The Lower Lakes and  Coorong extend over approximately 140,000 hectares. It is a surprising diverse environment, with 23 different wetlands types, from very fresh to saltier than the sea. It is one of the 10 major havens for large concentrations of wading birds in Australia, and is recognised internationally as a breeding ground for many species of waterbirds and native fish. The Coorong is ranked among the top six waterbird sites in Australia, based on the diversity and number of species found there. Both the Coorong and the Lower Lakes are listed as part of the Ramsar Convention, and international agreement which aims to protect the worlds most precious wetlands. The area is a an important feeding and breeding grounds for birds who then travel throughout the Murray Darling Basin, and in some cases, all the way to Japan and China. We have international agreements with these countries to maintain suitable habitats for birds which are part of our joint natural heritage. Japan and China are of course, our largest trading partners, which makes this connection pretty special. The Lower Lakes and Coorong are particularly important during periods of drought, and act as a refuge for fish and birds when other parts of the river are dry.

But the maintenance of these habitats is not the only reason that scientists and the MDBA think it is important to keep the River Mouth open. Australia is an old and saline environment. The River Murray flows across an old sea bed as it makes its way through South Australia and as a result, picks up a lot of salt which need to be flushed out of the system. A report from the Goyder Institute identifies that at least 3,500 GL of end of river flows are required (on average) to ensure there is not a build up of salt throughout the River system. Under careful management, the average flows suggested by the Basin Plan will achieve the salinity targets in the SA reach of the River Murray (see below). With no changes to the current extractions from the Murray Darling Basin, these salinity targets will not be met. This will have a major economic consequence for Adelaide, will reduce irrigation efficiency in other parts of the River system, and risks Australia’s current brand as a clean and green source of food products.

So you can see that it is not just South Australia that benefits from a healthy Lower Lakes and Coorong. But South Australia does benefit in a very important way. The city of Adelaide, home to one million people with $60B of economic production, relies on the River Murray for its water supply. Because of its limited water storages, Adelaide draws up to 90% of its water requirements from the River Murray in any one year. Even with the construction of a large desalination plant in Adelaide, one million people and $60B of economic output is reliant on the River Murray for potable water. How is this linked to the Lower Lakes? In the severe drought during the 2000′s, the Lakes water level dropped so far, there was a major risk that the Lakes would turn acid sulphate. Within a week, the acid, and released heavy metals would have moved back up the River Murray to beneath the inlet pipes for the water that is pumped to Adelaide, cutting off Adelaide’s water supply of last resort. Furthermore, increases in salinity in the River have a major impact on the lifespan of expensive infrastructure in Adelaide, so there are some important targets for salinity in the off-takes for Adelaide’s drinking water that have been agreed to, for economic reasons as much as anything else.

What is we removed the Barrages?

It is sometimes suggested that the Lakes would have been saline much more before that Barrages were put in to maintain Lake levels, and so the barrages should be removed. Such people I find are unwilling to use the same logic (ie. let’s make things how they used to be) to argue for more water for wetlands along the River, but nevertheless, lets follow the logic. The Lakes were almost exclusively freshwater (sorry, paper is behind a paywall, I can email if you want a copy), meaning that those who argue for things to return to ‘normal’ are asking for the Lakes to remain as freshwater systems. Those who say removing the Barrages would return the Lakes to an estuarine environment would also have to argue for all of the water currently diverted to be put back into the River to maintain the original estuarine condition. The argument is a red herring. There may be reasons to remove the barrages, but to return the Lakes to their original condition is not one of them.

Proposed reductions in evaporative losses from the Lakes

Ever since I can remember, there have been proposals to reduce the size of the Lower Lakes. These have been explored and usually rejected as returning poor value for money. The net evaporation from the Lower Lakes is 750 GL to 800 GL per annum. This is already built into South Australia’s long term, historic entitlement flows. This compares with total evaporation and ‘consumption’ by wetlands across the MDB system of 11,000 GL, nevertheless it is a large amount.

The MDBC explored options to reduce evaporation in the Lower Lakes. The savings identified were relatively small (10GL – 60GL) and incurred both significant costs, and some potential major benefits, including more habitat for wader birds. These options should be explored but they do not make much difference to the overall size of buybacks suggested by the MDBA in the Basin Plan.

The Murray Mouth impact on the health of the Coorong

Another argument bandied about with little scientific evidence is that the health of the Coorong is only dependent on flows from the South East. As a matter of fact, these flows are being restored to the Southern lagoon of the Coorong, but the scientific consensus is that an open Murray Mouth is required to ensure that the Southern Coorong continues to exist as a site of high ecological importance. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply wishful thinking.

The impact of the Basin Plan on the health of the Coorong and Lower Lakes

A recent scientific review of the impact of the Basin Plan on the health of the Coorong and Lower Lakes identifies that while not all environmental water requirements are met under the Guide scenarios (3,000, 3,500, 4000 GL), they represent an improvement on baseline conditions and, in some cases, they represent a large improvement. Obviously, more environmental water requirements are met under the 4000 scenario than under the 3500 scenario, and under the 3500 scenario than under the 3000 scenario, respectively. This is a useful starting point.

I would note personally, that the existing environmental water requirements, while entirely defensible scientifically, will need further refinement. I am sure there is a lot we don’t know about how water could be managed differently to achieve the same ecological outcomes. Just as I am sure that with a renewed effort to improve irrigation efficiency in Australia, we could make another big improvement as we did in the 70′s and 80′s when we spent a lot on R,D & E in this field. These outcomes are, I am confident, what the MDBA has in mind when they say that local communities will have a say in the adaptive management of water to balance environmental and economic outcomes. A lack of perfect knowledge is no reason to hold back reform, but it is a reason to ensure review points in the reform process, more research, and for all parties to retain an open mind and be willing to adapt their positions over time as new knowledge becomes available.

Socio-economic impact of Basin Plan

The Goyder Institute also undertook a socio-economic impact assessment of the Basin Plan. It misses a major component of the socio-economic impact (irrigation!) but argues that it did not have the skills to do the regional input output modelling. I would love to see some regional input output modelling of the Basin Plan. Please post a link if you see something. Nevertheless, the Goyder Institute does a fascinating analysis and comes up with some surprising results.

Some of the key papers quoted:

Options for Water Savings in the Lower Lakes and Improved Flows Through the Murray Mouth (MDBC report)

Salinity in the Lower Lakes and Coorong ( SA Government report)

Murray Darling Water Resources Fact Sheet (MDBC report)

Scientific review of Basin Plan and its implications for South Australia (Goyder Institute)

Palaeolimnological evidence for the independent evolution of neighbouring terminal lakes, the Murray Darling Basin, Australia, Fluin et al, Hydrobiologia, 591, 117-134

Analysis of South Australia’s environmental water and water quality requirements and their delivery under the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan (Goyder Institute)

Socioeconomic implications of the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan – methods and results overview (Goyder Institute)

The problem is that while the Lakes were estuarine (salty to taste but much fresher than marine), they were never marine. Jennie Fluin’s research (pdf) on the history of the Lakes suggests the Lakes were nearly always fresh. Remember that before the barrages were put in, the amount of surface water diverted for consumptive use was about 2,000 GL/y whereas it is now over 13,000 GL/y. The long-term average amount of water that used to flow through the Murray Mouth before development was 12,500 GL/y according to the Basin Plan (pdf). With current levels of development, the long-term modelled average amount of water flowing out of the Murray Mouth is about 5,100 GL/y (figure also taken from Basin Plan). Without the barrages, the system would not only become marine (assuming we artificially keep the mouth open with a dredger), it would probably become hypersaline and start to silt up. My understanding is that in the longer term, the changes that the Lakes would be a thriving marine system are unlikely. More likely, it would be a hypersaline swamp.I know there has been modelling done on this but cannot find any published work. I would be keen for others to point to where such reports could be found.

Originally it was thought that adding marine water would stop the Lakes from turning acid. My understanding is that this is not the case, and that the salts in the marine water would still result in a major acidity event. But again, I cannot find any published reports on this. I would be interested if anyone could point to them.

Currently the Lower Lakes are an internationally recognised wetland system. The reasons are many, but include that it is a nesting site for international migrating birds, and is also a drought refuge for many birds that live across the whole Murray Darling Basin system. The values of the wetland system are listed in this report (pdf). When functioning properly, the Lakes are a breeding ground for fish, and the link between the mouth and the River is necessary for some fish species to breed. These fish find their way right up the River system. Changing the Lakes would not just effect the lower end of the River, but the effects would be felt across the whole Basin.

But probably the main reason the Lakes are being kept fresh at the moment, is that if seawater was allowed to flood in, the salt would very quickly find its way up the River and contaminate Adelaide’s water supply. It would be a brave government who told a million people in Adelaide they no longer had a secure supply of water. Mind you, its also a brave government that tells irrigation communities in the River that they are going to have their allocations cut. Who’d be a politician, ah?

The only way the Lakes can be kept in their current form is to keep more water in the River so that it freshens the Lower Lakes and naturally keeps the Murray Mouth open. The Murray Darling Basin Authority suggests that a minimum of 3,000 Gl is required to achieve this plus keep other wetland systems in the River Basin healthy. By putting this much water back into the system, the River Mouth would be kept open 90% of the time. Without it, the River Mouth will only be open 40% of the time. On a side note, it is tempting to think that the River is back to normal now that it is full. But it is important to remember that this year had perfect conditions for heavy rainfalls in the east of Australia. It was an La Nina year and also the Indian Ocean Dipole was negative. Both result in higher rainfall in Australia and the two of them together happens only a few times a century, and when it does  – usually results in massive floods in the Murray Basin. We had floods this year, but the the River at the lower end is only experiencing average flows.  In the long term, without changes to water extractions, we will witness a drying of the River and Lakes again, with the resulting misery for the irrigation community and damage to the ecological systems that sustain the whole River system.

Written by Paul Dalby, 2 November 2010

There can be no argument that the MDB  is in a state of poor ecological health. A Sustainable Rivers Audit (pdf) in 2008 demonstrated that the ecological health of the Basin was mostly “Poor” or “Very Poor”. The Lower Lakes at the end of the system were at risk of turning to acid on a large scale. An internationally important wetland for migratory birds – the Coorong – has changed its ecological character and bird populations are collapsing (David Paton presentation). The total flow at the Murray Mouth has been reduced by 61 percent which means that the river now ceases to flow through the mouth 40 percent of the time compared to 1 percent of the time in the absence of water resource development (from CSIRO Sustainable Yields Report – pdf). There are high levels of salinity built up along the floodplain at the lower end of the River, and important wetlands along the Murray and Darling Rivers are in a poor state of health. There are a number of fact sheets prepared by CSIRO on some of the economics and science that has supported the need for the Basin Plan here.

Over the same period, irrigation communities have also been doing it tough. During the drought over the last decade, water storages were run down to the point that there was no longer water in the system to support water extractions and allocations began to be cut. It is one of the great triumphs of Australian inventiveness and determination that irrigation industries managed to survive through these times. A mix of clever science, an ability to trade water, on-farm innovation and sheer guts got many irrigators through what could have been a decimation of irrigation across the Basin. This is not to say that communities in the region have not experienced real stress and pain, and that some individuals did not have to make realistic decisions to leave their businesses. I am simply dipping my hat to what I think is an extraordinary achievement.

The environmental, economic and social stress over the last ten years has common causes. The drought was long and severe (see presentation by Karlene Maywald), and this compounded a problem of over-allocation of water across the Basin. It is important to recognise that the River stopped flowing at its Mouth in 2002, before the severe drought hit the region. Water had been allowed to be allocated by the government members of the Murray Darling Basin Commission well in excess of the ability of the River system to support them. The powers given to the Commission seemed to be insufficient to stop this behaviour, and as a result, some river catchments in the Basin have become over-allocated (read the CSIRO Report on Sustainable Yields in the Murray Darling Basin).  Peter Cullen summarised the problems neatly in his paper in 2007.

Basin Plan Summary

I have tried to provide a very brief summary of the Basin Plan in the dotpoints below. I would encourage you to read the Executive Summary at the very least. Remember, this is a proposal at this stage. Your input could make a difference.

• Environmental water required: The amount of additional water needed to protect the health of the river systems in the Basin is between 3,000 and 7,600 GL/y
• The total amount of additional water needed for the protection of groundwater bodies ranges from 99 GL/y to 227 GL/y
• The approach used to develop these numbers has been peer reviewed by both national and international peer reviewers. They confirm that the approach is robust and represents the application of the best available science
• Therefore: Extractions to be reduced 3,000 to 4,000 GL, 22–29% of total diversions (or 27–37% reduction from watercourse diversions
• The current diversion limit is about 13,700 GL/y. Based on a proposal to consider an additional 3,000–4,000 GL/y to the environment, the surfacewater SDL for the Basin as a whole would be 9,700–10,700 GL/y. This represents the long-term ‘environmentally sustainable level of take’.
• This allows for a 3% loss in flows as a result of projected climate change
• Economic impact: The Basin Plan will result in loss of 13% of current gross value of irrigated agriculture production ($805 million/y)
• Likely reduction in gross value of irrigated agriculture production: Cotton 25%, dairy 10%, horticulture <5%
• The reductions in water allocations will result in long-term, permanent reduction in the Basin’s gross regional product in the order of 1.1%
• A significant proportion of Basin communities appear to have sufficient diversity of economic activity and social capital that they will be relatively resilient to the proposed reductions in diversions. However, several regions appear to be at a relatively higher risk of substantial social impacts, including in the north-east of the Basin, the Border Rivers, Gwydir, Namoi and Macquarie–Castlereagh regions and, in the southern Basin, the Lachlan, Loddon, Murrumbidgee and Murray regions
• Smaller towns with heavy dependence on irrigated agriculture could experience greater social and economic implications due to their
  dependence and the lack of alternate industries
• The Authority is concerned that the short-term social and economic impacts on some communities and regions could be severe without structural adjustment and has commissioned further analysis on the potential impacts for small and medium enterprises
• Environmental impact: As a result of more water returning to the River, the Murray Mouth open between 90% and 92% of the time instead of 40% of the time (current projections)
• Most river valleys will no longer be rated as ‘poor’ for end-of-system flows
• The increased water back into the River will stabilise and improve decline in threatened species, water birds & native fish including Murray cod
• Policy arrangements: Transition arrangements will be put in place and farmers will be paid for lost entitlements
• Water will only be bought from willing sellers
• In a drought period, the environment and water users share the pain
• As at 30 June 2010, the Australian water purchase program had acquired the equivalent of 655 GL/y of water. In addition, around $4 billion has been committed in principle to irrigation infrastructure efficiency projects. It is conservatively estimated that under the existing program the combination of water purchasing and the investment in water efficiency infrastructure will recover a long-term average volume of surface water of approximately 2,000 GL/y by 2014
• The Basin Plan will not be fully implemented until 2019

Proposed reductions in diversions

Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, Barwon–Darling, Lower Darling (Lower Lachlan Alluvium) – 40%
Namoi, Gwydir, Barwon–Darling (Lower Namoi Alluvium) – 13%
Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges (Angas Bremer) – 38%
Condamine–Balonne (Upper Condamine Alluvium) – 34%
Condamine–Balonne (Upper Condamine Basalts) – 20%
Lachlan Upper (Lachlan Alluvium) – 18%
Murrumbidgee (Lake George Alluvium) – 32%
Namoi Upper (Namoi Alluvium) – 22%
Macquarie–Castlereagh (Lower Macquarie Alluvium) – 40%
Namoi (Peel Valley Alluvium) – 22%
Murrumbidgee Australian Capital Territory (Groundwater) 39%

Note that some of these reductions have already been made due to water purchases or will be made through improvements in efficiency of water distribution.

There is a lot more detail in the Guide to the Basin Plan that I have not touched on here that describes in more detail how the Plan would be implemented. I would encourage you to read the original document if you are interested in this issue.

My view

Putting more water back into the River system is paramount if we want greater certainty for irrigators and healthy river systems that we can all enjoy. Tourism is a major employer in the Basin, and a ugly, sick waterways, and saline floodplains covered with dead trees attracts few visitors. However, I can understand the fear and anger of rural communities who live in the Basin as a result of the proposal put forward by the MDBA. This problem is not of their making. It is government who makes decisions on water allocations. It is the Opposition in Parliament that holds Executive Government to account. It is the Media’s role to interrogate and investigate government decisions and make sure the community understands what is going on. And it is every citizen’s role to hold governments to account and demand good governance or sack the incumbent. In my view, it is our collective failure as Australians that has put us in the position where we need a Basin Plan. It is our collective responsibility to find a way to restore the health of the Murray Darling Basin river systems in a way that does not unduly punish the innocent.

I am not pretending that there are any easy answers here. This is going to be difficult, and will require lots of discussion. The reason it will require lots of discussion, is that we all need to inform ourselves of all sides of the debate. We need to hear and weigh up alternative solutions that are put forward and see if we can find a consensus about how to move forward. Given the tenor of some of the starting positions of they key lobby groups, this may seem a long way off. I am hopeful that these are early starting positions that can mellow over time in the interests of negotiating a win:win outcome.

In the late 1980′s, farming groups and conservation groups came together to address what was then a crisis in dryland salinity and soil degradation. Landcare was formed as a united front for farmers and conservationists who saw that they had more in common that they had differences. The result was a clear mechanism for government to assist and support farmers to better manage their land and protect our common natural resources, and cooperation between farmers and conservationists (who in many cases ended up being the same people).

The same opportunity exists now. A healthy River system is in the interests of all Australians. Prosperous and happy communities in the Basin creates wealth and opportunities for all Australians. Can we work together to achieve these two outcomes? We have time to think this through. The Basin Plan is not adopted until the end of 2011 and will not be implemented fully until 2019.

I would like to challenge some of the assumptions of the current debate and would appreciate your views.

1. Less water means less wealth or less jobs? Perhaps, or it could mean different industries requiring different skills. Are there crops that produce higher profit with less water and more labour? Or different industries altogether? With a major research and investment effort, could we transform agriculture and industry in the region into one that is smarter, more efficient and more profitable?

2. Irrigation is the only driver of the economy in the MDB? It is a major driver, but there is also tourism, services, mining etc. The National Broadband Network will open up massive opportunities for regional communities to attract new businesses and be more entrepreneurial. How can we harness these opportunities to help regional communities thrive?

3. This is about food security? I don’t think so. Our export sectors will be surely hit (cotton, rice and dairy) and the prices of some food will go up (dairy in particular). Horticultural crops will not be hit that hard according to the MDBA. We should also be able to work out how to grow more food with less water through research and innovation.

4. This is about the city vs the country. The city is not against the people in the country. It is for a healthy river system. It is also for a prosperous rural economy and will be willing to pay the price for buying back water to fix past mistakes and to restructure the economy with money for training, research and infrastructure.

5. Putting water back into the River is only good for the greenies. I’m really not an expert here, but my simple maths says that if there is more water in the River, there is more water available during the tough times. This means more certainty for irrigators not less. It means being able to get through the dry times with less cuts to allocation. I could be wrong. I would be interested in other views.

6. The Lower Lakes are just evaporation basins and should be filled with seawater. I have heard many ideas on how to fill the Lower Lakes with seawater to reduce evaporation and save water. This seems like a sensible idea on the surface, but the environmental and economic costs just make it untenable as far as I can make out. The financial costs are much more expensive that saving water through efficiencies upstream and environmentally, any analysis I have seen suggests it would be a catastrophe.

Please leave your comments or joint the debate on twitter using the tag #basinplan

http://twitter.com/presidentdalby

Have your say and get more information

Murray Darling Basin Authority www.mdba.gov.au, 1800 230 067, or email to engagement@mdba.gov.au

There will be an opportunity for community consultation on the Basin Plan being organised by the Murray Darling Basin Authority. You can find out where and when here

ABC webpage for information, comments and interviews on the Basin Plan http://www.abc.net.au/rural/murraydarling/

Lateline interview of Minister Tony Burke, Prof Mike Young and Rob Black http://fb.me/JzS46kxA

Basin Pulse website (a community perspective by Jack Archer)

Water Industry Alliance welcomes the Murray Darling Basin Draft Plan” http://bit.ly/WIAMDB

Community Group website on the Lower Lakes

Paul Myers article in SMH on how building another dam could fix the problems of the MDB

Queensland Economy Watch article hinting that infrastructure development rather than water buybacks will be the most politically palatable tool for making the water savings

(I do not necessarily agree with all of the articles and interview above, I’m trying to collect ideas and put them forward. Please add to these in the comments section)

Written by Paul Dalby, 8 October 2010

The 18 ‘indicator’ assets are:

• Lower Balonne River Floodplain System
• Narran Lakes
• Lower Goulburn River Floodplain
• Gwydir Wetlands
• Booligal Wetlands
• Great Cumbung Swamp
• Lachlan Swamp
• Lower Darling River System
• Macquarie Marshes
• Barmah-Millewa Forest
• The Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth,
• Riverland – Chowilla Floodplain (including Lindsay, Mulcra and Wallpolla Islands)
• Edward-Wakool River System
• Gunbower-Koondrook-Pericoota Forest
• Hattah Lakes
• Lower Murrumbidgee River Floodplain
• Mid Murrumbidgee River Wetlands
• Wimmera River Terminal Wetlands

This is good, IF the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has as its target – regular flows out the end of the Murray Mouth so that the Mouth remains open most of the time, which will also ensure that the most biologically important wetlands in the Murray Darling system – the Coorong and Lower Lakes – are kept healthy. If the Authority accepts that the  Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth are “indicator” assets, the only way the Plan can be seen as a success is if flows out of the Mouth are re-established. The only way this can be achieved is through a major reduction in extractions.

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 April 2010

The idea of a community driven plan for the River is a good one.

Alastair and I would love your thoughts.

“I attended the Murray-Darling Basin Authority meeting at Goolwa on Feb 2^nd and it was a total and utter waste of time. Scheduled to last for only two hours, it wasted the first forty five minutes on total trivia – nothing of substance was produced. I left.

The crisis that is the MDB needs action now. The River Murray is rapidly dying from its mouth upwards and twenty of the Basin’s twenty three rivers are listed as being in poor or very poor health. The time for endless consultation, discussion, review and debate is long gone. There is a wartime-like urgency for the MDBA to show leadership and take immediate action to address the long term causes of this crisis – gross over extraction of the Basin’s water, colossal losses associated with 13,000 kms of open channels, outdated, inefficient irrigation practices and dysfunctional/ non existent metering.

But the MDBA does nothing; its priorities are all wrong. It ignores these urgent causes and instead busies itself with trivial ‘community’ meetings that have all the urgency and relevance of a senior citizen’s tea party. It hides behind an endless, comatose bureaucratic process and puts its faith in a ‘Basin Plan’, a de facto code for continuing delay. A convenient escape clause that allows the authority to continue to avoid the hard decisions that are decades overdue. As a distraction, it puts forward obscure projects that address obscure problems and the Rudd government throws vast amounts of money at them, hoping they will go away. But they don’t and large portions of this money disappear into the black hole of bureaucracy, leaving little for the rivers.

The cold reality facing the Basin Plan is that it will be subjected to the same labyrinthine bureaucratic process and years will pass before actual results appear along our rivers, likely to be as late as 2014. These are critical years that our rivers cannot afford to lose.

And the reason for this appalling 40 yr paralysis?

Political parties operate entirely through a prism of self-interest. The Rudd government is paranoid that the solutions required will prove so unpopular they will be unelectable for a decade. So they put their narrow interests first, and nothing is done.

And the answer?

The communities of the Basin must bypass the politicians and bureaucrats and seize the initiative. They must become leaders and visionaries and take control of the Basin’s problems, leaving the politicians follow in their wake.

To do this they must produce a simple plan of action that can be adopted Basin-wide. When it has sufficient support, it should be taken to Canberra. If both major parties approved, the longstanding political paralysis and odium that has prevented progress for 40 years would be removed. Politicians would be relieved from the onerous task of finding solutions to the Basin’s problems. And the communities, the people who know the most about the rivers, would be free to forge ahead with their own remedies.”

Written by Alastair Wood, 8 February 2010

In July 2007, I posted a link to presentations by Professor David Paton at the University of Adelaide on the “Death of the Coorong“.  David Paton, the leading expert on the Coorong, described the horrible decline of birds, plants, fish and invertebrates in the Coorong system, as a result of years of man-made and natural drought conditions. It should be noted that 90% of waterbirds in the Murray Darling Basin used to live in the Lower Lakes and Coorong. David Paton said the result of continued inaction is likely to be the extinction of some species in the Coorong, and perhaps the compete extinction of the Fairy Tern globally. His student, Dan Rogers presented research on waterbirds in the Coorong in November 2007.  Dan argued for an integrated management system to support policy decisions on managing the Coorong.

In May 2008, I pointed to a series of videos available for download from Catalyst describing the problems of acid sulphate soils and low flows in the Coorong and Lower Lakes. In one of the videos, Mike Young from the University of Adelaide, proposes a different water sharing model for the River Murray that would give the environment a larger share of the water in the system at low flows. In March 2008, I had interviewed Mike Young on the challenges facing the River Murray system and he proposed two key steps to create a “Future-proofed Murray Darling Basin“

1. Replace the current entitlement and allocation regime with a robust one that can be confidently explained as one that will work no matter what the climate scenarios in the future

2. Implement the resultant change in a just a fair manner.

This has not happened yet, and given the pace of reform nationally, is unlikely to happen for some time yet, if at all. This is a complex problem, and it is difficult to trade off the needs of different users of water in the River system, especially when you are not always sure who really needs what water and when.

In a piece of positive news, a recent study by scientists on the Coorong have identified an important number – 300GL. This is the amount of water that needs to flow out at the end of the Murray River to maintain the health of the River. This number is based on an impressive, interdisciplinary and integrated research program called CLLAMMecology, but it gives a simple piece of advice to government. You need 300GL of water flowing out the bottom of the River to maintain the health of the Coorong. The Coorong is a Ramsar wetland, and government has a responsibility to the global community to protect this habitat which supports bird populations that migrate to countries across the northern hemisphere. I suspect 300GL of water out of the bottom of the system will deliver a whole range of other environmental benefits upstream as well. 300GL would be 2% of diversions in an ‘average’ year, and 5% of diversions in years more typical of the last five. Setting such a target would meet Mike Young’s principle of  “entitlement and allocation regime…that can be confidently explained ….that will work no matter what the climate scenarios in the future “.

You can download podcasts and videos from the CLLAMMecology study presentations here.

You can register for the Litfuse feed on your i-tunes or mp3 player: http://feeds.litfuse.com.au/litfuse

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 July 2009

I recently gave an interview to the media outlet “Global Atlanta” on a visit to the United States I made for ICE WaRM. In the interview I talked about how Australia has learned from hard lessons as a result of rapid shifts in climatic conditions, probably as a result of global warming. There are some excellent lessons to be learned for other countries who are at risk from drying and warming – the southern states of the United States of America in particular.

The full article is available at: http://www.globalatlanta.com/article/17131/

Written by Paul Dalby on 3 February 2009

Rebecca Lester on Coorong and Lower Lakes

Acid Mud in the Lower Lakes

Dan Rogers on Aquatic Birds of the Coorong

A Regional Science Forum for the Lower River Murray (over 20 blog posts and podcasts)

Mike Young on ideas for “future proofing” the Murray Darling Basin

Written by Paul Dalby on 29 October 2008

Written by Lauren on 20th August 2008

Send a message to Penny Wong and let her know that we need a new system of water management that better protects these important assets.

Written by Paul Dalby