• Home
  • /
  • Blog
  • /
  • Answers for Simon Birmingham, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray-Darling Basin
Information Letters News

Answers for Simon Birmingham, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray-Darling Basin

By jennifer
April 19, 2012

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:

http://listentous.org.au/

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

Good Causes

Comments

  1. Are you going senile or something, Jennifer? As I posted above, net evaporation is 784mm in a mean rainfall year. Farmers have no trouble recognising this as 7.84 megalitres/ha which for the 75,350ha area of the lakes amounts to 590,744 megalitres, a very significant drop from your "up to one million ML".

    If I used your 75% multiple to adjust from panevap, instead of my 80%, it would be 1565mm x 0.75 =1174mm which, after deducting the 468mm of MARF is a net 706mm which, over the 75,350ha would amount to 531,971ML.

    In a 1st decile rainfall year (1 in 10 year drought) this total only rises to 685,500ML under the 80% multiple or only 626,723ML under your 75% multiple.

    Now could you kindly stop this blatant obfuscation and explain why you have, as the courts have defined, made a gross misrepresentation of the facts. That is;

    You have made, "such a partial and fragmentary statement of fact that the omission of that which is unsaid renders that which has been said totally untrue".

    And then you can explain why you have allowed the public to believe that this mythical million megalitres of evaporation savings is available every year when the reality is that it would be only marginal in a 1 in 10 year drought and only of significance in an extended 1 in 50 year drought like the last one?

    You may only want a raw evaporation figure but the truth demands a net figure because it is only the net figure that can possibly be saved. And even then, only if the river is not flowing and rainfall drops below winter evaporation.

  2. So would it be correct to say that Ian Mott has calculated evaporation from the Lower Lakes to be in the order of: 1252mm per year.

    Can you now convert this figure to gigalitres for me?

    So I can get some idea of how much water you think is evaporated from the Lower Lakes in total each year in a measurement we are more familiar with? I just want an evaporation figure, not a partial or total water balance figure.

  3. Just to ensure that Jennifer no longer has an excuse for not responding to the more relevant issues, here are the same numbers I mentioned in my post of 27/04/12 3.00pm.

    Total pan evaporation 1565mm, times multiple of 80% equals 1252mm less 468mm of mean annual rainfall = 784mm net, which over 75,250 = 590,744 ML. My submission also provided the same analysis for a 1st decile rainfall year.

  4. Hi Sean,
    Re, “Professor Tim Flannery has a title just like yourself” so, grow up Sean.
    Re, “The only one that did contribute in these years you left off the list FINNISS RIVER” my apologies I didn’t mean to leave out the Finniss.
    Re, “When have I said the Barrages were to be removed” no you have never called for there removal but you do advocate allowing seawater to enter through the Barrages which I will continue to oppose at any cost.
    Whilst I agree with 1, 2, 3, 4 we need the proper investigations before any of the measures other than 2 are undertaken.
    Hi Ian,
    Thanks, “Hi, Peter, welcome to another session of honest toil in the bimbosphere” we mere mortals can but continue to fight the mis representation.

  5. Peter,

    It must be still Easter.
    You are alive, thank god for that.
    I like to take this opportunity to thank you on your recent efforts both in the press ( The Advertiser ) and on T.V. ( via my Computer ) as spokesperson in the manner you put forward the argument for LOCK ZERO.

    Hi Sean,
    Why would anyone take any notice of Flannery?
    Professor Tim Flannery has a title just like yourself. As you can see ( 1,102Gl/a) I did not agree with his figure.
    To all,
    When calculating evaporation from Lakes Alexandrina and Albert after you arrive at a figure you must then deduct rainfall, inflow from Currency Creek, the Bremar River and groundwater inflow.
    How much have they contributed to the Lakes from 2002 through to 2009 ?
    The only one that did contribute in these years you left off the list FINNISS RIVER.

    Ian,
    “who would seriously quote Flannery as an authority on anything has trashed their own credibility”.

    That is why I quoted my figures and not his.

    “Sean is obviously using the surface area when the lakes are at AHD+75cm, which would not apply if the barrages are removed”.

    When have I said the Barrages were to be removed.
    Secondly it is good to see the Lake Albert farmers are now looking to turn it into a transit lake.

    Lock Zero & Automation of Barrages
    1. Lock Zero
    Build Lock Zero below Tailem Bend this creates a new pool of 0.75 M between Lock Zero and D/S Lock 1 and protects Adelaide’s water supplies and the Tailem Bend, Murray Bridge, Mannum and Swan Reach pumping stations. It will eliminate the damage the Lower River Murray suffered during the drought. The Lower Lakes pool can then be lowered to 0.50 M AHD (now 0.75 M AHD) save 694 GL.
    2. Re-Engineering the barrage gates
    The Goolwa Barrage gates to be an automated system and with proper management will be able to control the water levels of Lakes Alexandrina and Albert. The pool level could be increased to 0.75 M AHD open the gates at low tide and flush the Goolwa channel out through the Mouth.
    3. Drought Lake Level a minimum of 0.15 M AHD
    The Lower Lakes during dry periods when the levels reach 0.15 M AHD the gates to be opened and allow sea water in to prevent levels dropping further. Gates during 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. When there is plenty of water, levels could be maintained at present level of 0.75 M AHD if required.
    4. Lake Albert
    Lake Albert to become a transit lake by constructing a channel to the Coorong with an automated gate to allow flushing.

  6. Ian,

    Can you just tell me/us exactly what your figure is for evaporation each year from the Lower Lakes... approximately?

    How much water is evaporated from the Lower Lakes in an average year?

    Jen

  7. Go back to my post above, Jennifer, at 3.00pm on April 27. Your attempts at avoiding the fact that you left out local rainfall in your claims of evaporation savings fool no-one but your little rent-a-crowd. By only using the gross figure x multiple you imply that this is the amount of the saving when 468/1252mm (37%) was never in the race to begin with.

    So lets spell it out again for the plodders, shall we? The first water to evaporate today will be the rain that fell on the lake last night. That will be the case whether the lake has sea water or fresh water so it was entirely false and misleading of you to fail to mention this highly relevant fact. If you made such an omission in a prospectus you would cop a stretch in prison.

    And still no response to the more damning parts of your incredibly shrinking evaporation savings.

    If the river is still flowing then any loss of lake volume through evaporation will be replaced by more fresh water. Tides will simply come in and go back out as they always do.

    If the tides do manage to intermix with fresh water after barrage removal then it is obvious that some of the fresh water will have gone out with the ebb tide to compensate. In which case, why is that not regarded as just as big a waste as evaporation?

    Why did you claim that sea water would be able to replace evaporated fresh water during periods of low flow when the reality is that evaporation is so low, and rainfall is higher which, when combined with local run-off, exceeds evaporation during those low flow months?

    You actually flatter yourself, Jennifer, when you claim that I regard you as an enemy. I have no use for such indulgences. But bull$#it masquerading as science, and ignorance laced with a selective approach to the facts has always been, and should remain, the enemy of all of us.

    Hi, Peter, welcome to another session of honest toil in the bimbosphere.

  8. Ian,

    I wasn't calculating net water balance: if I was I would have included inflows from the Murray River.

    There is a methodology for estimating evaporation from a water body, I applied that methodology.

    You appear to just make it up.

    And I'm still unclear what your figure is for evaporation from the Lower Lakes?

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *