model and also three earlier studies of evaporation from the Lower Lakes which used different techniques including pan evaporation indicate evaporation rates from the Lower Lakes are in the order of 1,171 to 1,445 mm per annum. You can find the relevant CSIRO references etcetera here: http://www.mythandthemurray.org/calculating-evaporation-from-the-lower-lakes/
You accuse me of misleading when all I do is use accepted methodology for calculating evaporation from water bodies, to come up with a figure comparable to everything that has been published.