Time to change thinking on the Murray River

Time to change thinking on the Murray River

Later this year the South Australian Government is likely to announce the introduction of a weir at Wellington. This is effectively a dam across Australia’s greatest river before it flows into the Lower Lakes in South Australia. It would allow the Government to pump sea water into the Lower Lakes, a system that has been a fresh water environment for thousands of years – this is a decision that will be irreversible.
The cause of this crisis is undoubtedly poor management of the Murray Darling Basin and the length of the drought reducing inflows into the system to record lows.  The system is a naturally replenishing resource that must be managed to service Australia’s food production but also to keep the resource healthy. The CSIRO has estimated that inflows to the system will be reduced by up to 50% under their modelling.  Given the severity of the shortage, maybe it is time for us to think outside the square.
So what is the answer? Clearly the plan initially announced by Malcolm Turnbull and John Howard in January 2007 is a large part of getting the system under control. However with predictions such as produced by CSIRO for reduced inflows, will this plan be enough? If the CSIRO is right, we may need to have more water to continue to grow our own food and manage our environment properly in the Basin.
I know many of my friends and colleagues will question my sanity for raising this but I think it is time for our country to seriously consider bringing water from where it is to where it isn’t. I am not advocating for a particular plan as there are many, however I think it is high time that an expert commission was formed to consider all the options. Maybe it is a pipedream maybe it is not.
The arguments for both sides of this are passionate and compelling. The for camp argues that there is so much ‘wasted’ water to the north that it is logical to move it to the south.
It is undisputable fact that the Murray Darling Basin needs additional water. The Basin produces 40% of our food. It is our nation’s food bowl. We already face extreme pressure in high quality agricultural areas of growing populations. In my own electorate in the Adelaide Hills, development is increasingly encroaching on the very land that sustains our country. Many farmers of course like it, because they get enormous money for their property and developers are only too willing to find Greenfield sites.
The no camp is equally adamant and passionate about the concept. They are argue from various angles including that this would cost far too much money to be deliverable, it would need far too much power to run, it would increase carbon emissions and it is cheaper and more efficient to introduce desalination plants and capture and recycle systems to augment the water supply of Adelaide. Some environmentalists argue that it would damage the environment from which the water was taken, engineering more problems. Believe it or not, water is not necessarily the same.
I have until now been firmly placed in the no camp but recently I have started to wonder whether it is more dangerous not to ask the question at all. This is maybe due to witnessing the daily suffering of the communities along the Lower Lakes who helplessly demand action. It might be watching the water in the Lakes slowly recede to the point of no return or maybe it is an idea whose time has come. If the predictions from the CSIRO are correct and inflows to the basin are reduced by more than half, we are going to have to look outside the square.
So at the risk of sounding like Kevin Rudd, I am calling for a pipeline commission to seriously look at this. Cost, location, environmental issues and practicality should all be considered. Given the amounts of money spent by the Rudd Government at the moment, surely this infrastructure project is worthy of at least consideration. We hear much about building another ‘snowy mountain scheme’ maybe this will be it. There is little doubt that this would cost not only government but also the end user – significantly. Maybe it is a cost worth paying.
It may be improbable but I defy anyone to visit the lower reaches of our great Murray Darling Basin and those brave Australians who live their and tell them that it is not worth considering.
 




Comments

R Williams
# R Williams
Monday, June 22, 2009 10:51 AM
Ref your article Canvass all options in the Advertiser 22 June.
Water does not have to be piped all the way from North to South.
Pipe it into the headwaters of the Warrego river in QLD,this flows into the Darling river,then into the Murray river and on to us.
This was costed at $6 billion a couple of years ago when $10 billion was available for the Murray/Darling system.
Look up the Bradfield Scheme which originated in the 1930s
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1850878.htm
More information on the Bradfield Scheme and modifications by Mr NIMMO in the 1930s and Mr Cameron McNAMARA in the 1980s can be found in google.
R Williams
# R Williams
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:38 AM
How about this one ?
http://www.johnston-independent.com/bradfield_scheme_a.html
Adrian Watkins
# Adrian Watkins
Friday, July 03, 2009 9:09 PM
If you're going to pipe water into the Murray-Darling Basin from somewhere else then it should only be water that no longer is absorbed into the ground because it's run off from roofs & roads. Any other piped water would be taken from the environment & we already know about the damage done to our environment because of our inclination to destroy it.
Part of the problem lies with the federal system of government. If we got rid of the states or if the federal government declared a water emergency equivalent to war then we would get rid of the stultifying bickering between the states & the federal govt. The federal govt could then exert control & at least something would happen rather than the nothing at present.
Profligate use of water needs to cease. Building a pipeline to transport water to maintain European style gardens would be an enormous waste. We are still very Euro-centric in our approach to the environment. This is Australia, not Europe so no water for water-guzzling European gardens.
Environmental flows need to have priority. When we've put the environment second we've wreaked havoc. Our environment will not sustain the increasing level of development we constantly demand. The state of the Murray-Darling is a clear message that unsustainabillity is now with us. Sadly, we're not yet reading it.
So, much of the problem lies with our values (e.g., high & increasing population, high food consumption, European gardens, water as a right, water-dependent development) which continue to be promulgated wherever we look & listen. Can we change these by choice through education and awareness or will the change in our values be forced upon us?
Susan Myers
Thursday, July 16, 2009 3:32 PM
South Australia should explore all the options of getting more water; pipelines, desalination, stormwater, conservation, sustainable buildings, the lot. I commend you on your vision.

But even if SA should get more freshwater than we know what to do with, I now believe that restoring the Lower Lakes to their original estuarine condition should be SA’s goal.

I own property along the Finniss near Clayton. I share the pain of seeing a dead river. I’ve tried saving a few turtles. I’ve seen neighbours turn against one another over this issue in a rural area where community is so important.

Why would I want to see seawater introduced?

Because after researching the history of the area and seeing firsthand the degradation of the freshwater environment (even when there was water), the right thing to do is to restore the area back to it’s original state.

The barrages have done more harm than good. They separate the Lakes and the Coorong, doing harm to both. There are so many scientific reports over the last 30 years, all warning us about the problems with keeping the Lakes entirely fresh. So many reports, that it prompted me to help create a website just to keep track of all the research.

I am involved (all volunteer effort) with the website www.lakesneedwater.org . In our poll, 80% voted in favour of letting in seawater. Every vote was confirmed with a valid email address, and we had over 70 people who bothered to vote. Our website has seen over 1500 unique visitors and over 10,000 page views since March 2009.

By all means get the farmers their piped water and modernize their irrigation methods. Take care of the communities with mains water. Don’t use the shallow Lakes as a reservoir. It’s just too damaging to the environment.

I believe that with engineering, dredging, pipes and seawater, the Lower Lakes and Coorong can be revitalized into a world class example of how to fix a past environmental mistake.

And regarding that pipeline, and in case you haven’t heard of the The California Aqueduct, it stretches 1151 kilometres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Aqueduct ) and is one example of moving water from a place that has some to one that does not.

Cheers,

Susan Myers

Adrian Watkins
# Adrian Watkins
Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:29 AM
Re Susan Meyers blog 16th July
I'd be very careful about exploring all options for getting more water. There is ample evidence that engineering solutions to environmental problems so often create more problems. The barrages Susan mentions are a good example. However, restoration of the Lower Lakes to their original state (or as close as possible to it because we'll never get back to what it once was) is heading in the most sustainable direction, I believe. Working within the limits of the environment is critical for us to survive. So far, we're not too flash at doing this otherwise we wouldn't be in the environmental mess we're in.
Two other things that bother me about piping water from A to B are
- what happens to B's environment if you take water from it to feed A?
- piping water (or building desalination plants) lulls us into a false sense of security that we can return to our profligate European-style use of water
ken
# ken
Monday, July 20, 2009 5:13 PM
Sorry Jamie, allowing the sea in doesn't mean its not reversible should we build a weir, and with gates. None of us want to see an environment destroyed by acid and therefore we need to deal with this immediately. If the 500 million tonnes of acid soil in the lakes get away because we haven't made the effort to cover and seal the surface with water then, the results would be catastrophic to say the least. We have already seen and continue to see an acid disaster unfolding in the Currency and Finniss systems. We have taken the trouble to study the science and how the lakes were also estuarine. Did you know that in the late 1800's, SA's largest commercial fishery for Mulloway took place from Point Sturt to Point McLeay and a major yelloweye mullet fishery from the Currency and Finniss systems?
Did you realise that all barrages save for the Goolwa barrage sit on calcium carbonate on the St Kilda formation. Imagine when they are hit with sulphuric acid and it could get worse if we let it. Yes, the new Encounter Marine Park and its fishing industries including the cockle fishery will be possibly lost or badly damaged. We must get on with the weir, for the above reasons and also because wind seiche is pushing bad water past the new pipe intakes at Tailem Bend, past Woods Point testing station and near Murray Bridge where some of Adelaide's water is also pumped from. If we hesitate much longer from building the weir and letting the southern ocean in, then we are contributing to the destruction of the lower lakes as we know them. Keep up with the latest on,< lakesneedwater.org>

Post Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website