There’s a child on my TV pretending to know something telling me that there needs to be an inquiry into fish deaths. This has been going on since the dawn of time in Australian politics. The people who take the water with no cosideration for others, should be hung drawn and quartered to make an example. The only problem with that is that there would be mass carnage. It could get very bloody but in the end it should make people wake up. The water isn’t ours alone. It belongs to no one. It belongs to all who need a drink, not some multinational rich fat cat.

Justin said:

Menindee residents have also pointed the finger at water thirsty cotton growers, who they say are siphoning water from the river during a drought.

Cotton Australia, a peak representative body for cotton growers, responded to the criticism and said the drought has wreaked havoc on their industry.

They also they were tired of being the “whipping boy” and blamed the disaster on poor water management of the Barwon-Darling Basin.

“The recent fish deaths … at Menindee was a devastating sight. However, it is wrong to blame cotton growers for this incident,” the lobby group said in a statement.

The rice industry were forced to pull in their horns and yet the rivers are still being robbed dry. A modicum of common sense is requuired here.

roughbarked said:

There’s a child on my TV pretending to know something telling me that there needs to be an inquiry into fish deaths. This has been going on since the dawn of time in Australian politics. The people who take the water with no cosideration for others, should be hung drawn and quartered to make an example. The only problem with that is that there would be mass carnage. It could get very bloody but in the end it should make people wake up. The water isn’t ours alone. It belongs to no one. It belongs to all who need a drink, not some multinational rich fat cat.

This thread has touched off about a hundred different responses in me, including but by no means limited to:

Morality, Howard, Idriess, Queensland, mindmap, scientific opportunity, protein, food chain, storage, groundwater, minor, mother nature, polemic, of course, survival of the fittest, introduced species, etc.

My dominant thought is “more information please”. What’s the detailed background to this?

party_pants said:

A couple look a bit like BJ

About water, I was reading today that it takes 1,182 litres of water to make one litre of milk.

With that in mind, morally, how many cotton bushes would you have to kill to keep one fish alive?

mollwollfumble said:

About water, I was reading today that it takes 1,182 litres of water to make one litre of milk.

With that in mind, morally, how many cotton bushes would you have to kill to keep one fish alive?

Is that grass feed cows, wouldn’t that water not be used for drinking as it watered the ground

Ian said:

party_pants said:

A couple look a bit like BJ

probably not a coincidence…

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

About water, I was reading today that it takes 1,182 litres of water to make one litre of milk.

With that in mind, morally, how many cotton bushes would you have to kill to keep one fish alive?

Is that grass feed cows, wouldn’t that water not be used for drinking as it watered the ground

Even after it passes though cows it’s still available.

Every now and again I marvel that there are such things as freshwater fish species. Rivers are always silting up, drying up. Especially in central Australia, but also all around the world. How can a fish species survive in such a horribly variable environment (on the scale of tens of thousands of years beyond tens of millions of years)?

Thirty six, who would have thought hey, thirty six.

Peak Warming Man said:

Thirty six, who would have thought hey, thirty six.

Flies with one blow?

Tamb said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Thirty six, who would have thought hey, thirty six.

Flies with one blow?

Well it could be but it’s not, it’s also in the wrong thread.

Peak Warming Man said:

Tamb said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Thirty six, who would have thought hey, thirty six.

Flies with one blow?

Well it could be but it’s not, it’s also in the wrong thread.

Yes. I didn’t think we had a Brothers Grimm thread.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

About water, I was reading today that it takes 1,182 litres of water to make one litre of milk.

With that in mind, morally, how many cotton bushes would you have to kill to keep one fish alive?

Is that grass feed cows, wouldn’t that water not be used for drinking as it watered the ground

Even after it passes though cows it’s still available.

Every now and again I marvel that there are such things as freshwater fish species. Rivers are always silting up, drying up. Especially in central Australia, but also all around the world. How can a fish species survive in such a horribly variable environment (on the scale of tens of thousands of years beyond tens of millions of years)?

https://ewater.org.au/science/where-do-fish-go-in-a-drought/

It was the goernment that overallocated water rights for irrigators. It is the government that has been fixated upon over increasing population pressure without applying science.
When will the government learn?

https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/where-do-fish-come-from-in-new-lakes-and-ponds.html

roughbarked said:

https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/where-do-fish-come-from-in-new-lakes-and-ponds.html

and when land use is laser levelling on old stream beds, how does this help rivers stay healthy?

roughbarked said:

It was the goernment that overallocated water rights for irrigators. It is the government that has been fixated upon over increasing population pressure without applying science.
When will the government learn?

I thought the government strategy was to get all users of river water to fight one another in order to distract water users away from the fact that government has spent SFA on inland water resources. And have in fact done the opposite, divert water out of inland catchments to supply coastal cities.

Which scientific results did you have in mind?

Do you have any hard evidence suggesting that the government has over-allocated water rights to irrigators? Does this apply also to new irrigators, or only to irrigators who have been in business for 40 years or so?

> Https://ewater.org.au/science/where-do-fish-go-in-a-drought/
> https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/where-do-fish-come-from-in-new-lakes-and-ponds.html

Thanks for that. I’d forgotten about eggs being buried during the dry season or carried by birds and mammals. I wonder which species of freshwater fish do this?

As for fish eggs on the bottom of boats. I hadn’t heard about that. It’s nice that humans are doing something to help freshwater fish survive.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

It was the goernment that overallocated water rights for irrigators. It is the government that has been fixated upon over increasing population pressure without applying science.
When will the government learn?

I thought the government strategy was to get all users of river water to fight one another in order to distract water users away from the fact that government has spent SFA on inland water resources. And have in fact done the opposite, divert water out of inland catchments to supply coastal cities.

Which scientific results did you have in mind?

Do you have any hard evidence suggesting that the government has over-allocated water rights to irrigators? Does this apply also to new irrigators, or only to irrigators who have been in business for 40 years or so?

> Https://ewater.org.au/science/where-do-fish-go-in-a-drought/
> https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/where-do-fish-come-from-in-new-lakes-and-ponds.html

Thanks for that. I’d forgotten about eggs being buried during the dry season or carried by birds and mammals. I wonder which species of freshwater fish do this?

As for fish eggs on the bottom of boats. I hadn’t heard about that. It’s nice that humans are doing something to help freshwater fish survive.

All the hard evidence is already out there.The Wentworth concerned scientists and others did all that ages past. New irrigators should only be able to purchase older rights. Even that is wrong because it was always over allocated due to lack of comprehension of Australia’s rivers and plenty of greedy lobbyists.

The MDB should really have handed river management to a neutral body independent of any State.

roughbarked said:

The MDB should really have handed river management to a neutral body independent of any State.

Fuck that. Who would want to run such an organisation? They’d be pilloried by all sides every time they did anything remotely like making a decision. The old adage of trying to intervene in a fight and having both of them turn on you applies here, except that there are multiple gangs of thugs involved.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

The MDB should really have handed river management to a neutral body independent of any State.

Fuck that. Who would want to run such an organisation? They’d be pilloried by all sides every time they did anything remotely like making a decision. The old adage of trying to intervene in a fight and having both of them turn on you applies here, except that there are multiple gangs of thugs involved.

Probably couldn’t anyway, I have no idea of the status of rivers but I suspect they belong to the state they flow through, probably constitutional as resources and no way a state will willingly cede power to the federals over something that impacts the state.

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

The MDB should really have handed river management to a neutral body independent of any State.

Fuck that. Who would want to run such an organisation? They’d be pilloried by all sides every time they did anything remotely like making a decision. The old adage of trying to intervene in a fight and having both of them turn on you applies here, except that there are multiple gangs of thugs involved.

Probably couldn’t anyway, I have no idea of the status of rivers but I suspect they belong to the state they flow through, probably constitutional as resources and no way a state will willingly cede power to the federals over something that impacts the state.

The main problem is that each state has differing legislative powers. The water doesn’t belong to any particular state, so they should not have any control as a state. It is either a federal issue or an amalgamation of the eastern states. Can’t work any other way.

Bogsnorkler said:

Those fish should take the government to the high court.

Wont anyone think of the fish.

Bogsnorkler said:

Dark but true.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Wont anyone think of the fish.

Think of the fish.

Edible. Good protein. Easy to catch.

Rotting. Good fertilizer. Food for native invertebrates.

“The European Carp
In 30 years since its introduction, however, the European Carp has become the predominant biomass in the Murray- Darling. At many sites, carp account for an estimated 60-90% of the total fish biomass, with densities as high as one carp per square meter.”

“The Mosquito Fish or Plague Minnow is another serious threat to native fish in the Murray-Darling. An aquarium fish that was introduced in the 1920’s”.

Which fish?

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Wont anyone think of the fish.

Think of the fish.

Edible. Good protein. Easy to catch.

Rotting. Good fertilizer. Food for native invertebrates.

“The European Carp
In 30 years since its introduction, however, the European Carp has become the predominant biomass in the Murray- Darling. At many sites, carp account for an estimated 60-90% of the total fish biomass, with densities as high as one carp per square meter.”

“The Mosquito Fish or Plague Minnow is another serious threat to native fish in the Murray-Darling. An aquarium fish that was introduced in the 1920’s”.

Which fish?

murray cod, silver perch and golden perch

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-15/mass-fish-kill-in-darling-river-to-impact-other-states/10715640

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Wont anyone think of the fish.

Think of the fish.

Edible. Good protein. Easy to catch.

Rotting. Good fertilizer. Food for native invertebrates.

“The European Carp
In 30 years since its introduction, however, the European Carp has become the predominant biomass in the Murray- Darling. At many sites, carp account for an estimated 60-90% of the total fish biomass, with densities as high as one carp per square meter.”

“The Mosquito Fish or Plague Minnow is another serious threat to native fish in the Murray-Darling. An aquarium fish that was introduced in the 1920’s”.

Which fish?

European crap. the place is full of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/27/murray-darling-basin-authority-knew-of-allegations-of-water-theft-a-year-before-abc-report

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/editorial-something-stinks-in-the-coalition-and-its-not-just-dead-fish,12286

Bogsnorkler said:

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/editorial-something-stinks-in-the-coalition-and-its-not-just-dead-fish,12286

We are all absolutely disgusted.

The Opposition Leader originally asked Prime Minister Scott Morrison to provide bipartisan support for an emergency scientific taskforce, in the wake of news hundred of thousands of fish had died in a 40-kilometre stretch of the Darling River near Menindee in far-western New South Wales.

But Mr Morrison and his deputy Michael McCormack have both argued that federal and state water managers were already using expert advice to determine the health of the river system.

The Australian Academy of Science will bring together a group of experts to prepare an independent report on the Murray-Darling Basin fish kill for Opposition Leader Bill Shorten.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-21/murray-darling-fish-kill-independent-report/10730774

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-21/little-bitterns-on-the-move/10703234

roughbarked said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-21/little-bitterns-on-the-move/10703234

Environmental flows needed

Such environmental flows have been drastically reduced during the recent drought conditions, and Professor Kingsford believes restoration of the water flows is critical.

“All of it used to go to the environment,” he said.

“Now we’re really talking about a remnant, a fraction of what used to go there.

“So reinstating some of that is really important. The big challenge is working out when to release it and how much and how often.

“I think that’s a challenge for water managers.

“One thing about waterbirds and rivers generally is that we’ve changed a lot the way our rivers respond by building dams and taking too much water out of the rivers.

“As a result you don’t get as many, or as often, the sort of flooding that we have had in the past, which is really the habitat for a lot of these waterbirds.”

Professor Kingsford said in the 30-plus years that he had been conducting the surveys, the waterbird population had fallen by about 70 per cent.

“We’ve got this long-term signature, long-term trend of declining waterbirds over time,” he said.

“And that’s largely to do with the way we’ve changed our rivers. Things like putting more environmental flows back into the rivers are essential.”

Waterbirds tackle pests, boost dollars

Professor Kingsford said the waterbirds had positive impacts on the environment.

“For example, the fish-eating birds like the cormorants and the pelicans are feeding on a lot of carp,” he said.

“The ibis, particularly the straw-necked ibis, are out there feeding upon pest species that can affect crops. They do a great job in feeding upon locusts.”

On the Drum, a talking head opining that we should look to aboriginals for clues on how to manage the Murray Darling systems.

AwesomeO said:

On the Drum, a talking head opining that we should look to aboriginals for clues on how to manage the Murray Darling systems.

Damn it don’t dam it

AwesomeO said:

On the Drum, a talking head opining that we should look to aboriginals for clues on how to manage the Murray Darling systems.

I think they probably know more about it than the mob running it now.

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

On the Drum, a talking head opining that we should look to aboriginals for clues on how to manage the Murray Darling systems.

I think they probably know more about it than the mob running it now.

I imagine damming a river isn’t good for its long term health no matter were it is, the river has probably existed for thousands of years and an entire ecosystem exists around it, interrupt the water flow and it suffers.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

On the Drum, a talking head opining that we should look to aboriginals for clues on how to manage the Murray Darling systems.

I think they probably know more about it than the mob running it now.

I imagine damming a river isn’t good for its long term health no matter were it is, the river has probably existed for thousands of years and an entire ecosystem exists around it, interrupt the water flow and it suffers.

You may be forgetting that the aborigines also dammed rivers with fish traps.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

I think they probably know more about it than the mob running it now.

I imagine damming a river isn’t good for its long term health no matter were it is, the river has probably existed for thousands of years and an entire ecosystem exists around it, interrupt the water flow and it suffers.

You may be forgetting that the aborigines also dammed rivers with fish traps.

Were they large scale and permanent ?

Well if you want to replicate aboriginal management that’s fine but you are going to have to reduce the population, lose the cities, lose most of your agriculture and industry then what’s left can happily take a cooolamon or two from the river.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

On the Drum, a talking head opining that we should look to aboriginals for clues on how to manage the Murray Darling systems.

I think they probably know more about it than the mob running it now.

I imagine damming a river isn’t good for its long term health no matter were it is, the river has probably existed for thousands of years and an entire ecosystem exists around it, interrupt the water flow and it suffers.

Maybe not the Murray but the Darling on its upper reaches has regularly dried up completely.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

On the Drum, a talking head opining that we should look to aboriginals for clues on how to manage the Murray Darling systems.

I think they probably know more about it than the mob running it now.

I imagine damming a river isn’t good for its long term health no matter were it is, the river has probably existed for thousands of years and an entire ecosystem exists around it, interrupt the water flow and it suffers.

The opposite.

For example, floods are extremely good at spreading introduced pest species. While at the same time killing native flora and fauna.

AwesomeO said:

Well if you want to replicate aboriginal management that’s fine but you are going to have to reduce the population, lose the cities, lose most of your agriculture and industry then what’s left can happily take a cooolamon or two from the river.

We may not have much choice in the matter.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

I think they probably know more about it than the mob running it now.

I imagine damming a river isn’t good for its long term health no matter were it is, the river has probably existed for thousands of years and an entire ecosystem exists around it, interrupt the water flow and it suffers.

Maybe not the Murray but the Darling on its upper reaches has regularly dried up completely.

The dams on the Darling don’t return the water?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

I think they probably know more about it than the mob running it now.

I imagine damming a river isn’t good for its long term health no matter were it is, the river has probably existed for thousands of years and an entire ecosystem exists around it, interrupt the water flow and it suffers.

Maybe not the Murray but the Darling on its upper reaches has regularly dried up completely.

It would be seasonal though wouldn’t it so life would have adapted to that it
I imagine you can’t have farming and irrigation without damming a river so are damned either way

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

I think they probably know more about it than the mob running it now.

I imagine damming a river isn’t good for its long term health no matter were it is, the river has probably existed for thousands of years and an entire ecosystem exists around it, interrupt the water flow and it suffers.

The opposite.

For example, floods are extremely good at spreading introduced pest species. While at the same time killing native flora and fauna.

Also flushing toxins and rejuvenating forests, creating lush grasslands..

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

I imagine damming a river isn’t good for its long term health no matter were it is, the river has probably existed for thousands of years and an entire ecosystem exists around it, interrupt the water flow and it suffers.

You may be forgetting that the aborigines also dammed rivers with fish traps.

Were they large scale and permanent ?

Brewarrina fish traps are amazing. Even more amazing as the nearest stones of the size required for the fish traps come from many tens to hundreds of kilometres away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewarrina_Aboriginal_Fish_Traps

There seems to be little understanding of how dams work.

Peak Warming Man said:

There seems to be little understanding of how dams work.

Cubby station and others know how they want them to work.

Peak Warming Man said:

There seems to be little understanding of how dams work.

If they don’t return very much water they are going to affect the river.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

I think they probably know more about it than the mob running it now.

I imagine damming a river isn’t good for its long term health no matter were it is, the river has probably existed for thousands of years and an entire ecosystem exists around it, interrupt the water flow and it suffers.

The opposite.

For example, floods are extremely good at spreading introduced pest species. While at the same time killing native flora and fauna.

Sometimes that is part of the ecosystem and without it, other species would be adversely affected.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

I imagine damming a river isn’t good for its long term health no matter were it is, the river has probably existed for thousands of years and an entire ecosystem exists around it, interrupt the water flow and it suffers.

The opposite.

For example, floods are extremely good at spreading introduced pest species. While at the same time killing native flora and fauna.

Sometimes that is part of the ecosystem and without it, other species would be adversely affected.

and the pest species should never have been introduced.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

The opposite.

For example, floods are extremely good at spreading introduced pest species. While at the same time killing native flora and fauna.

Sometimes that is part of the ecosystem and without it, other species would be adversely affected.

and the pest species should never have been introduced.

Plus if we have greatly modified the landscape those areas wouldn’t have flooded or flooded differently

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Sometimes that is part of the ecosystem and without it, other species would be adversely affected.

and the pest species should never have been introduced.

Plus if we have greatly modified the landscape those areas wouldn’t have flooded or flooded differently

Draining swamps and laser leveling changes the way the river flows yes but roads and channels, railways etc. all change the inflows into the rivers as well.

roughbarked said:

There’s a child on my TV pretending to know something telling me that there needs to be an inquiry into fish deaths. This has been going on since the dawn of time in Australian politics. The people who take the water with no consideration for others, should be hung drawn and quartered to make an example. The only problem with that is that there would be mass carnage. It could get very bloody but in the end it should make people wake up. The water isn’t ours alone. It belongs to no one. It belongs to all who need a drink, not some multinational rich fat cat.

Here’s a piece of trivia I just picked up, from Leuning (2002) “Temperature dependence of two parameters in a photosynthesis model”

Cotton grows fastest at a temperature of 40˚C. In a survey of 30 plant species with measured dependence of photosynthesis on temperature from around the world, cotton was the one with the second highest optimum temperature for growth.

So, irrigating cotton in periods of high temperature is probably the best possible use of that water.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

There’s a child on my TV pretending to know something telling me that there needs to be an inquiry into fish deaths. This has been going on since the dawn of time in Australian politics. The people who take the water with no consideration for others, should be hung drawn and quartered to make an example. The only problem with that is that there would be mass carnage. It could get very bloody but in the end it should make people wake up. The water isn’t ours alone. It belongs to no one. It belongs to all who need a drink, not some multinational rich fat cat.

Here’s a piece of trivia I just picked up, from Leuning (2002) “Temperature dependence of two parameters in a photosynthesis model”

Cotton grows fastest at a temperature of 40˚C. In a survey of 30 plant species with measured dependence of photosynthesis on temperature from around the world, cotton was the one with the second highest optimum temperature for growth.

So, irrigating cotton in periods of high temperature is probably the best possible use of that water.

I do think I’d rather have a drink in the nude than be thirsty in a pair of underdaks.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-31/murray-darling-basin-plan-ignored-potentially-catastrophic-risks/10766106

The lowest-paid shutdown workers aren’t getting back pay
Janitors, security guards and cooks aren’t guaranteed compensation after losing wages

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/29/lowest-paid-shutdown-workers-arent-getting-back-pay/?fbclid=IwAR2LjSlN9Bnf8kFwFBZzZIHsRfch6_hyHSwshyL88iDPUPs1USK5pvehqqY&utm_term=.b85682abfd49

sarahs mum said:

The lowest-paid shutdown workers aren’t getting back pay
Janitors, security guards and cooks aren’t guaranteed compensation after losing wages

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/29/lowest-paid-shutdown-workers-arent-getting-back-pay/?fbclid=IwAR2LjSlN9Bnf8kFwFBZzZIHsRfch6_hyHSwshyL88iDPUPs1USK5pvehqqY&utm_term=.b85682abfd49

The shutdown is estimated to have cut 11 billion dollars from the quarterly GDP but about 8 of that will be made up later.

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

The lowest-paid shutdown workers aren’t getting back pay
Janitors, security guards and cooks aren’t guaranteed compensation after losing wages

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/29/lowest-paid-shutdown-workers-arent-getting-back-pay/?fbclid=IwAR2LjSlN9Bnf8kFwFBZzZIHsRfch6_hyHSwshyL88iDPUPs1USK5pvehqqY&utm_term=.b85682abfd49

The shutdown is estimated to have cut 11 billion dollars from the quarterly GDP but about 8 of that will be made up later.

Though what it has to do with our rivers is another matter of entire.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-05/scientists-urge-changes-to-murray-darling-basin-administration/9396358

roughbarked said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-05/scientists-urge-changes-to-murray-darling-basin-administration/9396358

Yeah, good luck with that. Nothing is going to stop the irrigators from getting their water at the expense of the environment.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-05/scientists-urge-changes-to-murray-darling-basin-administration/9396358

Yeah, good luck with that. Nothing is going to stop the irrigators from getting their water at the expense of the environment.

One can only say that we have gone too far and that the irrigators will have to go to the wall before they will back off.

sarahs mum said:

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

Old Sydney Album
10 mins ·

An early jingle used to advertise the sale of land at Rydalmere, 1886. I think Verse 2 really sells it: “Here thou shalt live so happy from all Typhoid sickness free, with purest of sweet waters ever flowing for thee”.

From the subdivision plan collection at SLNSW

all lies. Where’s the sweet flowing water now?

Should go in the River thread?

it is now.

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

roughbarked said:

all lies. Where’s the sweet flowing water now?

Should go in the River thread?

it is now.

:)

roughbarked said:

There’s a child on my TV pretending to know something telling me that there needs to be an inquiry into fish deaths. This has been going on since the dawn of time in Australian politics. The people who take the water with no cosideration for others, should be hung drawn and quartered to make an example. The only problem with that is that there would be mass carnage. It could get very bloody but in the end it should make people wake up. The water isn’t ours alone. It belongs to no one. It belongs to all who need a drink, not some multinational rich fat cat.

Landline today has an interesting take on the fish deaths.

It blames the Murray water authority for letting water out of the Menindee Lakes before the drought started. By letting water out when there was no need for it downstream, they reduced the water level there so the water wasn’t available in the drought when it was needed.

I have to agree.

The water authority’s excuse for letting water out was to improve the health of the river downstream, when it actually had the exact opposite effect by depriving the river of water when needed for river health later.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

There’s a child on my TV pretending to know something telling me that there needs to be an inquiry into fish deaths. This has been going on since the dawn of time in Australian politics. The people who take the water with no cosideration for others, should be hung drawn and quartered to make an example. The only problem with that is that there would be mass carnage. It could get very bloody but in the end it should make people wake up. The water isn’t ours alone. It belongs to no one. It belongs to all who need a drink, not some multinational rich fat cat.

Landline today has an interesting take on the fish deaths.

It blames the Murray water authority for letting water out of the Menindee Lakes before the drought started. By letting water out when there was no need for it downstream, they reduced the water level there so the water wasn’t available in the drought when it was needed.

I have to agree.

The water authority’s excuse for letting water out was to improve the health of the river downstream, when it actually had the exact opposite effect by depriving the river of water when needed for river health later.

Can’t be arsed finding it now, but I read somewhere that Menindee Lakes has a fairly high evaporation rate. Holding water in the lake to cover drought might not be very effective because by the time you want it there might not be much left.

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

There’s a child on my TV pretending to know something telling me that there needs to be an inquiry into fish deaths. This has been going on since the dawn of time in Australian politics. The people who take the water with no cosideration for others, should be hung drawn and quartered to make an example. The only problem with that is that there would be mass carnage. It could get very bloody but in the end it should make people wake up. The water isn’t ours alone. It belongs to no one. It belongs to all who need a drink, not some multinational rich fat cat.

Landline today has an interesting take on the fish deaths.

It blames the Murray water authority for letting water out of the Menindee Lakes before the drought started. By letting water out when there was no need for it downstream, they reduced the water level there so the water wasn’t available in the drought when it was needed.

I have to agree.

The water authority’s excuse for letting water out was to improve the health of the river downstream, when it actually had the exact opposite effect by depriving the river of water when needed for river health later.

Can’t be arsed finding it now, but I read somewhere that Menindee Lakes has a fairly high evaporation rate. Holding water in the lake to cover drought might not be very effective because by the time you want it there might not be much left.

Yes, evaporation is huge, according to Landline.

I could fix the evaporation problem in the Menindee Lakes fairly easily. Any civil engineer could.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

Landline today has an interesting take on the fish deaths.

It blames the Murray water authority for letting water out of the Menindee Lakes before the drought started. By letting water out when there was no need for it downstream, they reduced the water level there so the water wasn’t available in the drought when it was needed.

I have to agree.

The water authority’s excuse for letting water out was to improve the health of the river downstream, when it actually had the exact opposite effect by depriving the river of water when needed for river health later.

Can’t be arsed finding it now, but I read somewhere that Menindee Lakes has a fairly high evaporation rate. Holding water in the lake to cover drought might not be very effective because by the time you want it there might not be much left.

Yes, evaporation is huge, according to Landline.

I could fix the evaporation problem in the Menindee Lakes fairly easily. Any civil engineer could.

How?

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

There’s a child on my TV pretending to know something telling me that there needs to be an inquiry into fish deaths. This has been going on since the dawn of time in Australian politics. The people who take the water with no cosideration for others, should be hung drawn and quartered to make an example. The only problem with that is that there would be mass carnage. It could get very bloody but in the end it should make people wake up. The water isn’t ours alone. It belongs to no one. It belongs to all who need a drink, not some multinational rich fat cat.

Landline today has an interesting take on the fish deaths.

It blames the Murray water authority for letting water out of the Menindee Lakes before the drought started. By letting water out when there was no need for it downstream, they reduced the water level there so the water wasn’t available in the drought when it was needed.

I have to agree.

The water authority’s excuse for letting water out was to improve the health of the river downstream, when it actually had the exact opposite effect by depriving the river of water when needed for river health later.

Can’t be arsed finding it now, but I read somewhere that Menindee Lakes has a fairly high evaporation rate. Holding water in the lake to cover drought might not be very effective because by the time you want it there might not be much left.

Yes the evaporation rate is in the order of 400 to 700 Gl of water per year depending on how much water is iin the lakes to evaporate. https://www.mdba.gov.au/river-murray-system/running-river-murray/menindee-lakes-facts

This however isn’t the whole story.

eg: if the lakes have been deliberately dried out it takes double that to resaturate the soil enough for water to fill the lakes.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

Landline today has an interesting take on the fish deaths.

It blames the Murray water authority for letting water out of the Menindee Lakes before the drought started. By letting water out when there was no need for it downstream, they reduced the water level there so the water wasn’t available in the drought when it was needed.

I have to agree.

The water authority’s excuse for letting water out was to improve the health of the river downstream, when it actually had the exact opposite effect by depriving the river of water when needed for river health later.

Can’t be arsed finding it now, but I read somewhere that Menindee Lakes has a fairly high evaporation rate. Holding water in the lake to cover drought might not be very effective because by the time you want it there might not be much left.

Yes, evaporation is huge, according to Landline.

I could fix the evaporation problem in the Menindee Lakes fairly easily. Any civil engineer could.

Floating bubbles?

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

Can’t be arsed finding it now, but I read somewhere that Menindee Lakes has a fairly high evaporation rate. Holding water in the lake to cover drought might not be very effective because by the time you want it there might not be much left.

Yes, evaporation is huge, according to Landline.

I could fix the evaporation problem in the Menindee Lakes fairly easily. Any civil engineer could.

How?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHvB9L0bFhw

Off topic, but Ross river dam is now 230% full.

mollwollfumble said:

Off topic, but Ross river dam is now 230% full.

mollwollfumble said:

Off topic, but Ross river dam is now 230% full.

Stand Up level 3

Only one more Stand Up level before Fall Around level 1