I will be in Goolwa, just to the north west of the Murray River’s sea mouth, on Tuesday 8th December to give evidence to the Senate Select Committee on the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
This committee is chaired by David Leyonhjelm, the libertarian senator from NSW, and has a mandate to report on both the positive and negative aspects of the new Basin Plan by 26th February 2016.
The Basin Plan, a requirement under the Water Act 2007, has resulted in the redistribution of vast quantities of fresh water previously used to grow food upstream in places like the Riverina, ostensibly to the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth.
Much of the campaigning for water reform, led by the Australian Conservation Foundation, has specifically and falsely claimed that this water is needed to flush the Murray’s mouth. Never mind that river flow must first make it across a vast shallow lake and through a series of barrages before it can get to the mouth.
If the barrages were removed, the tides of the Southern Ocean could score the Murray’s sea mouth each autumn at no cost to Australian tax payers.
The barrages are massive sea dykes built in the 1930s to prevent inflows from the South Ocean, and are often closed to ensure the Lower Lakes are kept above sea level. The entire Lower Lakes environment is artificial, something resembling a duck pond the size of Port Phillip Bay, where Adelaide’s elite like to go sailing on the weekend.
We really are a rich nation that we can divert water once used to grow food, to this contrived oasis in the driest state on the driest continent. It is of course a lie that this water is for the environment. It has been taken from agriculture, but it is not sustaining a natural system.
My submission to the Senate Committee includes some discussion of the need to restore the estuary, but it is more generally focused on fish. I explain that despite tens of millions of dollars spent on a native fish strategy, many species show no signs of recovery to preEuropean levels. This is because issues of cold water pollution, predation from introduced salmonids, and also restoration of the estuary, have not been addressed.
This submission, on behalf of The Myth and the Murray Group, can be accessed here:
https://climatelab.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/JenniferMarohasy-Think-About-The-Fish.pdf
Daryl.
While you may claim that SA. gets 100% of it's water allocation, THAT is an administrative figure "as a whole" between the govt' and the authority, not the actual "objective" reality to most if not ALL irrigators.
Given that natural logic demonstrates that the higher up the river one goes, the greater percentage one has to the source supply, so then SA. is at the bottom of the ladder and the State Govt' must try its best to guarantee that supply. To claim ad hoc that we get 100% (of a overall percentage) and then to "individulise" your own situation as 15% is disingenuous and misleading.
With only one major source of river supply in SA. , it is surely an imperative to maintain a supply to the state and its citizen body of a healthy percentage of that water ..likewise, it would be reckless to lease the total over to crop irrigation and none for drinking.
As for allocation upstream, one can consult Mr. Google on the priority of the MIS. producers and flood-plain harvesters who control vast amounts of water both going into and being taken out of the system...I did do several searches in this area, and while much is concentrated in annual company reports , govt' (copyrighted) pdf's and specialised (vineyards etc.) agriculture, there is the image and statistics of much chicanery, busted projects and MIS. companies (that look suspiciously like ponzi schemes) and "out-of-pocket" growers and suppliers to these shonkey businesses.
With the obvious wheeling and dealing of such a dog's breakfast of "private-enterprise" management or influence over water buying and selling in your vast area, I'd suggest a revolution to take control of your lively hoods and future!
"...If dry conditions continue, general security water users in the NSW Murray will start the season on July 1 with no allocation.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-18/riverina-new-season-water-allocations-1805/6476808
High security irrigators will begin their season with 80 per cent of their entitlement.
The outlook in the Murrumbidgee is slightly better, with general security irrigators expected to start the new water year with 8 per cent of their entitlement.
It is likely high security irrigators in that valley will start with 95 per cent of their allocation.
It is estimated that average carryover water will be 30 per cent in the Murray and 19 per cent in the Murrumbidgee."
And , Daryl...just WHAT is a "high security irrigator"?
Jaycee
It seems we are in furious agreement on a number of issues. Not suprizing given many of our past experiences appear to be similar.. A major difference is the prevailing BELIEF that South Australians carry that the Murray is OVERALLOCATED.
Could you please explain to we SLOWLURNRS, how this is so, given that Sth Aust has its full 100% ENTITILMENT, yet we in the NSW Murray Valley, are struggling along on 15%! An objective thinker would be asking where the problems with water sharing lie. You will rarely find the optimum solution unless you accurately define the problem.
KEEP IT REAL.
Cheers, SLOWLURNR.
Sean...
An enormous amount of research has been done on the water supplies around Burra, including the lakes...The state govt' already pumps water to the town from a branch of the Swan Reach Stockwell pipeline. the ground water is highly saline and can vary considerably in the many bores in the district.
Burra is an old copper mining area, so the water there can be unsuitable for consumption..as a amatter of fact, the only significant mining operation there has its own desalination plant for its water supply.
I did do a read-up a while ago on the district and the water problems there...the local farmers have a lot to say on the subject, one, if I recal, remarked that the creek on his property used to run at least ten times a year, but now it only runs about once in ten years...(his words).
So make of that what you can, but it doesn't sound like a worth-while option.
Sean Murphy, Thank you for this additional information, it shows a real understanding of the situation and a desire to achieve practical solutions. Jennifer.
Jaycee,
Talking about Cambrai and the River Murray what about The Burra Lakes.
Allocating 1,200 GL a year to evaporate from the Southern Lakes is an absurd waste of fresh water when salt water would be just as effective at keeping the Murray Mouth open. I also think some of the water allocated for evaporation could be stored elsewhere in S.A. to deliver a large scale reliable water supply, something we haven’t had for many years ( an expansion in water storage capacity I mean).
The Burra lakes ( Apoinga lagoon, Porter lagoon ) south of Burra together can hold around 3,000 GL of water in deep bodies of water. Apoinga lagoon has a surface area of around 50 sq.km and an average depth of around 30 metres. This means that it contains 1,500 GL ( about the same volume as the Southern Lakes ). Evaporation from the South Lakes is around 1.3 metres per annum and given their surface area is 860 sq. km gives the 1,300 GL evaporation Tim Flannery mentioned.
By contrast, Apoinga lagoon with its much smaller surface area would result in only 50 x 1.3 = 65 GL year. This is a tiny amount of water lost to evaporation. It also means that if the lake was filled to capacity in a wet year ( like the current year ) it could be held in reserve for about ten years an by itself could supply Adelaide with the 100 GL that it draws from the Murray several times over.
The only obstacle is the need to build a dam and provide pumping from Morgan up to Apoinga Lagoon. Guess what – the Morgan/Whyalla pipeline runs about 5 km to its north! If we can use the abundant wind resources in the area to drive the pumping for near zero running cost, then the water moved the 50 km from the Murray will not be so valuable that it is too expensive to use again. After all, the pumps already in use from the Murray to Adelaide’s catchment reservoirs seem to do the job economically.
Better still, from the Burra Lakes, water can flow in three directions :
1. Easterly back to the River Murray by existing small creek and channels
2. South-Westerly towards Gawler and thence to our northern suburbs
3. North- Westlery into the Broughton River through Crystal Brook and south of Port Pirie.
And so there are multiple useful options for handling the situation when there is too much water in the system.
.A typing error
We concluded at the end of the drought that it was good that we "DID NOT" let the sea in. It would have created a lot problems that would have taken a long time to get over and we would not be in the situation where Lake Albert is less than,5,000 a day because Lake Albert would quite quickly have gone hypersaline and it would have taken a long time to recover.
Salt levels Charts I kept during the drought show 7th. July 2010 Lake 13,960 and 22nd December 7,460
We believe that if the MDBA listens to David Dreverman once again this section of the River will suffer again.
Jaycee
Lock Zero
&
Automation of Goolwa Barrage Gates
1. Lock Zero
Build Lock Zero below Tailem Bend this creates a new pool of 0.75 AHD 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 Murray suffered during the drought of 2008/2009. The Lower Lakes pool can be lowered to 0.50 AHD (now 0.75 AHD) save 694GL.
2. Re- Engineering the barrage gates
The Goolwa Barrage gates to be an automated system and with the 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 0.05 M AHD.
The Lower Lakes during dry periods when the levels reach 0.05 M AHD open the gates and allow the 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 salinity below a set level. When there is plenty of water, levels could be maintained at present level 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.
LMRIA
Submission to the Draft Basin Plan March 2012
I have copy and I was unable to contact a J. Elliott re Lock Zero.
I have noticed up until today there is no submission been made to the Senate Enquir y by LMRIA.
I know one of the Mid Murray Councillor's and have forwarded this info to him.
Jacyee you are incorrect in saying the damage caused from below Blanchetown to the mouth. Clayton Regulator( Cost $26milloin) was built and refilled the Goolwa Channel was filled to 0.75 M AHD. The barrage was allowed to operate from the long weekend in October 2009 through to Easter 2010 with River level going back to -0.024 M AHD in May 2010. The damaged was from u/s Clayton Regulator back up d/s Lock one Blanchetown.
I am following up on my E Mail to you the other day. Early signs on submissions are showing that people continue pushing "Remove the Barrages" this information is incorrect they must stay and work in conjunction with Lock Zero. What concerns us is that Region 6 should have a new Lock and be divided into two sections :-
1. The Lower Murray River Region
Down stream from Lock 1 at Blanchetown to Upstream of Lock Zero below below Tailem Bend. This creates a new pool of 0.75 M AHD between Lock Zero and D/S Lock1 and protects Adelaide's water supplies and the Tailem Bend, Jervois, Murray Bridge, Mannum, and Swan Reach pumping stations. It will eliminate the damage the Lower River Murray suffered during the drought.
The Lower Lakes Region:-
2. Downstream from Lock Zero to the Upstream fo Goolwa Barrages.
The Lower Lakes pool can then be lowered to 0.50 M AHD (now 0.75 M AHD) save 694 GL.
"Extracts from Hansard notes from the recent Senate Estimates Commitee January, 2012 which talks about the Lower Lakes" From
David Dreverman Ex. Director MDBA evidence. I actually operate the river Murray. But quite quickly from when you have got a river flow to when you have got no freshwater flow, that Lower Lake turned hypersaline.We actually looked at that when we did modelling during the drought, because we considered during drought letting the sea into the Lower Lakes and concluded that water body would become hypersaline very, very quickly. We concluded at the end of the drought that it was good that we had let the sea in. It would have created a lot problems that would have taken a long time to get over and we would not be in the situation where Lake Albert is less than,5,000 a day because Lake Albert would quite quickly have gone hypersaline and it would have taken a long time to recover.
Salt levels Charts I kept during the drought show 7th. July 2010 Lake 13,960 and 22nd December 7,460
We believe that if the MDBA listens to David Dreverman once again this section of the River will suffer again.