There is a lot of noise about South Austalia demanding that more water stay in the river system to reach them. Ostensibly for environmental purposes.
There is noise all the way back up the rivers as to how if water is left in the river, whole communities will fail.
Where does the selfishness stop?
Good science has been done and there definitely does seem that a balance needs to be maintained or all the communities will end up choking each other off.
We have seen that agribusiness doesn’t care how they get the water as long as they get all of what they plan to use, regardless of how this may effect anybody downstream.

Science has called for the issue to be made federal and to cut the state interests right out since these rivers know no state boundaries.
The federal government cannot base predictions of growth and economic growth is clearly unsustainable because none of it can occur without adequate water supplies.

In the past the government encouraged as many people as possible to go out and clear land for agriculture and in the process basically overallocated people with rights to land and water for farming. Now the whole river systems are suffering from this initial overallocation and any of the efforts to right the imbalances thus caused.

There are so many avenues of thought that haven’t really been traversed much as yet in regard to what other things can we do to make water use more efficient.

roughbarked said:

There is a lot of noise about South Austalia demanding that more water stay in the river system to reach them. Ostensibly for environmental purposes.
There is noise all the way back up the rivers as to how if water is left in the river, whole communities will fail.
Where does the selfishness stop?
Good science has been done and there definitely does seem that a balance needs to be maintained or all the communities will end up choking each other off.
We have seen that agribusiness doesn’t care how they get the water as long as they get all of what they plan to use, regardless of how this may effect anybody downstream.

Science has called for the issue to be made federal and to cut the state interests right out since these rivers know no state boundaries.
The federal government cannot base predictions of growth and economic growth is clearly unsustainable because none of it can occur without adequate water supplies.

In the past the government encouraged as many people as possible to go out and clear land for agriculture and in the process basically overallocated people with rights to land and water for farming. Now the whole river systems are suffering from this initial overallocation and any of the efforts to right the imbalances thus caused.

There are so many avenues of thought that haven’t really been traversed much as yet in regard to what other things can we do to make water use more efficient.

Doesn’t matter what the answer is, there’s going to be someone that doesn’t like it. They’ve just spent hundreds of millions on the “Murray Darling Basin” sorting it out at the “national” level. And yep. Some didn’t like it. Rice and cotton are some of the most water intensive crops you can grow, but what better environment to grow them, where very little “random” water falls, yet you can pour on the water (basically flood irrigate) EXACTLY when needed from a river system. Perfect crop every time. They all agree that something needs to be done, but NIMBY ya don’t.Do it so somebody else’s back yard, but not mine.

Woodie said:

roughbarked said:

There is a lot of noise about South Austalia demanding that more water stay in the river system to reach them. Ostensibly for environmental purposes.
There is noise all the way back up the rivers as to how if water is left in the river, whole communities will fail.
Where does the selfishness stop?
Good science has been done and there definitely does seem that a balance needs to be maintained or all the communities will end up choking each other off.
We have seen that agribusiness doesn’t care how they get the water as long as they get all of what they plan to use, regardless of how this may effect anybody downstream.

Science has called for the issue to be made federal and to cut the state interests right out since these rivers know no state boundaries.
The federal government cannot base predictions of growth and economic growth is clearly unsustainable because none of it can occur without adequate water supplies.

In the past the government encouraged as many people as possible to go out and clear land for agriculture and in the process basically overallocated people with rights to land and water for farming. Now the whole river systems are suffering from this initial overallocation and any of the efforts to right the imbalances thus caused.

There are so many avenues of thought that haven’t really been traversed much as yet in regard to what other things can we do to make water use more efficient.

Doesn’t matter what the answer is, there’s going to be someone that doesn’t like it. They’ve just spent hundreds of millions on the “Murray Darling Basin” sorting it out at the “national” level. And yep. Some didn’t like it. Rice and cotton are some of the most water intensive crops you can grow, but what better environment to grow them, where very little “random” water falls, yet you can pour on the water (basically flood irrigate) EXACTLY when needed from a river system. Perfect crop every time. They all agree that something needs to be done, but NIMBY ya don’t.Do it so somebody else’s back yard, but not mine.

We had a big hoo-ha here when some water was released for environmental flow purposes.

The desalinators should be running, put a bit of water back into the system, machinery unused breaks down. I am sure you can find a consultant that will prepare figures to show that benefit of running them outweighs the cost, you can do anything with intangibles.

You could make suburbs almost water self sufficient, at the moment they are just vast averages of roof and road with water going into the drains and out to sea whilst the households draw water from dams. Madness.

How about every new house have as part of its construction a 50000 litre tank buried in the back yard. Probably no need for a brown water garden system, for some reason people are building houses without gardens. But a 50k water reserve would go a long ways to keeping water in the dams for longer.

AwesomeO said:

The desalinators should be running, put a bit of water back into the system, machinery unused breaks down. I am sure you can find a consultant that will prepare figures to show that benefit of running them outweighs the cost, you can do anything with intangibles.

You could make suburbs almost water self sufficient, at the moment they are just vast averages of roof and road with water going into the drains and out to sea whilst the households draw water from dams. Madness.

How about every new house have as part of its construction a 50000 litre tank buried in the back yard. Probably no need for a brown water garden system, for some reason people are building houses without gardens. But a 50k water reserve would go a long ways to keeping water in the dams for longer.

I’ve got about 70k of tankage & rely 100% on rainwater. I had to pump from the Millstream before I bought the 44k tank.

Tamb said:

AwesomeO said:

The desalinators should be running, put a bit of water back into the system, machinery unused breaks down. I am sure you can find a consultant that will prepare figures to show that benefit of running them outweighs the cost, you can do anything with intangibles.

You could make suburbs almost water self sufficient, at the moment they are just vast averages of roof and road with water going into the drains and out to sea whilst the households draw water from dams. Madness.

How about every new house have as part of its construction a 50000 litre tank buried in the back yard. Probably no need for a brown water garden system, for some reason people are building houses without gardens. But a 50k water reserve would go a long ways to keeping water in the dams for longer.

I’ve got about 70k of tankage & rely 100% on rainwater. I had to pump from the Millstream before I bought the 44k tank.

I picked 50k as its not an impossible size to bury and a modern McMansion roof would fill or top it up with even a modest shower, someone smarter than me can work out how much you would harvest from a shower. Some households would only ever touch the town water for drinking and cooking, all the other operations could be provided from the tank.

It would also reduce a lot of pressure on storm water drains if every house is sucking up a few thousand litres.

AwesomeO said:

How about every new house have as part of its construction a 50000 litre tank buried in the back yard. Probably no need for a brown water garden system, for some reason people are building houses without gardens. But a 50k water reserve would go a long ways to keeping water in the dams for longer.

The problem with that, Mr O, particularly in cities, is particulate pollution, that has settled on the roof, including carcinogens, then gets washed into your tank, and then you drink it. Terracotta roof tiles are not suitable for collecting drinking water as they leech all sorts of “stuff“out of them, into your drinking water. For this reason, I understand collecting your own water in cities is not permitted. Health reasons. Also the public drainage systems requires a certain amount of water to keep that “healthy” as well, and flush it out.

Woodie said:

AwesomeO said:

How about every new house have as part of its construction a 50000 litre tank buried in the back yard. Probably no need for a brown water garden system, for some reason people are building houses without gardens. But a 50k water reserve would go a long ways to keeping water in the dams for longer.

The problem with that, Mr O, particularly in cities, is particulate pollution, that has settled on the roof, including carcinogens, then gets washed into your tank, and then you drink it. Terracotta roof tiles are not suitable for collecting drinking water as they leech all sorts of “stuff“out of them, into your drinking water. For this reason, I understand collecting your own water in cities is not permitted. Health reasons. Also the public drainage systems requires a certain amount of water to keep that “healthy” as well, and flush it out.

No, I actually acknowledged water and cooking as separate, using the usual infrastructure, people would demand that anyway, for as you say health, and also so they are not trapped without water, all other operations being the stored.

Woodie said:

AwesomeO said:

How about every new house have as part of its construction a 50000 litre tank buried in the back yard. Probably no need for a brown water garden system, for some reason people are building houses without gardens. But a 50k water reserve would go a long ways to keeping water in the dams for longer.

The problem with that, Mr O, particularly in cities, is particulate pollution, that has settled on the roof, including carcinogens, then gets washed into your tank, and then you drink it. Terracotta roof tiles are not suitable for collecting drinking water as they leech all sorts of “stuff“out of them, into your drinking water. For this reason, I understand collecting your own water in cities is not permitted. Health reasons. Also the public drainage systems requires a certain amount of water to keep that “healthy” as well, and flush it out.

New houses could have Colourbond roofing & a first flow diverter.

AwesomeO said:

Tamb said:

AwesomeO said:

The desalinators should be running, put a bit of water back into the system, machinery unused breaks down. I am sure you can find a consultant that will prepare figures to show that benefit of running them outweighs the cost, you can do anything with intangibles.

You could make suburbs almost water self sufficient, at the moment they are just vast averages of roof and road with water going into the drains and out to sea whilst the households draw water from dams. Madness.

How about every new house have as part of its construction a 50000 litre tank buried in the back yard. Probably no need for a brown water garden system, for some reason people are building houses without gardens. But a 50k water reserve would go a long ways to keeping water in the dams for longer.

I’ve got about 70k of tankage & rely 100% on rainwater. I had to pump from the Millstream before I bought the 44k tank.

I picked 50k as its not an impossible size to bury and a modern McMansion roof would fill or top it up with even a modest shower, someone smarter than me can work out how much you would harvest from a shower. Some households would only ever touch the town water for drinking and cooking, all the other operations could be provided from the tank.

It would also reduce a lot of pressure on storm water drains if every house is sucking up a few thousand litres.

http://www.calctool.org/CALC/other/default/rainfall

a couple of problems with buried tanks. if you have a high water table an empty tank will float. 50 000l tank is a big hole to dig and you have to roof it so that it is safe. smaller tanks would be better.

poikilotherm said:

AwesomeO said:

Tamb said:

I’ve got about 70k of tankage & rely 100% on rainwater. I had to pump from the Millstream before I bought the 44k tank.

I picked 50k as its not an impossible size to bury and a modern McMansion roof would fill or top it up with even a modest shower, someone smarter than me can work out how much you would harvest from a shower. Some households would only ever touch the town water for drinking and cooking, all the other operations could be provided from the tank.

It would also reduce a lot of pressure on storm water drains if every house is sucking up a few thousand litres.

http://www.calctool.org/CALC/other/default/rainfall

Neat little tool.

ChrispenEvan said:

a couple of problems with buried tanks. if you have a high water table an empty tank will float. 50 000l tank is a big hole to dig and you have to roof it so that it is safe. smaller tanks would be better.

Tanks get cheaper/ m^3 the bigger they get & one big hole is cheaper than two smaller ones.

Tamb said:

ChrispenEvan said:

a couple of problems with buried tanks. if you have a high water table an empty tank will float. 50 000l tank is a big hole to dig and you have to roof it so that it is safe. smaller tanks would be better.

Tanks get cheaper/ m^3 the bigger they get & one big hole is cheaper than two smaller ones.

but you have to roof a 5m+ dia tank. that is serious span.

ChrispenEvan said:

a couple of problems with buried tanks. if you have a high water table an empty tank will float. 50 000l tank is a big hole to dig and you have to roof it so that it is safe. smaller tanks would be better.

I thought with people pressing houses to the edge of the block, any outside ground is precious and a tank has to be below the level of the roof gutters, under the front drive is a good spot and that would be concreted over anyway. Removing dirt is not so much of a problem in building a new home, for a 50k tank, eyeballing that’s only 3 trucks worth. Re ground water, yeah that would be an issue but not insurmountable, they routinely bury petrol station tanks without any issue.

Bigger tanks are better, they actually take up less room than multiple small tanks of the same capacity.

Wanna solve the water problem? Ban backyard swimming pools. Go look at Google Earth and see how much water is in them. And it all evaporates. And you can’t fill a pool that constantly evaporates, from the water you collect off the roof. There just ain’t enough.

Woodie said:

Wanna solve the water problem? Ban backyard swimming pools. Go look at Google Earth and see how much water is in them. And it all evaporates. And you can’t fill a pool that constantly evaporates, from the water you collect off the roof. There just ain’t enough.

I was thinking about that the other day, saw an image of a suburb and every second house had a pool. But I was thinking about the Eco system that would follow the zombie apocalypse, with multiple bogs or swampy patches everywhere.

AwesomeO said:

Woodie said:

Wanna solve the water problem? Ban backyard swimming pools. Go look at Google Earth and see how much water is in them. And it all evaporates. And you can’t fill a pool that constantly evaporates, from the water you collect off the roof. There just ain’t enough.

I was thinking about that the other day, saw an image of a suburb and every second house had a pool. But I was thinking about the Eco system that would follow the zombie apocalypse, with multiple bogs or swampy patches everywhere.

IIRC, When I lived in Melbourne and had a backyard pool, it would evaporate at about 5 cm a week over the summer period. (No, I didn’t have a cover). Then I worked out if I collected ALL the rainfall off the roof, I’d require more than TWICE Melbourne’s rainfall just to keep the pool topped up. Not as bad in Sydney, when I had pool. Humidity in Sydney is much higher than Melbourne, so the evaporation rate was not as high.

We have 5 tanks giving us a total of 10500 litres and they often overflow.
We use them on the garden and for drinking water as the tap water is so unpleasant that you don’t want to drink it.

Cymek said:

We have 5 tanks giving us a total of 10500 litres and they often overflow.
We use them on the garden and for drinking water as the tap water is so unpleasant that you don’t want to drink it.

We use ours for everything.
The septic trench is extra long & waters all the plant bordering the back grass/lawn so that saves quite a bit of watering.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

We have 5 tanks giving us a total of 10500 litres and they often overflow.
We use them on the garden and for drinking water as the tap water is so unpleasant that you don’t want to drink it.

We use ours for everything.
The septic trench is extra long & waters all the plant bordering the back grass/lawn so that saves quite a bit of watering.

I’d like to do that but it would have required an large tank buried before the house was built, room left for one more tank but we do at some point want to install an aquaponics set up and that’s the only spot it could go.

roughbarked said:

There is a lot of noise about South Austalia demanding that more water stay in the river system to reach them. Ostensibly for environmental purposes.
There is noise all the way back up the rivers as to how if water is left in the river, whole communities will fail.
Where does the selfishness stop?

This selfishness has been deliberately manufactured by governments, notably those of Howard and Abbott.

Rather than solving the water problem by distribution according to need, they sold off water rights to the highest bidder. With water barons being the result.

That way, governments can say “we’re not interested in water any more, fight amongst yourselves”. An attitude I detest.

As for “environmental flows”, make sure the science is good. One study showed that reintroduing environmental flows into the Snowy River was a serious mistake. The manufactured floods spead invasive weed species far wider than before, and as a result degraded the environment.

I still think that floodwater from the Clarence should be redirected across the Great Dividing Range into the Darling. Though I’ve given up on the idea of redirecting floodwater from the Gulf of Carpentaria into the Darling.

mollwollfumble said:

I still think that floodwater from the Clarence should be redirected across the Great Dividing Range into the Darling.

99% of the time, the Clarence doesn’t flow.

Woodie said:

mollwollfumble said:

I still think that floodwater from the Clarence should be redirected across the Great Dividing Range into the Darling.

99% of the time, the Clarence doesn’t flow.

Doubt that, the Maryland which feeds the Clarence has only stopped flowing for about a month in the 4 years I’ve had the redoubt.

Woodie said:

mollwollfumble said:

I still think that floodwater from the Clarence should be redirected across the Great Dividing Range into the Darling.

99% of the time, the Clarence doesn’t flow.

There are several different Australian rivers called “Clarence”. I mean the one that has flooded Grafton over 120 times.

• There are several different Australian rivers called “Clarence”.

mollwollfumble said:

Woodie said:

mollwollfumble said:

I still think that floodwater from the Clarence should be redirected across the Great Dividing Range into the Darling.

99% of the time, the Clarence doesn’t flow.

There are several different Australian rivers called “Clarence”. I mean the one that has flooded Grafton over 120 times.

And as Woodie pointed out, most of the time it has little or no inflow. Floods mostly come from major Eastern Fall and Gulf Country ( hinterland) rainfall events. East Coast Lows. Floods are uncommon, but devastating events. When they occur, generally there is sufficient rainfalll to cause minor to major flooding on the Western Fall.

I was lucky enough to watch a river-filling event in the Upper Clarence after an east Coast Low rainfall event of 250 mm overnight. A 200 mm high wall of water slowly splashed over river cobbles that separated the Clarence River water holes. I was so excited, I called Steve (Primus), whose house block backs onto the Clarence, so he could observe it.

:)

Sure, Howard and Abbott did their thing but the problems really started from the beginning. Water rights were allocated willy nilly without any respect for the rivers themselves or indeed the science.
That one cannot fill their swimming pool with the local rainfall should actually be a revelation to all.
Economists continually talk about growth, part of which is population growth but these same economists have never applied their skills to the supply of or the demands on water.

The releases of environmental flows are fraught with many difficulties which again had not been seriously thought through. Even down to the temperatures of the water that is released.

The very nature of towns and cities is that the water cycle is interrupted in ways that are now virtually irreversible.

In short the whole water management thing is now a complete fuckup which will indeed come back to bite us all.

roughbarked said:

In short the whole water management thing is now a complete fuckup which will indeed come back to bite us all.

Absolutely. But is there too much management or too little? I don’t know the answer to that one.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

In short the whole water management thing is now a complete fuckup which will indeed come back to bite us all.

Absolutely. But is there too much management or too little? I don’t know the answer to that one.

There is a case for that on efficiency grounds, no management at all. Efficient producers will prosper. But the problem with that is if you take the view that the health of the river system must be maintained. It might be that they are incompatible. On the other hand it might be, as I have heard, that in the past, the river dried up through natural processes before man got involved. Is natural better then?

I think, and only from watching the programs, the plan is ok, compliance is being rorted. It might be that more management is needed at a lower level, checking water use and big fines issued.

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

In short the whole water management thing is now a complete fuckup which will indeed come back to bite us all.

Absolutely. But is there too much management or too little? I don’t know the answer to that one.

There is a case for that on efficiency grounds, no management at all. Efficient producers will prosper. But the problem with that is if you take the view that the health of the river system must be maintained. It might be that they are incompatible. On the other hand it might be, as I have heard, that in the past, the river dried up through natural processes before man got involved. Is natural better then?

I think, and only from watching the programs, the plan is ok, compliance is being rorted. It might be that more management is needed at a lower level, checking water use and big fines issued.

I don’t doubt that the parts of the Murray River system have dried up in the past, but at what cost to the environment and now that has been so severely changed by human activity, what extra pressures would now be be placed upon it, possibly to breaking point. Changing environments are what causes the heaviest loss to natural systems, it all depends if sufficient parts remain to permit ecosystems to survive.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

Absolutely. But is there too much management or too little? I don’t know the answer to that one.

There is a case for that on efficiency grounds, no management at all. Efficient producers will prosper. But the problem with that is if you take the view that the health of the river system must be maintained. It might be that they are incompatible. On the other hand it might be, as I have heard, that in the past, the river dried up through natural processes before man got involved. Is natural better then?

I think, and only from watching the programs, the plan is ok, compliance is being rorted. It might be that more management is needed at a lower level, checking water use and big fines issued.

I don’t doubt that the parts of the Murray River system have dried up in the past, but at what cost to the environment and now that has been so severely changed by human activity, what extra pressures would now be be placed upon it, possibly to breaking point. Changing environments are what causes the heaviest loss to natural systems, it all depends if sufficient parts remain to permit ecosystems to survive.

Yes, and?

• Yes, and?

She’s got eyes of the bluest skies…

furious said:

• Yes, and?

She’s got eyes of the bluest skies…

ltptt.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

There is a case for that on efficiency grounds, no management at all. Efficient producers will prosper. But the problem with that is if you take the view that the health of the river system must be maintained. It might be that they are incompatible. On the other hand it might be, as I have heard, that in the past, the river dried up through natural processes before man got involved. Is natural better then?

I think, and only from watching the programs, the plan is ok, compliance is being rorted. It might be that more management is needed at a lower level, checking water use and big fines issued.

I don’t doubt that the parts of the Murray River system have dried up in the past, but at what cost to the environment and now that has been so severely changed by human activity, what extra pressures would now be be placed upon it, possibly to breaking point. Changing environments are what causes the heaviest loss to natural systems, it all depends if sufficient parts remain to permit ecosystems to survive.

Yes, and?

If it dried up now, there is a much greater risk the the environment than had the pre-European environment remained. So natural would be best.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

I don’t doubt that the parts of the Murray River system have dried up in the past, but at what cost to the environment and now that has been so severely changed by human activity, what extra pressures would now be be placed upon it, possibly to breaking point. Changing environments are what causes the heaviest loss to natural systems, it all depends if sufficient parts remain to permit ecosystems to survive.

Yes, and?

If it dried up now, there is a much greater risk the the environment than had the pre-European environment remained. So natural would be best.

That’s not an option any more. It’s a managed waterway. You have to deal with what you have, not how you wish things to be.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Yes, and?

If it dried up now, there is a much greater risk the the environment than had the pre-European environment remained. So natural would be best.

That’s not an option any more. It’s a managed waterway. You have to deal with what you have, not how you wish things to be.

If that means everything will die, I personally hope the Europeans go first.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

If it dried up now, there is a much greater risk the the environment than had the pre-European environment remained. So natural would be best.

That’s not an option any more. It’s a managed waterway. You have to deal with what you have, not how you wish things to be.

If that means everything will die, I personally hope the Europeans go first.

Well no, it doesn’t mean that at all.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

That’s not an option any more. It’s a managed waterway. You have to deal with what you have, not how you wish things to be.

If that means everything will die, I personally hope the Europeans go first.

Well no, it doesn’t mean that at all.

What makes you think nobody is gong to be affected, either in your “managed” section or further down stream? The life of the river is more important than the greed of some big water users along the way.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

If that means everything will die, I personally hope the Europeans go first.

Well no, it doesn’t mean that at all.

What makes you think nobody is gong to be affected, either in your “managed” section or further down stream? The life of the river is more important than the greed of some big water users along the way.

Thats a leap from asking if that means does everything die. No where in what I said, implied that the life of the river is not important or that big water users can abuse the river.

You might want to ratchet back on the building of strawmen.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Well no, it doesn’t mean that at all.

What makes you think nobody is gong to be affected, either in your “managed” section or further down stream? The life of the river is more important than the greed of some big water users along the way.

Thats a leap from asking if that means does everything die. No where in what I said, implied that the life of the river is not important or that big water users can abuse the river.

You might want to ratchet back on the building of strawmen.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said: mollwollfumble said: Absolutely. But is there too much management or too little? I don’t know the answer to that one. There is a case for that on efficiency grounds, no management at all. Efficient producers will prosper. But the problem with that is if you take the view that the health of the river system must be maintained. It might be that they are incompatible. On the other hand it might be, as I have heard, that in the past, the river dried up through natural processes before man got involved. Is natural better then? I think, and only from watching the programs, the plan is ok, compliance is being rorted. It might be that more management is needed at a lower level, checking water use and big fines issued. I don’t doubt that the parts of the Murray River system have dried up in the past, but at what cost to the environment and now that has been so severely changed by human activity, what extra pressures would now be be placed upon it, possibly to breaking point. Changing environments are what causes the heaviest loss to natural systems, it all depends if sufficient parts remain to permit ecosystems to survive.

Yes, and?

Just following the thread to its logical conclusion if you disregard the environmental situation.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

What makes you think nobody is gong to be affected, either in your “managed” section or further down stream? The life of the river is more important than the greed of some big water users along the way.

Thats a leap from asking if that means does everything die. No where in what I said, implied that the life of the river is not important or that big water users can abuse the river.

You might want to ratchet back on the building of strawmen.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said: mollwollfumble said: Absolutely. But is there too much management or too little? I don’t know the answer to that one. There is a case for that on efficiency grounds, no management at all. Efficient producers will prosper. But the problem with that is if you take the view that the health of the river system must be maintained. It might be that they are incompatible. On the other hand it might be, as I have heard, that in the past, the river dried up through natural processes before man got involved. Is natural better then? I think, and only from watching the programs, the plan is ok, compliance is being rorted. It might be that more management is needed at a lower level, checking water use and big fines issued. I don’t doubt that the parts of the Murray River system have dried up in the past, but at what cost to the environment and now that has been so severely changed by human activity, what extra pressures would now be be placed upon it, possibly to breaking point. Changing environments are what causes the heaviest loss to natural systems, it all depends if sufficient parts remain to permit ecosystems to survive.

Yes, and?

Just following the thread to its logical conclusion if you disregard the environmental situation.

Apart from yourself in building strawmen who is disregarding the environmental situation?

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Thats a leap from asking if that means does everything die. No where in what I said, implied that the life of the river is not important or that big water users can abuse the river.

You might want to ratchet back on the building of strawmen.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said: mollwollfumble said: Absolutely. But is there too much management or too little? I don’t know the answer to that one. There is a case for that on efficiency grounds, no management at all. Efficient producers will prosper. But the problem with that is if you take the view that the health of the river system must be maintained. It might be that they are incompatible. On the other hand it might be, as I have heard, that in the past, the river dried up through natural processes before man got involved. Is natural better then? I think, and only from watching the programs, the plan is ok, compliance is being rorted. It might be that more management is needed at a lower level, checking water use and big fines issued. I don’t doubt that the parts of the Murray River system have dried up in the past, but at what cost to the environment and now that has been so severely changed by human activity, what extra pressures would now be be placed upon it, possibly to breaking point. Changing environments are what causes the heaviest loss to natural systems, it all depends if sufficient parts remain to permit ecosystems to survive.

Yes, and?

Just following the thread to its logical conclusion if you disregard the environmental situation.

Apart from yourself in building strawmen who is disregarding the environmental situation?

The way I read it was, as it was now a “managed” river system, there was no room for the natural environment, or at least it could only expect to get whatever was left over. No intentional strawman involved, at worse a misunderstanding.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said: mollwollfumble said: Absolutely. But is there too much management or too little? I don’t know the answer to that one. There is a case for that on efficiency grounds, no management at all. Efficient producers will prosper. But the problem with that is if you take the view that the health of the river system must be maintained. It might be that they are incompatible. On the other hand it might be, as I have heard, that in the past, the river dried up through natural processes before man got involved. Is natural better then? I think, and only from watching the programs, the plan is ok, compliance is being rorted. It might be that more management is needed at a lower level, checking water use and big fines issued. I don’t doubt that the parts of the Murray River system have dried up in the past, but at what cost to the environment and now that has been so severely changed by human activity, what extra pressures would now be be placed upon it, possibly to breaking point. Changing environments are what causes the heaviest loss to natural systems, it all depends if sufficient parts remain to permit ecosystems to survive.

Yes, and?

Just following the thread to its logical conclusion if you disregard the environmental situation.

Apart from yourself in building strawmen who is disregarding the environmental situation?

The way I read it was, as it was now a “managed” river system, there was no room for the natural environment, or at least it could only expect to get whatever was left over. No intentional strawman involved, at worse a misunderstanding.

At the beginning of this story, my post mentioned in a passing fashion that we are talking about a managed system all along. When I said it was all fuckedup, you agreed with “absolutely”.
I had also mentioned environmental purposes which again though once naturally managed, we have taken over this role.
I also mentioned that the general consensus from the water users is that, we will die our towns will die unless we can use all the water.
The science speaks of the river health and the health not only of micro-ecosystems but also the whole ecosystem.

“what the camels eat one year, will grow back the next”. From the ABC..“Running Wild, Australia’s Camels”.

Woodie said:

roughbarked said:

There is a lot of noise about South Austalia demanding that more water stay in the river system to reach them. Ostensibly for environmental purposes.
There is noise all the way back up the rivers as to how if water is left in the river, whole communities will fail.
Where does the selfishness stop?
Good science has been done and there definitely does seem that a balance needs to be maintained or all the communities will end up choking each other off.
We have seen that agribusiness doesn’t care how they get the water as long as they get all of what they plan to use, regardless of how this may effect anybody downstream.

Science has called for the issue to be made federal and to cut the state interests right out since these rivers know no state boundaries.
The federal government cannot base predictions of growth and economic growth is clearly unsustainable because none of it can occur without adequate water supplies.

In the past the government encouraged as many people as possible to go out and clear land for agriculture and in the process basically overallocated people with rights to land and water for farming. Now the whole river systems are suffering from this initial overallocation and any of the efforts to right the imbalances thus caused.

There are so many avenues of thought that haven’t really been traversed much as yet in regard to what other things can we do to make water use more efficient.

Doesn’t matter what the answer is, there’s going to be someone that doesn’t like it. They’ve just spent hundreds of millions on the “Murray Darling Basin” sorting it out at the “national” level. And yep. Some didn’t like it. Rice and cotton are some of the most water intensive crops you can grow, but what better environment to grow them, where very little “random” water falls, yet you can pour on the water (basically flood irrigate) EXACTLY when needed from a river system. Perfect crop every time. They all agree that something needs to be done, but NIMBY ya don’t.Do it so somebody else’s back yard, but not mine.

Well the answer will not work unless it suits all stakeholders. Though there does exist the problem that by far the majority of stakeholders appear to not be able to speak their voice in our parliament. Since when an invertebtate can speak up for its constituents?
amongst the bigger water users are actually Kellogs corn flakes.
WGAF?

Probably almost none of us.

Bugger the problem of fixing typos.

Seriously, even the science is out of its depth on this very vexing issue.

roughbarked said:

Bugger the problem of fixing typos.

Seriously, even the science is out of its depth on this very vexing issue.

The talk is that Australia is a hole in the ground for the rest of the world.
Sure we send lots of coal and iron ore everywhere..
However, being essentially still a primary producer, we also send probably as much of our precious water overseas, every day.

AwesomeO said:

The desalinators should be running, put a bit of water back into the system, machinery unused breaks down. I am sure you can find a consultant that will prepare figures to show that benefit of running them outweighs the cost, you can do anything with intangibles.

You could make suburbs almost water self sufficient, at the moment they are just vast averages of roof and road with water going into the drains and out to sea whilst the households draw water from dams. Madness.

How about every new house have as part of its construction a 50000 litre tank buried in the back yard. Probably no need for a brown water garden system, for some reason people are building houses without gardens. But a 50k water reserve would go a long ways to keeping water in the dams for longer.

I agree that madness abounds. I don’t know about You but We could indeed make suburbs water self sufficient.

Woodie said:

AwesomeO said:

How about every new house have as part of its construction a 50000 litre tank buried in the back yard. Probably no need for a brown water garden system, for some reason people are building houses without gardens. But a 50k water reserve would go a long ways to keeping water in the dams for longer.

The problem with that, Mr O, particularly in cities, is particulate pollution, that has settled on the roof, including carcinogens, then gets washed into your tank, and then you drink it. Terracotta roof tiles are not suitable for collecting drinking water as they leech all sorts of “stuff“out of them, into your drinking water. For this reason, I understand collecting your own water in cities is not permitted. Health reasons. Also the public drainage systems requires a certain amount of water to keep that “healthy” as well, and flush it out.

I could possibly point out here that at one time in my life with Mrs rb was the seven years we spent with our only drinking water being rainwater collected from our roof and she complained the whole time, patticularly during pregnancy and lactation that proximity of the landlord farmer’s chemical filling station was contaminating the air, let alone the rainwater runoff. That the docktars pointed to agricultural chemicals as being the root cause of her non-hodgkins lymphoma..

ChrispenEvan said:

a couple of problems with buried tanks. if you have a high water table an empty tank will float. 50 000l tank is a big hole to dig and you have to roof it so that it is safe. smaller tanks would be better.

Well. This calls for a bit of science. Firstly to pop a tank out of the ground, it needs to be a soil that has higher proportions of clay and a high water table.

Woodie said:

Wanna solve the water problem? Ban backyard swimming pools. Go look at Google Earth and see how much water is in them. And it all evaporates. And you can’t fill a pool that constantly evaporates, from the water you collect off the roof. There just ain’t enough.

Well it doesn’t make sense to enforce a total ban on using water to cool bodies. What could make sense is that you can still drown your baby in a temporary canvas wading pool that you later tip on your garden.

the past when entered with regret, costs 21 days of your life.

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

Woodie said:

99% of the time, the Clarence doesn’t flow.

There are several different Australian rivers called “Clarence”. I mean the one that has flooded Grafton over 120 times.

And as Woodie pointed out, most of the time it has little or no inflow. Floods mostly come from major Eastern Fall and Gulf Country ( hinterland) rainfall events. East Coast Lows. Floods are uncommon, but devastating events. When they occur, generally there is sufficient rainfalll to cause minor to major flooding on the Western Fall.

I was lucky enough to watch a river-filling event in the Upper Clarence after an east Coast Low rainfall event of 250 mm overnight. A 200 mm high wall of water slowly splashed over river cobbles that separated the Clarence River water holes. I was so excited, I called Steve (Primus), whose house block backs onto the Clarence, so he could observe it.

:)

This is the tip of the real issue. Understanding how all the rivers work. In their own ways.
I mean we do have the longest surviving human usage of this network or any network of rivers. Living right here, beside us.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

There are several different Australian rivers called “Clarence”. I mean the one that has flooded Grafton over 120 times.

And as Woodie pointed out, most of the time it has little or no inflow. Floods mostly come from major Eastern Fall and Gulf Country ( hinterland) rainfall events. East Coast Lows. Floods are uncommon, but devastating events. When they occur, generally there is sufficient rainfalll to cause minor to major flooding on the Western Fall.

I was lucky enough to watch a river-filling event in the Upper Clarence after an east Coast Low rainfall event of 250 mm overnight. A 200 mm high wall of water slowly splashed over river cobbles that separated the Clarence River water holes. I was so excited, I called Steve (Primus), whose house block backs onto the Clarence, so he could observe it.

:)

This is the tip of the real issue. Understanding how all the rivers work. In their own ways.
I mean we do have the longest surviving human usage of this network or any network of rivers. Living right here, beside us.

I also know that we have had engineers all over most of it.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

And as Woodie pointed out, most of the time it has little or no inflow. Floods mostly come from major Eastern Fall and Gulf Country ( hinterland) rainfall events. East Coast Lows. Floods are uncommon, but devastating events. When they occur, generally there is sufficient rainfalll to cause minor to major flooding on the Western Fall.

I was lucky enough to watch a river-filling event in the Upper Clarence after an east Coast Low rainfall event of 250 mm overnight. A 200 mm high wall of water slowly splashed over river cobbles that separated the Clarence River water holes. I was so excited, I called Steve (Primus), whose house block backs onto the Clarence, so he could observe it.

:)

This is the tip of the real issue. Understanding how all the rivers work. In their own ways.
I mean we do have the longest surviving human usage of this network or any network of rivers. Living right here, beside us.

I also know that we have had engineers all over most of it.

Yet even Curve could agree with my comment about it all being fucked up.

I’m sure you have seen it too. A dam wall and a dead dry stream bed below it.
In the commonality of it all, this always looks seems and is, ludicrous at the very least. What were we thinking?

roughbarked said:

I’m sure you have seen it too. A dam wall and a dead dry stream bed below it.
In the commonality of it all, this always looks seems and is, ludicrous at the very least. What were we thinking?

Essentially the issue is that we have done these things from the top order down, rather than the other way up.

My question still clearly stands.. Where do we go from here?

No Australian should be concerned any more about bitcoin than the computer problem that may happen on our phone.
No Australian should be more concerned about this than from where will their next good drink may come from.

roughbarked said:

My question still clearly stands.. Where do we go from here?

Stop growing water guzzling crops, would certainly help.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

My question still clearly stands.. Where do we go from here?

Stop growing water guzzling crops, would certainly help.

You do put a fair point. This is certainly a serious part of what I’ve been saying in my long monologue.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

My question still clearly stands.. Where do we go from here?

Stop growing water guzzling crops, would certainly help.

Get everyone on drip feed and if they could do this with the current crop they grow, they should stop growing it.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

My question still clearly stands.. Where do we go from here?

Stop growing water guzzling crops, would certainly help.

You do put a fair point. This is certainly a serious part of what I’ve been saying in my long monologue.

However, it is well known that when the natural rainfall is there, the vast plains of Australia are a conucopia .

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

My question still clearly stands.. Where do we go from here?

Stop growing water guzzling crops, would certainly help.

Get everyone on drip feed and if they could do this with the current crop they grow, they should stop growing it.

Mulch under trees to reduce water evaporation.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Stop growing water guzzling crops, would certainly help.

You do put a fair point. This is certainly a serious part of what I’ve been saying in my long monologue.

However, it is well known that when the natural rainfall is there, the vast plains of Australia are a conucopia .

But we are considering the longer term and not enough water.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

My question still clearly stands.. Where do we go from here?

Stop growing water guzzling crops, would certainly help.

Get everyone on drip feed and if they could ‘not’ do this with the current crop they grow, they should stop growing it.

fixed.

OK, my mention of drip feed in the MIA is that since this advent, I have actually been able to walk outside and not be eaten by a black skin of mosquito bodies clamouring for my blood. In this time I have also witnessed many birds leaving my environment. Willie wagtail the most prominent of these.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

You do put a fair point. This is certainly a serious part of what I’ve been saying in my long monologue.

However, it is well known that when the natural rainfall is there, the vast plains of Australia are a conucopia .

But we are considering the longer term and not enough water.

Indeed, the word that even Curve used, was management.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

Stop growing water guzzling crops, would certainly help.

Get everyone on drip feed and if they could ‘not’ do this with the current crop they grow, they should stop growing it.

fixed.

OK, my mention of drip feed in the MIA is that since this advent, I have actually been able to walk outside and not be eaten by a black skin of mosquito bodies clamouring for my blood. In this time I have also witnessed many birds leaving my environment. Willie wagtail the most prominent of these.

Would have thought there would be enough flies left for them to make a good living.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Get everyone on drip feed and if they could ‘not’ do this with the current crop they grow, they should stop growing it.

fixed.

OK, my mention of drip feed in the MIA is that since this advent, I have actually been able to walk outside and not be eaten by a black skin of mosquito bodies clamouring for my blood. In this time I have also witnessed many birds leaving my environment. Willie wagtail the most prominent of these.

Would have thought there would be enough flies left for them to make a good living.

No. The wagtail like many flycatchers or other insect eaters, require enough water to make enough invertebrates.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

However, it is well known that when the natural rainfall is there, the vast plains of Australia are a conucopia .

But we are considering the longer term and not enough water.

Indeed, the word that even Curve used, was management.

I think many of the small holdings appreciate the problem and are doing things to assist. The major problem is where the big money is and getting them to change. Also getting a number of politicians changed.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

fixed.

OK, my mention of drip feed in the MIA is that since this advent, I have actually been able to walk outside and not be eaten by a black skin of mosquito bodies clamouring for my blood. In this time I have also witnessed many birds leaving my environment. Willie wagtail the most prominent of these.

Would have thought there would be enough flies left for them to make a good living.

No. The wagtail like many flycatchers or other insect eaters, require enough water to make enough invertebrates.

Yes, Australia is not short of flies, they exist is every part of it, as do Willy Wagtails.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

But we are considering the longer term and not enough water.

Indeed, the word that even Curve used, was management.

I think many of the small holdings appreciate the problem and are doing things to assist. The major problem is where the big money is and getting them to change. Also getting a number of politicians changed.

Big money is clearly a serious issue that long overdue on..needs to be put in it’s box.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Would have thought there would be enough flies left for them to make a good living.

No. The wagtail like many flycatchers or other insect eaters, require enough water to make enough invertebrates.

Yes, Australia is not short of flies, they exist is every part of it, as do Willy Wagtails.

even flies need water.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

No. The wagtail like many flycatchers or other insect eaters, require enough water to make enough invertebrates.

Yes, Australia is not short of flies, they exist is every part of it, as do Willy Wagtails.

even flies need water.

Cow pats or carrion, plenty of both.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Yes, Australia is not short of flies, they exist is every part of it, as do Willy Wagtails.

even flies need water.

Cow pats or carrion, plenty of both.

Yet wagtails still persist closest to actual water.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

even flies need water.

Cow pats or carrion, plenty of both.

Yet wagtails still persist closest to actual water.

They may be seen further away than a mudlark or white winged triller but yet again it is always, near water.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

even flies need water.

Cow pats or carrion, plenty of both.

Yet wagtails still persist closest to actual water.

Maybe, but they do occur everywhere, although probably the better wagtail territories would be near water, for much the same reasons as we prefer being near water. Most insects are not dependent on water, many live underground in roots, or above ground in leaves and stems, either alive and dead. There are always plenty of insects with sufficient moisture for their needs should they need it.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Cow pats or carrion, plenty of both.

Yet wagtails still persist closest to actual water.

They may be seen further away than a mudlark or white winged triller but yet again it is always, near water.

The wagtail is listed for all of Australia, but there are many parts of Australia without water.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Cow pats or carrion, plenty of both.

Yet wagtails still persist closest to actual water.

Maybe, but they do occur everywhere, although probably the better wagtail territories would be near water, for much the same reasons as we prefer being near water. Most insects are not dependent on water, many live underground in roots, or above ground in leaves and stems, either alive and dead. There are always plenty of insects with sufficient moisture for their needs should they need it.

I see where you are working and it is all good but you still don’t get it. Willies love mossies and if their numbers go down they fuck off to better pastures.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Yet wagtails still persist closest to actual water.

They may be seen further away than a mudlark or white winged triller but yet again it is always, near water.

The wagtail is listed for all of Australia, but there are many parts of Australia without water.

Now you are starting to get it.

Essentially, we can never give up on the ideology of the inland sea. All we ever really needed to do was release the dams, put things back to where they were before we came. Though we don’t really need to do that now. We can still manage the inland sea and all that it can produce. Even though it’s status has been much reduced.

This is what I call a take away environment. Every drop of water I put on is mainly taken away. Retention seems the smartest move.

roughbarked said:

Essentially, we can never give up on the ideology of the inland sea. All we ever really needed to do was release the dams, put things back to where they were before we came. Though we don’t really need to do that now. We can still manage the inland sea and all that it can produce. Even though it’s status has been much reduced.

It was a very long time before Europeans, even a very long time before the Aboriginal peoples, that Australia had an inland sea.

http://austhrutime.com/eromanga_sea.htm

roughbarked said:

This is what I call a take away environment. Every drop of water I put on is mainly taken away. Retention seems the smartest move.

Morning all.
Water retention is a bad thing. It leads to oedema.

roughbarked said:

This is what I call a take away environment. Every drop of water I put on is mainly taken away. Retention seems the smartest move.

Can you amplify that?

Some years ago I noticed that the groundwater usage in the Murray Basin was shockingly high.

And the groundwater usage in the Hunter Basin was shockingly low.

Groundwater from the Hunter Basin could probably supply most of Sydney’s needs, leaving Warragamba free to be used for the other side of the Great Dividing Range.

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

Essentially, we can never give up on the ideology of the inland sea. All we ever really needed to do was release the dams, put things back to where they were before we came. Though we don’t really need to do that now. We can still manage the inland sea and all that it can produce. Even though it’s status has been much reduced.

It was a very long time before Europeans, even a very long time before the Aboriginal peoples, that Australia had an inland sea.

http://austhrutime.com/eromanga_sea.htm

and australia wasn’t in the same place as what it is now so i would think the weather patterns would have been completely different.

ChrispenEvan said:

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

Essentially, we can never give up on the ideology of the inland sea. All we ever really needed to do was release the dams, put things back to where they were before we came. Though we don’t really need to do that now. We can still manage the inland sea and all that it can produce. Even though it’s status has been much reduced.

It was a very long time before Europeans, even a very long time before the Aboriginal peoples, that Australia had an inland sea.

http://austhrutime.com/eromanga_sea.htm

and australia wasn’t in the same place as what it is now so i would think the weather patterns would have been completely different.

In the late Ordovician, The sea encroached the entire east coast and all the way out to past Cameron’s Corner.
The coastlines receded and expanded several times until the Early Cretaceous where the sea covered large parts of NE Northern Teritory and western Queensland western NSW and southern South Australia. So, a long time ago yes. However before we came, the rivers ran the way they naturally were. This often created large flooded areas which were probably what inspired the inland sea ideology. The great artesian basin was in fact an inland sea below the surface. All of this made it possible for the vegetation we see shrinking today, to have survived until we got here.
In extremely wet years we still get evidence of an inland sea if indeed that’s what Lake Eyre could be termed.
mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

This is what I call a take away environment. Every drop of water I put on is mainly taken away. Retention seems the smartest move.

Can you amplify that?

Some years ago I noticed that the groundwater usage in the Murray Basin was shockingly high.

And the groundwater usage in the Hunter Basin was shockingly low.

Groundwater from the Hunter Basin could probably supply most of Sydney’s needs, leaving Warragamba free to be used for the other side of the Great Dividing Range.

The groundwater usage is a serious issue in the Murrumbidgee/Murray and Lachlan regions.
As for retention, the ground is the safest place to store the water.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

This is what I call a take away environment. Every drop of water I put on is mainly taken away. Retention seems the smartest move.

Can you amplify that?

Some years ago I noticed that the groundwater usage in the Murray Basin was shockingly high.

And the groundwater usage in the Hunter Basin was shockingly low.

Groundwater from the Hunter Basin could probably supply most of Sydney’s needs, leaving Warragamba free to be used for the other side of the Great Dividing Range.

The groundwater usage is a serious issue in the Murrumbidgee/Murray and Lachlan regions.
As for retention, the ground is the safest place to store the water.

the late ordovician was 1/2 a billion years ago FFS! To talk about what australia was like then is ridiculous.

Me
and australia wasn’t in the same place as what it is now so i would think the weather patterns would have been completely different.

Roughie

In the late Ordovician, The sea encroached the entire east coast and all the way out to past Cameron’s Corner.
The coastlines receded and expanded several times until the Early Cretaceous where the sea covered large parts of NE Northern Teritory and western Queensland western NSW and southern South Australia. So, a long time ago yes. However before we came, the rivers ran the way they naturally were. This often created large flooded areas which were probably what inspired the inland sea ideology. The great artesian basin was in fact an inland sea below the surface. All of this made it possible for the vegetation we see shrinking today, to have survived until we got here.
In extremely wet years we still get evidence of an inland sea if indeed that’s what Lake Eyre could be termed.

the late ordovician was 1/2 a billion years ago FFS! To talk about what australia was like then is ridiculous.

ChrispenEvan said:

Me
and australia wasn’t in the same place as what it is now so i would think the weather patterns would have been completely different.

Roughie

In the late Ordovician, The sea encroached the entire east coast and all the way out to past Cameron’s Corner.
The coastlines receded and expanded several times until the Early Cretaceous where the sea covered large parts of NE Northern Teritory and western Queensland western NSW and southern South Australia. So, a long time ago yes. However before we came, the rivers ran the way they naturally were. This often created large flooded areas which were probably what inspired the inland sea ideology. The great artesian basin was in fact an inland sea below the surface. All of this made it possible for the vegetation we see shrinking today, to have survived until we got here.
In extremely wet years we still get evidence of an inland sea if indeed that’s what Lake Eyre could be termed.

the late ordovician was 1/2 a billion years ago FFS! To talk about what australia was like then is ridiculous.

I’m not talking about Australia as it was then. I was simply pointing out that the event was not only as you said, ‘a long time ago’ and that it wasn’t an inland sea at all, it was a coastline much further inland.