I agree that the lower lakes (Albert, Alexandrina) are doomed and no amount of utopian thinking by frequent flyer greenies will change that. I wonder however if instead of opening the barrages they could be left shut and the lakes blocked off to evaporate into shrinking ponds of sulphurous soup. Lake Albert could be barricaded at the channel near the Pt Malcolm freshwater lighthouse and dredging in Alexandrina could create a levee next to a navigation channel from Clayton down to Goolwa. Something like that might be inevitable with one metre sea level rise, assuming we haven't gone back to cave dwelling by then.

Dare I suggest that Goolwa residents are as much worried about house prices as the health of the river. It was only a few years ago that the Hindmarsh Island bridge gave rise to the 'secret womens business' debacle. It could work out cheaper just to pay everybody to move to the Gold Coast.

South Australians forget that if it wasnt for the upstream hydro scheme and the past needs of and money from upstream users (including irrigators), then the river would already be dry. SA businesses should be held in no higher priority than upstream users who have already gone years without full water allocations or even any allocations.

Environmental flows should be calculated to what the river would receive without human impediment in times of drought. Yes, there would be few humans taking water, but without the dams and storage systems we have built there wouldnt be any flows now anyway. This is why drought is a NATURAL disaster, not a man-made one.

Just thought I'd drop this in?

Futuristic Visions.

As Western man came to circumvent the earth?

First the spice economy, the tea and tobacco economy, then the oil economy

But since the real beginning of the industrial age, pushing the economy ever rapidly along has been the quarry economy, to which is tied pitstock politics forever growing but forever dying as vitally needed industrial resources run out.

Along with global warming, we might say that because the above is prohibited discussion virtually among the more successful industrialists, it is only the Avant-Guarde who dare to create a future picture of what might happen ---

Almost like an extended scene of fighter pilots celebrating during the Battle of Britain, a kind of Let us be Merry, for Tomorrow we may Die

Curious to see the IPA here but good too. What's unusual is that her article hasn't been inundated by the loony greens. It's prime slathering fodder for them. Just the mention of acid sulphate soils is usually enough to set them off.

I wish I could be more optimistic about the Murray River system as far as farming goes. I feel for the locals, especially those on or near the lakes.

My real fear is the political opportunism of the new Independent Senator for SA, Xenophon, who has modelled himself on Brian Harradine. He'll hold a gun to the Senate and Fielding will go along for the ride. SA politics reminds me of Queensland National Party stuff 40 years ago. Very parochial, wowserish and with a chip on its shoulder. Darned if I know why.

Unfortunately in the face of such a strong drought, very little can be done for the farmers and locals. The Government should certainly think about buying back the farms from those who want to get out. Don't let them (the farmers and properties) fall in to the hands of the banks.

Marohasy may actually be correct that removing the barrages is now the only realistic plan of action with respect to the Coorong, but she manages to avoid almost completely considering the cause of this environmental disaster - which is the gross overallocation of upstream water resources for many decades, in combination with the construction of literally thousands of dams, weirs, channels and other diversionary structures over the past century.

I live at one of the northeastern extremities of the Darling catchment, and people here still want to dam the rivers and streams in response to the extended drought - not for drinking water primarily, but for agriculture and horticulture. For example, the local council currently wants a new dam constructed on the Severn River, while yet another winery has applied to construct yet another weir on Accommodation Creek just downstream. While the Queensland government is now belatedly applying some restraint in approving such structures, it is clear that this parochial process extends downstream throughout the Basin, and has done for at least a century of neglect and mismanagement.

Clearly, there are issues concerning compensation for water allocations that need to be cancelled, but whatever we do is going to have to be expensive but necessary if Australia's most important river system is to be resuscitated.

As a postscript, it's interesting to note that Dr Marohasy is strangely silent in this article about her own claims from a couple of years ago that the Murray had been "saved". The fact that such drastic action is now probably necessary in the Coorong would seem to prove that triumphalist assertion was clearly wrong.

Saving the Coorong by restoring its native state, by Jennifer Marohasy, is an excellent and informative posting.

There is however another dimension to saving the Coorong and the Great Barrier Reef that politicians and governments are really obligated to consider as matter of utmost urgency.

The Rudd-Wong government's Caring for our Country information states 5,000 hectares of Adelaide coastal seagrass has already been lost. See: http://www.nrm.gov.au/funding/coastcare-hotspots-sa.html

A maths expert could help here because according to earlier Dept of Environment Seagrass Notes, studies in the Mediterranean indicate 400 square metres of seagrass can support 2,000 tonnes of fish per annum. So what should be the commercial and environment value of 5,000 hectares of Adelaide area alone, lost seagrass?

During the year 2000, 40 square kilometres of seagrass in Moreton Bay Queensland was devastated when smothered by toxic lyngbya algae proliferated by sewage and dredging nutrient pollution. Consequently when mutton birds arrived during migration they were unable to find adequate food, unprecedented (low population) mass starvation of mutton birds then occurring during October 2000, incredibly along coastline extending from Rockhampton Qld to South Australia and around Tasmania. Wildlife experts in 4 states were shocked by severity of the mortality.

It should already be well known that marine animals unable to feed in one are will impact on other areas and other marine life. Predators unable to feed on pilchards and anchovy from the native Coorong ecosystem will impact elsewhere or die. Mass starvation of Victoria's fairy penguins has been occurring. Ocean tuna stocks are not recovering as they should be. It is known animals require adequate food to breed. Mammals including cattle and humans are known to abandon their young due to food shortages. Unprecedented whale calf abandonment has been occurring on the Australian coast.

There must be no doubt Australian seagrass is already devastated generally and that fresh water management must include estuary salt water and therefore total water management. The Coorong must therefore be given life by immediately, albeit temporarily, removing the barrages that are presently killing it. PM Rudd and Min Wong, what might say in reply?

CJ, by referring to overallocation of farm irrigation licences, you paint the picture that farmers are taking out water all of the time, which is blatantly not true. QLD is a slightly different matter as they have had different laws around allocation and pumping rights (plus the attitude that water is only wasted if allowed to get into NSW). NSW has long had allocation caps, although in good years, allocations might be 120+%. In the last several years for much of the state, allocations have been between 0-20%. Allocations are decided based on the water available, with priority to environmental flows. Mind you, the idiots that decide what these flows should be have in the recent past done things like flooded redgum forests, let the water sit and stagnate, then wonder why all the fish are dead.

Irrigation is not responsible for the current flow decline in the Murray, drought is. If it were not for the infrastructure built to support irrigation, the Murray would have reduced to a trickle 2 or 3 years ago.

The barrages at the Coorong must be opened to avoid disaster, and arguably they should be left open. The certainty of flow thanks to irrigation-based infrastructure is the reason why the barrages were able to be constructed in the first place

Can I suggest that people look at the discussion in response to Jennifer Marohasy's article "Stop Complaining About the Lower Murray And Open the Barrages" of 19 June 08 at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003176.html

One contributor Luke disputes Jennifer's view that "Prior to 1940 Lake Alexandrina was a mix of seawater and freshwater, ..."

He quoted from historical documentation: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003176.html#c1675810
http://www.rivermurray.sa.gov.au/pdfs/Lakes%20History.pdf
"Before large-scale extractions of water, the Lakes and
lower Murray were rarely subjected to seawater invasions.
Long time Goolwa resident Edward Leslie Goode told an
enquiry in 1933 ‘I can remember when it was a remarkable
thing when saltwater came up to the Goolwa wharf. Now we
see saltwater in the lakes for months’. Short-lived
intrusions of saltwater would occur during periods of
low flow down river resulting in a lowered level of water
in the lakes. Even in times of these low flows, it would
appear that only small areas of the Lakes (immediately
around the Murray Mouth and into the channels towards
Point Sturt for a short distance) were affected. ..."

So the lakes were mainly fresh in their natural state?

http://www.rivermurray.sa.gov.au/pdfs/Lakes%20History.pdf
"Before 1900: In their natural state, the lakes were predominantly
fresh, with River Murray water discharging from the
mouth and keeping the sea at bay more than ninetyfi
ve per cent of the time. Water from groundwater
springs, extensive wetlands and streams in the
Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges continued to flow
through the lower Murray, lakes and mouth, even
when the upper Murray was reduced to large pools
during drier seasons. The fresh water supported
thriving ecosystems in and around the lakes and
the Ngarrindjeri people maintained permanent
settlements in the region. Early European settlers
relied on the lakes as a supply of good quality water
and on the fringing reedbeds as stock feed."

I suggest others read the preceding and ensuing discussion at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003176.html

dagget, doesn't "95% of the time" indicate not always fresh? and that over the last 5000 years 250 of them did not keep the "sea at bay" if this is true. Obviously opening the barrages will not destroy the Coorong, nor the lakes, just as it didn't in the past.
Incidently since the 30'S the lakes have been predominately "fresh", more than 95% of the time.

One might also realise that irrigation extraction in the 30's(when barrage construction began)was approx 1/3 of todays, yet salt intrusion was a recognised problem then.

Just contemplate where the lakes would be under completely natural conditions - no Hume and Dartmouth, snowy, no lochs, and thanks to natural variability record low inflows. Record lows not by a little, nor recorded over so long a timespan. The lakes would be salty today any way it's looked at, under truly natural conditions.

I find it difficult to accept that the "best" fix is to store water in man-made dams to be released at man's discretion for a man-made problem, caused by building the barrages. Only one side of nature seems to be considered by those that crow the loudest about it.

as an aside, isn't SA the only state that has announced a allocation to irrigators this year, yet SA's are calling for more water? From where exactly?

Jennifer

I am completely gobsmacked that you have the sheer gall to publish at OLO again, after your "Murray river is saved" rant of a couple of years ago. However, I read your latest piece in hope that you had learned something about eco-systems in the past two years, but apparently not.

A very basic fact which will assist your comprehension is that everything is interconnected and, as such, everything we do has consequences.

A further educational aid which would be fun for you and your family is at the following link. Who knows you may even win a prize.

Kindest regards

http://catchmentdetox.net.au/

When Sturt went down the river it may have been a period of low flow. The lakes may have been periodically flushed out by seasonally high river flows. But of course, Dam building on the Murray and tributaries is not a modern phenomenon, such that later observers recorded more frequent periods of sea water intrusion as irrigation infrastructure was built.

This article, and its mirror on her blog, seem to be yet another vehicle to attack selected targets. In this case "the greenies" (again) and "the South Australians". Never mind that the greatest overallocator of water licences in the basin was NSW. Witness Iemma almost falling over himself to palm of responsiblility for water to the Feds... why WAS that do you think?

Anyway, removing the barrier may be the least worst solution now...

But I would like to extend Jennies argument. She proposes that we should remove this unatural structure and return the river to its natural state. Hey Jenny, thats a great idea, lets extend that to all the unnatural barrages and walls up the river. Surely you must logically agree to that? Surely, after heroically proposing the restoration of the lakes to natural conditions, how could you deny that the troubled river not be treated in similar fashion?

Oh wait... you wouldn't want to upset your base, would you?

Thanks, SP, for pointing out what appears a glaring contradiction in Jennifer's case. On the one hand the removal of the unnatural barrier at the mouth of the Murray is beneficial and necessary, but on the other hand, leaving in place the many other unnatural barriers to the flow of the water in the Murray River is not to be questioned.

On 15 August, Dr Paul Humphries of the Charles Sturt University Institute for Land Water and Society wrote and excellent article "The drought we had to have?" for Science Alert at http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081508-17809.html

The article shows how the damming of the Murray Darling River system, whilst it saves water that would other wise flow into the sea, has detrimental effects on the river's ecosystem:

"The typical large dam captures runoff in winter and spring, holding it until the growing season and warmer weather gets underway, and then releases it downstream. This results in a reversal of the flow regime: where naturally it would have been high in winter and low in summer, it is now low in winter and high in summer. Many of our large dams also have bottom releases. Large bodies of water become stratified - with cold water sinking to the bottom and warm water floating on top. Consequently the water that is released is considerably colder than it would have been naturally. The water can be more than 10 oC cooler downstream of a dam than in a nearby un-dammed river. And since most of the animals that live in rivers are cold-blooded, they are seriously affected by this ‘thermal pollution’: reproduction and growth are intrinsically tied to water temperature in many species. Imagine living in your natural environment one minute, and then the next, the medium in which you live is in short supply when normally it is abundant, and is plentiful when it is usually limited. And furthermore, that in summer it now rarely gets above 16 oC when once it reached close to 30 oC. Now that’s climate change!"

(tobecontinued)

I am not sure why I am posting here. To thank daggett, Fractelle, CJ Morgan I guess for highlighting what Jennifer has said in the past, I guess.

The article did make some sense when read alone. But read as a follow on to the articles Jennifer has posted in the past it is almost surreal. Her suggestions in every article, regardless of the problem at hand, contain the same underlying themes - don't manage try it, get the government out of the way, let the farmers farm, let the loggers log, let the river go dry, let the climate take care of itself ....

And when we create some problem that could solved had we taken some pro-active action before (that she almost certainly would recommended against) then we should just let it takes its course, don't try to manage it, just get out of the way ... Its like a listening to a broken record.

Hey rstuart - if you think this article's surreal, just check out this, posted on her blog today:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003338.html

Apparently it's all been a Socratic bait and switch. For the past five years or so.

Who'd a thunk it?.

ROFL, CJ

Well she sure suckered me in - I thought she was serious.

Knock me down with a feather.

(continuedfromabove)

Clearly we have to acknowledge that the scale of agriculture dependent upon the Murray Darling system is unsustainable and it must be drastically scaled back. This also has implications for our population size. The larger our population, the more difficult it will be to either feed them directly with food from the Murray-Darling system, or indirectly through export income.

As a stop-gap measure, whatever water that is necessary to save the lakes and prevent the necessity to inundate the lakes with seawater must be taken. The Greens and Independents should be commended for acting to set up a Senate Inquiry to establish exactly how much water can be found to save the lakes (http://candobetter.org/node/733). We should not just accept Penny Wong's word that nothing can be done to save the lakes and the livelihoods of communities living around the lakes.

Daggett

Agree, the Murray-Darling system can be resurrected. We have the knowledge and the technology.

All that is needed is:

1. The will
2. Cooperation of farmers and business, federal and state governments.

Easy Peasy.

Nothing reasonable is impossible.

This may be very late notice, but ABC Radio National's "Australia Talks" tonight at 6:05PM (+10:00) is about "Buying back the Murray":

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/australiatalks/stories/2008/2341186.htm
South Australia's lower lakes have become a rallying point for the crisis facing the Murray Darling. Scientists say the lakes will be lost unless there are significant inflows of water before summer. But is there enough water to save the lakes and where will it come from? The Australian Conversation Foundation wants the Federal Government to buy six big rural properties that have significant water storages, including the controversial Cubbie Station. The ACF says between them, those properties could deliver 300 gigalitres, and buy some time for the lower lakes. Meanwhile, the new independent senator Nick Xenophon is supporting the compulsory acquisition of water licenses, arguing that time is running out for the Murray Darling. But with the resource in crisis, have we lost the chance to strike a balance between the environment and the needs of agriculture? Do we have to accept that nothing can be done to save the lower lakes?
---

Thanks, Fractelle,

I guess the "small government" free market ideology that has become the official orthodoxy since the 1980's doesn't help either.

Jennifer, could you tell us if it could be shown that buying back water was feasible and that it would save the Murray would you be opposed to that in principle?