A problem easily fixed by igniting a few sticks of gelly in the middle of the night!

The barrage is a folly and should be abandoned. With rising sea levels it is inevitable that the Coorong and Lake Alexandrina will revert to a salt water environment. River control should aim to maintain a fresh water river at and above Tailem Bend. To persist in keeping sea water out of Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert will become a little like the efforts of King Canute to stop the incoming tide.

Hi Jennifer,

I know little of the technicalities of estuary conservation however I can spot an activist when I see one.

If you had made much more of the case of the causes of waterway deterioration rather than the symptoms, i.e. Carp, your article might have had much more credibility.

Your last paragraph is no way to conclude a serious article, it is pure petulant activism.

Spin doc

I've written so much on the Lower Lakes and water quality and more... but interesting this article seems to be the first one to catch your attention.

You can read more at the following link, in particular, if you skip down to the link to the very last article 'Plugging the Murray's Mouth' you will get a fully referenced report that was slammed by Media Watch... so much for the ABC caring about 'Saving the Murray'.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/saving-the-murray-darling/

Cheers,

This article makes a lot of sense. To spend $10 Billion to support an $863,000 carp fishery doesn't make sense - though I don't imagine that the barriers were installed with such a fishery in mind, but rather for recreational purposes and possibly fresh water supply for the local human inhabitants.
Why were the barriers installed; and are these reasons still relevant?
Does their function aid in the maintenance of adequate fresh water flow and retention in the mentioned up-river environmentally sensitive wetland areas?
There seems to be just cause to review the efficacy of these barriers, but it doesn't sound as simple as Mulloway versus Carp.

We keep hearing that the water buy-back is to ensure adequate flows to 'the Basin', for environmental and human water-supply (particularly to Adelaide) AND to maintain the 'wetlands'.
Could it be that the answer is to move the 'barriers' upstream? (With removal of the downstream 'basin' barriers of course?)

Are we being sold a lemon-carp with the buy-back?

I have to agree with this article. In a strange way greenies are the new conservatives. Were it not for the Depression era barrages the lower Murray would be salty as Capt Sturt found two centuries ago. While insisting that upstream irrigators go on the dole to maintain water flow SA politicians like to plan large new housing subdivisions. I suggest making those housing estates depend on rainwater tanks and desal not river water.

Logistically it might be easier to construct a weir at Pomanda Pt at the head of lower lakes. Dynamite the barrages and dredge a navigation channel from the weir to the sea. The geologic destiny of the lower lakes is seawater incursion with or without the present 3 mm a year sea level rise. Give back the annual 1000 GL or whatever evaporation to the people who grow proper food upstream. BTW Charlie Carp is good for growing pumpkins but I'm sure there are alternatives.