News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Finance 
 Two years' grace for Lower Lakes 

Two years' grace for Lower Lakes

21 Jan, 2010 05:58 AM
A CRUCIAL Murray River deal may have secured an extra two years' grace for South Australia's ailing Lower Lakes and Coorong.

Experts have praised this week's deal between NSW and South Australia in which at least 148 gigalitres of floodwaters will reach the Lower Lakes.

Yesterday the Commonwealth pledged a further 20GL of environmental water to the lakes.

Australian Conservation Foundation spokeswoman Arlene Buchan said the agreement was a substantial boost for the health of the lakes, and the flow would benefit the entire Murray River course as it travelled south.

South Australia has been preparing several engineering solutions to handle the environmental degradation at the lakes, including building a weir and water barriers.

But Dr Buchan said this week's deal would delay the implementation of these solutions until at least the end of next year.

Dr Buchan and Adelaide University professor Mike Young agreed that about 800 gigalitres would be needed to raise the surface of the lakes back to sea level.

The Commonwealth also promised 18GL yesterday for Victoria's Hattah Lakes and Lake Wallawalla.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
168 gigs for the lower lakes is about a months worth of evaporation. They need to build the lock at Wellington to raise the pond level of the river between there and Lock 1, then open the Goolwa barrages and let the sea water in. The lower lakes were always esturine before the barrages anyway so it really would really only be reverting to the way it was. Having the lower lakes open to the sea would mean a lot more water would flow in and out the Murray mouth with the tides, so the mouth would remain open, and the salinity level of the coorong would also come down. I believe its 5 times as salty as the sea on the southern end. There are farmers of course who have established irrigation direct from the lower lakes. They may need help to relocate, they could convert to dryland because it is a 20"rainfall area, or water could be piped from Jervois or Tailem bend, That can't be done at the moment because of the low pond level. The only thing that is stopping this is that there is a state election in a couple of months and Mr Rann doesn't want to step on anyones toes. I undestand though that the plans for the wier have been draw up and contractors have been appointed .
Posted by Will, 21/01/2010 9:31:04 AM
'Benefit the entire murray river system' hmmm... even upstream?? That's pretty amazing?! Enjoy the evaporation. Great comments Will - it is the low rainfall areas that need the water for agriculture.
Posted by bear, 22/01/2010 8:05:12 AM
Wait a minute - wasn't the water for the environment for environmental flows of the Murray. If this is the case, then the govt releases 20GL from where along the river? Will any of this be able to make it to SA lakes - should any of this make it there? Really there are other problems in NSW and Vic that need water too. Why are these lakes so precious? At least they have the ocean right there to be able to source water. Why take freshwater and mix it in? What a waste of good water. Why are all the decisions based on making sure precious SA is ok when the neighbouring states are being bled dry?
Posted by bear, 22/01/2010 8:12:22 AM
Whoa! Slow down boys! Your thinking is what has got us into this mess. Dividing and engineering off sections will and does only produces very bad outcomes for the end user, us as farmers. The environmental reserves are not endless. The river flushes the crap out, especially salt. It is a whole system integrated and complete and like any good machine only works well when everything is in sync. Also don't forget the water cycle - evaporation here is the western district of Victoria's rain. So shift your thinking and look at it from an Australian point of view.
Posted by twodragons, 22/01/2010 3:25:53 PM
Fair enough Twodragons, so what do you suggest we do about it? Remember, there are two issues here: 1. Do we need another wier/lock down at the lakes end, bearing in mind there another 15 locks from Blanchetown upstream? And 2. Do we let seawater back into the lower lakes, bearing in mind that oldtimers will tell you about sharks and dolphins seen up as far as Tailem bend? These are two entirely different issues. Two things to remember, there isn't a lock between Blanchetown and Goolwa, a distance of 200kms, dead flat, so if they want to get the pond level high enough to at Mannum to pump water for Adelaide, they have to let it go into the Lower Lakes, and the government don't want to do this as it will use all SA's allocation in evaporation. You mention flushing crap out, especially salt, well with a lock/wier at Wellington, they can flush the salt out and clean up the river, but they can't do very much without a wier. It's like trying to wash your feet without putting a plug in the bath.
Posted by Will, 22/01/2010 5:54:35 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
20 January, 2010
POLL
Q: If a referendum were held this weekend, would you vote in favour of the Commonwealth taking over from the States the management of Australia's river systems?

Yes
(72.6%)

No
(19.9%)

Undecided
(7.4%)

Total Votes: 647
Poll Date: 17 January, 2010
BLOGS
20 January, 2010

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...