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]
The Goolwa Sea Dyke
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: https://climatelab.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Murray-Estuary_Sydney-Institute-Paper-2.pdf
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
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.
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 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,
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 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,
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.