Lower Lakes and Up-river Storages-Letter to The Land

I addressed a further letter to The Land in response to one which suggested an inconsistency between calling for better management of "The Barrages" and maintaining upstream dams.

"Andrew Brown’s (One dam question-Letters,June 13^th) provides an ideal opening to explain precisely the difference between upstream water storages in the Murray Darling Basin and the damming of the estuary of the Murray River by way of The Barrages.

·  Upstream storages are to meet human, animal and irrigation productive requirements. Whereas the Lower Lakes are not. These needs are met from the main stem of the Murray and in this sense there is no reason to attempt to keep the Lower Lakes unnaturally supplied with fresh water at all times.

·  The SA Government obsession with using fresh water at all times means that the Lakes are deprived of their natural marine ecological nature; in droughts have the problem of acid sulphate soils when they dry out; evaporate massive volumes of fresh water from their huge shallow surface area and cause ever greater demands for precious fresh water from upstream. It was estimated that 740 to 1,100Gls of fresh water was lost to evaporation each year during the Millennium Drought in a failed attempt to keep the Lakes covered.

·  A "barrage management/marine return solution" with the judicial use of oxygenated salt water, would allow the Lakes to be maintained at the artificial .75 metres above sea level (mainly for lifestyle boating purposes) and greatly reduce the demand for fresh water.

Anyone wanting to know more of the facts on this matter should visit www.muddiedwaters.com  and  www.mythandthemurray.org"

Unnatural Nonsense

When I read the recent Murray Darling Basin Authorities' "Environmental Watering Priorities" paper and the South Australian Government's celebratory "Implementing the MDB Plan" release, my grey hair stands on end. I have never read such artificial, misleading nonsense.

Who do these water bureaucrats think they are? God? Do they not understand that following the ravages of the Millennium Drought, in the time honoured way Nature has in recent years caused some wonderful big flow events which have seen our rivers, floodplains and wetlands burst back into robust abundance. This "drought and flooding rains" regime is perfectly natural. But to admit this just doesn't fit the guilt riddled dark green ruling philosophy. We just have to blame man for droughts and now assume man can create the floods.

I have long contended that the biggest mistake we make in managing our water storages is that we grossly over state our level of control and grossly under estimate the variability of our river flows and the sheer magnitude of the big flow events. Whilst we have very constructively smoothed out the major rivers available water by building dams and evening out the flow, we need to recognise that man really just "fiddles at the edges" of this massive variability.

A significant man made impact on the MDB is,of course, the Snowy Mountains Scheme. It is interesting to contrast the enthusiastic pro-development philosophy which drove the building of the post world war 2 Snowy Scheme compared with today's anti-development dark green ideology. A reading of the literature of the time reveals how the diversion of water to the sunshine laden, dry western plains was the main purpose of the scheme with hydro electricity generation seen as an important by-product. Since the corporatisation of the Snowy this has been reversed with water storage and diversion for irrigation playing second fiddle to electricity generation. A proper review of the MDB should include a review of this and the Snowy Hydro agreement. It seems that more could be achieved on the water storage and diversion front without negatively impacting electricity generation. It should be noted that Eucumbene Dam is the largest single storage in the MDB. It should also be noted that consideration of the Snowy scheme was expressly excluded from the MDB Plan study and the Lower lakes were only given passing consideration.

The "greenies" and others blamed the natural effects of drought on water extractions and called these impacts "degradation" when in reality they were perfectly natural. The official statistics clearly show that water extractions during the drought were greatly reduced and our system of entitlements governed by water sharing plans and seasonal allocations, were highly effective. There simply was not enough water for anyone.

The most serious negative environental impact of man's actions on the MDB is the disgraceful act of degrading the Lower Lakes by building The Barrages and killing the Lakes marine estuary nature. In particular, the refusal to allow salt water to flood the Lakes during the drought when there was no fresh water available from upstream. This allowed the emergence of acid sulfate soils from a drying surface. 

There is now a plan emanating from knowledgeable residents who live on the Lakes, to return the Lakes back towards their marine nature by dynamically managing The Barrages and allowing the entry of healthy oxygenated salt water when tides and south-westerly winds create the right conditions. But, with the South Australian Government fixated on what they term a "fresh water solution" and Mark Butler, yet another South Australian politician, becoming the new Federal Water Minister, I wont be holding my breath. 

For more information on the ecology and history of the Lower Lakes visit  www.mythandthemurray.org and www.muddiedwaters.com

The Barrages

The issue of The Barrages, assiduously avoided in the preparation of the Murray Darling Basin Plan has again arisen with a well researched column by Jennifer Marohasy in the May 30th edition of The Land newspaper-

I wrote a Letter to the Editor-

"Once again Jennifer Marohasy (Barrage truths kept from leaking out-The Land-30th May, 2013) has hit the nail firmly on its proverbial head. It is about time that the twin myths that 1.The Barrages were built because of flow depletion caused by upstream extractions, and 2. the Lower Lakes were not estuarine but predominantly fresh water, were both cast to the dustbin of fabricated history.

Those genuinely interested in 'a better way' of managing The Barrages and reducing the appalling waste of fresh water from our highly variable flows, and returning the Lower Lakes  to more like their natural marine environment, should view the documentary "Muddied Waters" that can be found on www.muddiedwaters.com"

David Boyd

I regret that I didn't also mention all of the good material that can be found on mythandthemurray.org

Murray Darling Basin and the Lower Lakes

I have long contended that the human mind has great difficulty in dealing with the mass of data which surrounds us. Particularly if you are of a curious nature.The only way we can cope is to make generalisations and, as it were, file them for future use. This carries with it the seeds of its own destruction. First, there is the problem of new knowledge making the generalisations invalid. I think it was Einstein who said "when the facts change, I change my position. What do you do ,Sir." Second, there is the problem of dynamism, in the sense of constant change.

In the Lower Lakes debate it is the largely the second dilemma that comes in to play. Few people seem to get their mind around the massive variability of our rainfall and thus river flows. We see people generalising about whether the Lakes were fresh or salty. The fact is they were both at different times, and often a "bit of both".

Here is a commentary from a man who lives on the shores of Lake Alexandrina

Here is a commentary from a man who lives on the shores of Lake Alexandrina-it is worth reading.

Science and pseudo science – the sleeping giant

Our opinions can diverge after we agree on the facts, because facts are facts are facts. 
 
I am comfortable with an artificially fresh Lower Lake in front of my house at an artificially raised level - for the convenience of it (a preference/value judgment based upon my own selfish agenda) and I would not spend time and mental energy trying to defend this personal preference to anyone. But the barrages are there and with strong river flows that we have right now, they can maintain a fairly fresh artificial system against the tidal pressures which would otherwise push estuarine salinities a long way into the lakes - just as they did for the thousands of years before the barrages were built and before there were any upstream diversions. 
 
And I accept that others who may not live on the shores, or have irrigation licenses, or front lawns to water may prefer the notion of a full time natural estuary with the barrages removed or permanently open - and again I would not spend time and mental energy trying to persuade them instead to agree with my preference - value judgements are just that.

But when anyone, whatever preference they are promoting, makes statements that are false to encourage others to agree with them - my sense of 'fair play' is greatly offended - as a science educator for over 50 years I know the strength of the scientific process to guide our thinking towards outcomes that are meaningful and valid. Science I believe is 'a fair go for thinking'. Observable facts (evidence) and rational thought (logic) give rise to conclusions which make sense.
 So! - there is some serious nonsense being promoted out there at present by people who should know better but who may just themselves be misinformed - and the nonsense suits their purpose so they resist exposure to the evidence which refutes their assertions.
The environmental fundamentalists and their followers (who include South Australian politicians of all persuasions, not least the incumbent Premier and his government, who quote all the environmentalist clichés as they threaten to demolish the very aim of the Water Act and its Basin Plan - to revert back to legal challenges to uphold the old order of the Constitution's State Rights.  For what purpose?-- to go back to where we started which does not make sense - because they are also saying that the old order has put the river and the environment in crisis.
 
What do they really want?
And what are they saying that does not make sense?

• They are saying that the river is in crisis, that salinity is a major issue in this crisis, ("2 million tonnes of salt etc etc "), "rivers die from the mouth up", and that over extraction is the cause of this crisis.

But what does the evidence actually tell us - the hard cold facts - (2+2=4 type facts with not an opinion in sight)?In fact the salinity trends in the lower reaches of the River Murray have shown a continual and significant improvement over the past 30 years since salt interception schemes were introduced - the salinity levels in the Lower Lakes during the recent extreme drought were the result of just that - extreme drought - with upstream extractions for irrigation virtually shut down. Not my opinion but Murray Darling Basin Commission data – so why is this not known, understood and accepted by these impressively credentialed people?

Apart from the drought which needed management considerations unrelated to upstream extraction issues - but which was managed into catastrophic ‘dry down’ - the river is not in the salinity crisis that is claimed and over extraction cannot be blamed for the effects of the drought.
-and

•  They are saying that the Lower Lakes have always been fresh (and by implication should be kept that way).

But again, what does the evidence actually tell us - blatantly biased amateur historic collections aside - the diatom evidence is often quoted - and yet the Professor and internationally renowned leader of that research project, Peter Gell, has publicly disassociated his own conclusions from the data from those being claimed by the 'freshwater only' lobby – and so the diatom data can hardly be deemed to be conclusive - either way.

But to settle the argument once and for all - supporting the little known research of South Australian oceanographer Professor Rainer Radock who observed and measured reversal (through the Murray Mouth) of the strong river flows of 1974 by tidal pressures when meteorological conditions increased tide heights - we now have telemetry monitoring of salinity and water levels accessible to home computers which have demonstrated multiple incursions of saline water from the ocean to a considerable distance into Lake Alexandrina - well north of Point Sturt, despite strong river flows in the order of 30 to 40 GL per day, whenever a high tide 'catches' the barrages with open gates and therefore has connectivity with the Lakes.

There can now be no doubt at all - the numbers tell the story - that without the barrages even in times of strong river flows, the estuarine mix would have extended well into the Lakes - and in times of average or lower river flows , would have extended to where in 1830 Sturt detected a distinct line between freshwater and saltwater (brackish) at Pomanda Point, where the river enters the Lakes.

As recently as July 2002 the Murray Darling Basin Commission's 'Living Murray' major 'discussion paper' booklet stated matter of factly (on Page 18) "The barrages have also changed the ecology of the Lower lakes, reducing the estuarine area of the Murray to 11% of its natural size" (my emphasis), using Jensen A. et al 2000, p19 as its reference. – meaning that 89% of the original estuary was upstream of the barrages.


So clearly, this rewriting of the 'popular' scientific wisdom has occurred within the past 10 years - presumably under the pressures of political influences - science has been 'bent' to fit political/ideological preferences and is therefore no longer science. And yet the scientific 'establishment ' seems to be dancing to the tune of the ideologue and has not engaged - indeed seems most reluctant to engage with the relevant facts - the evidence which so clearly there.
 
I believe that this scientific data - the 'salinity improvement in the river' data which refutes the 'salinity crisis' claims  - and the 'tidal intrusion against  strong river flows’, data which refutes the 'always fresh' claims are the sleeping giant which will, when woken - devour the political, scientific and environmental reputations of many high profile activist/advocates - and the giant is stirring.
 
Let's spread the word and give SCIENCE the boost it needs to overcome the bent pseudo-science which is currently holding sway.
 
Trevor Harden
Clayton Bay, Lower Lakes, SA
1st April 2012

Murray Mouth

I today sent the following letter to The Australian. Probably too long for publication-but I felt better!
The article by Jennifer Marohasy (The Weekend Australian- Sea Will Save the Murray-27th August) is a very accurate, well balanced review of the Lower Lakes issue in the context of the Murray Darling Basin Plan.

The key characteristic of the Australian rainfall pattern is massive variability. So much so that average statistics, with the massive spread around the average, are effectively meaningless. This variability results in fresh water flows at the Murray mouth being highly irregular. The Murray mouth was regarded by explorer Sturt as being the entrance to Lake Alexandrina with Lakes Alexandrina and Albert and the northern end of The Coorong forming the river estuary, with the actual entrance to the Southern Ocean being an ever changing channel, difficult to negotiate at the best of times and sometimes closed altogether. At times the lakes were mostly fresh water, sometimes mostly salt, depending on tides, winds and most of all upstream river flows.

In the 1930's the South Australians constructed "The Barrages" between the lakes and the ocean outlet to convert the Lower Lakes (Alexandrina and Albert) into an all times fresh water storage held above sea level. This was beneficial for navigation, irrigators and more recently for recreation/canal style housing development. This action carried with it a quite unreasonable expectation that there would always be sufficient fresh water flows from upstream to maintain the lakes at their elevated fresh water levels, notwithstanding very high evaporation. When this failed to happen, the failure was always blamed on upstream extractions for irrigation when the major cause was simply lack of run-off.

This situation was dramatically demonstrated in the 2002-2008 period when catchment run-off was at record low levels and there simply was not enough water to maintain the lakes in their elevated fresh water state even though upstream irrigation extractions were effectively prohibited. Fortunately upstream storages were sufficient to meet critical human needs and maintain minimal river flow.

The bottom line is that under dry conditions there is simply not enough water to maintain the lakes in their unnatural elevated fresh water state and better management of the Basin strongly suggests that, at least under these conditions, The Barrages should be opened to allow salt water to enter. A weir (or lock) would need to be built on the Murray above Lake Alexandrina to provide fresh water for river and lake irrigators (piped) and to protect Adelaide's fresh water supply from downstream salt water intrusion.

Waste of Good Water

Letter published in The Australian on Friday 13th August,2010

"In a world worrying about food security, would someone please explain to me why both our main political parties and the Greens want to send fresh water downstream to Australia's most inefficient water storage-the Lower Lakes- where most of it will evaporate, rather than removing The Barrages at the mouth of the Murray River and returning the Lakes to the natural estuary they once were?

David Boyd,St Ives, NSW"

ABC TV Coverage of the Lower Lakes Without a Single Mention of the Scandal of "The Barrages". ABC News,7:30 Report,and now Landline.

I am not into conspiracy theories, but sometimes I wonder! The biggest problem of the Lower Lakes is not upstream extractions (with minimal allocations there have been bugger all in recent years anyway); but the downstream blocking of seawater entering the Lakes as it always did when river flows were low, before The Barrages were built. For further background see lakesneedwater.org

You wont get a S.A. funded scientist to publically criticise them, for fear of their funding drying up!

Water Storages and Efficiency

The South Australian based organisation "LakesNeedWater" have a clearly expressed introduction on their website which bears repeating:

"LAKES NEED WATER AND RIVERS NEED ESTUARIES

Since we started LakesNeedWater over one year ago, our core message has consistently been that the Lower Lakes should have, well, water. This is hardly rocket science after all. Why anyone would believe that holding back seawater and allowing the lakes to dry out is preferable to allowing seawater to mix with freshwater defies logic. Among the great rivers of the world, such as the Nile, the Amazon, the Yangtze, and the Mississippi, the River Murray is alone in being cut off from its mouth. Does anyone honestly believe it is healthy for a river to be separated from the ocean by kilometres of barrages, resulting in the loss of 90% of its historic estuary?

The scaremongers have it all wrong with their single-minded obsession with fresh water in the Lower Lakes. The River Murray needs a healthy estuary, not artificially maintained freshwater lakes. Rivers need estuaries. It really is that simple."

ABC 7:30 Report

Tonight's 7:30 Report provoked the following response from me to the reporter, my friend Paul Lockyer, who has reported so well on all the water out west.

Dear Paul,

Tonight's 7:30 Report made my hair stand on end! The only more inefficient water storage than Menindee Lakes in the MD Basin is the Lower Lakes themselves. Consider this extract from my Blog:-

"The South Australian's claim that the dreadful condition of the Lower Lakes (Alexandrina and Albert) is due to extractions and lack of fresh water from upstream. No mention of the fact that under natural conditions the Lower Lakes were sometimes salty and sometimes fresh depending on fresh water flows, or lack of them, from upstream in Victoria, NSW, and Queensland. No mention of the impact of the building of "The Barrages" at the mouth of the lakes which converted the Lakes to all times fresh with the expectation that there would always be sufficient fresh water flows from upstream.

Under natural conditions with no dams in the Upper Murray catchment and no Snowy diversions, with the minimal run-off of the recent drought years, the Murray would have stopped flowing some three years ago. Salt water would have entered the Lakes and the lower reaches of the river itself as it always did under such dry conditions in the past, prior to the building of the Barrages. So it can be argued that the dire condition of the Lakes is largely a man-made problem.It is only the water stored in the Upper Murray dams, the Snowy diversions and restrictions on irrigation that have enabled the Murray to maintain any flow at all. The solution to the Lower Lakes problem lies downstream, not upstream."

Messrs. Kingsford and Young are well aware of this, but it apparently doesn't suit their agenda! There is an organisation based around Goolwa who are pushing for the opening up of the barrages and I asked their spokesperson why there was so much resistance and received this most insightful reply:-

"Good question David, not sure exactly, why the resistance to restoring the Lower Lakes to an estuarine ecosystem.

My feeling is that it is career suicide for anyone to come out with this option. And it is people with careers who are in charge of fixing this.

SA folk are going to feel as though they have lost the battle over water. When do you say, "Uncle"?

It would not go over well to be labelled the politician who gave up. I don't know of a single politician in SA who has stated they are in favour of the estuarine idea. In fact all the political parties have stated a 'freshwater only' official stance.

Given that the government has such a bias, then any scientist, civil servant or academic is treading on thin ice to say differently. Especially if they want that next contract, job or grant.

The local community advice groups consist of farmers, irrigators, and locals who either have vested interests in freshwater lakes, or don't want to change.

The water levels will most likely be lower than a full freshwater lake. When full the lakes are .7 meters above sea level. Most people have fixed jetties including the local marinas.

It is difficult and uncomfortable to be vocally in favour of the death of a freshwater ecosystem that for most people is the only ecosystem they've known in the region."

There is only a small irrigation industry which draws on the Lower Lakes. There is a sensible proposal to build a weir upstream at a place called Wellington and pipe water to the irrigators from there.

I had a fly over the Darling,  Warrego,  Paroo, the Bulloo Overflow and the Cuttaburra Basin last Sunday week. Full report on my blog-http://davidboydsblog.blogspot.com

Best wishes,

David

Lower Lakes

I sent the following letter to the SMH on Sunday 28th March,2010,
"Your heart warming lead article on beneficial flooding in western NSW, (SMH 27th March) attributes a statement to Professor Richard Kingsford that the Lower Lakes (Alexandrina and Albert) at the mouth of the Murray, are below sea level for the first time in 7,000 years.

If the man made weirs (The Barrages) did not exist, salt water would have entered the lakes as it always did in times when upstream flows were restricted by lack of run-off generating rains. What would be so disastrous about such a natural phenomenon? The presumption that these Lakes, with their massive evaporation levels, should always be kept full of fresh water is extraordinary."

The Lower Lakes

Letter sent to "The Land" today (and published on 18.03.10)
"The letter from SA Opposition River Murray spokesman Adrian Pederick (Lakes Always fresh-04.03.10)is a classic example of the misinformation peddled by S.A. politicians in the water debate. The Lower Lakes most certainly are "man-made evaporation pools" and it is an absolute disgrace that irrigators on the Murray are going to the wall from restricted allocations whilst we continue to send fresh water down and block salt water entering the lakes as it always did under natural conditions when river flows were low. The claimed historic "fresh water status of the lakes" is factually incorrect and is NOT supported by "most scientists who have examined them" -see the website lakesneedwater.org
Salt water has been known to come up as far as Mannum in times past, and that situation was not caused by excessive extractions, but low run-off. Just like in recent years. As for significant extractions in the 1800's -come off it. And don't forget we have had the Snowy diversions feeding the Murray and the Murrumbidgee since then.

Extractions are controlled by allocations. That is why the Government buying licenses will do nothing for our rivers when there are no, or low, allocations and will only constrain production when water is plentiful.

I am sorry to have to say so Mr Pederick, but the facts are that attempting to keep the Lower Lakes fresh at all times is quite unnatural and is "wasteful and selfish"and I think you know it. The problem is that such an admission may not attract many votes in S.A. Is there an election coming up?"