Letter to the Editor, October 13 2008:
NOWHERE in the Murray-Darling debate have I seen any reference to the logical solution to the issue: to ensure more water in the upper reaches of the system. Over five million megalitres of water flows each year through the mouth of the Clarence River into the sea at Iluka on the north coast of NSW.
Well-engineered and feasible plans have been drawn up in the past to divert one-fifth of this water on a fully regulated basis to the upper rivers of the Darling at a very reasonable cost.
While some would be lost by evaporation and soakage a lot would also reach the Murray. Instead of the interminable hand-wringing, why not actually do something and get the ball rolling?
David Coffey
Bowral, NSW
Online comment:
"Well-engineered and feasible plans have been drawn up in the past to divert one-fifth of this [Clarence river] water on a fully regulated basis to the upper rivers of the Darling at a very reasonable cost."
There was nothing well-engineered or feasible about any of the proposals to dam and divert Clarence River catchment fresh water.
*overestimated freshwater flows
*neglected to recognise that river flows were highly variable
*took no account of the fact that almost one third of the Clarence River was subject to tidal flow and therefore salt
*failed to take into account that strong unregulated flows were required to keep the shipping channels open for the working port, so the timber boats and island traders are able to negotiate the river
*that the highly productive commercial fishing industry relied on 'freshes' flowing freely to produce adequate prawn and fish harvests
*ignored vital endangered fish habitat and international treaties covering migratory birds relying on the river
*did not take into account the two different rainfall patterns across the Clarence catchment which see less rain falling in those areas where most freshwater run-off into the river and tributaries occur or CSIRO predictions of long-term local impacts of climate change
*had insufficient geotechnical information for dams and pipeline and unrealistic proposed siting and estimated costing.
The list could go on and on, but one thing should be apparent - wrecking one catchment to cure the woes in another is NOT the way to go.
Mon 13 Oct 08 (07:03am)
Judith M. Melville, I could kiss you. Where I live, on the Murray, every folkway and strange scheme from the past is seen as superior to any current management strategy for the river. Thank you for letting facts intrude into the sometimes equally bizarre world of the blogosphere.
Mon 13 Oct 08 (03:31pm)
