Another aspect of this issue that is never considered is the management of the Murray River catchments that lay in NSW and Vic.
I know that in 1981 the Green NGO's pressured the Vic Govt to stop fuel reduction burning in forests on public land - lock it up and leave it they said. (Good said the Vic Treasury and reduced the management budget)
Fuel has built up since then resulting in;
* There is now so much fuel in those catchments that any light rainfall does not get to ground level. The dead leaves, twigs, bark and branches get moistened. The next sunny or windy day sees the moisture evaporate.
* Where summer's feral fires have burned really hot, seed regeneration has taken place and the new growth is very thirsty.
Either way, streamflow to the Murray is reduced and down stream suffers.
For more info on this subject, read "The Facts Behind The Fires" on the Forest Fire (Victoria)Inc website.
Note, ten inquiries since the Stretton 1939 Royal Commission Inquiry have recommended fuel reduction burning yet there is still no unqualified support from the current Greens Party.
I have to wonder why the Greens support the very hot bushfires that destroy flora, fauna as well as their habitat. Habita burned to a dust is eroded by wind and rain, often down to bare rocks.

You know you're overtired when you misread that title as:

"Free-flowing ecstasy vital to healthy river"

Good night...

It would be incredibly interesting to see the numbers on this: what would it cost to compensate all of the irrigators on the lower lakes, then open the barrages?

Could this not be better for the Murray mouth than stealing water from further up the supply chain?

Financially what would the cost to the taxpayer be? How would it compare to the $300million+ that we had to pay Johnny to buy out his water rights? I note that the Kahlbetzer family made the BRW Rich List in 2011, with a fortune of $771m - just under HALF of this funded by the average taxpayer (thanks a lot Penny Wong).

A win/win solution? Demand our mis-spent money back, give it to the irrigators on the lower lakes and open the barrages - more water for towns, cities, farmers AND the environment.

This article is just so one-sided and unrealistic. The mind boggles that it can be put up as an argument of substance.
If the Murray mouth and lakes are to be freed up from human interference than so should all the upstream interference in form of local dams, storages and diversions.
That will bring us back to farmers gambling on the seasonal weather behaviour, while the rivers run free!
Goood luck!

Why doesn’t the upcoming Murray Darling Basin Plan consider the overall affect on the River system of the annual loss of 1300 Gl. plus of scarce fresh water to evaporation?
Are the Lower Lakes such a “sacred cow” that they are excluded from full consideration in the Plan?
Evaporation from these shallow Lower Lakes had been estimated at 1300 gigalitres a year, the equivalent of three Sydney Harbours of water.
The evaporation from the Lakes is like a badly leaking tap in your home.
Wouldn't it be sensible to fix the tap, stop the leak and save precious water?
This can be achieved by returning the Lower Lakes to what they were prior to completion of the barrages, a body of estuarine water.