Soooooo, how's this weather?

[Bully]

I agree , it would . But I am told " who says the water that falls in Queensland is ours "? . I am saying we don't but who said that the south Australian government at its people decide who gets what in the country?

Nature says so, the river system relied on water from up stream long before white settlement, just something else we've stuffed up since we moved here, that former Kiwi ex dictator (premier) of yours had a fair bit to do with creating QLD's "it's ours" attitude, FFS, aren't we supposed to be 1 country..................let's all start looking after ALL of our country together!!

I'm told we are arrogant for saying it ours ( to me if something is in your back hard it's yours , whether its water, a tree, a piee of fruit but that's my view )

Not just arrogant, ignorant and selfish also come to mind!

and saying everything belongs to SA and adelaide is not selfish or ignorant??? lol.......of course not .

I agree, the river needs to be helped, but i also see 2 sides of the story. You do not....

[Ian]

and saying everything belongs to SA and adelaide is not selfish or ignorant??? lol.......of course not .

That's your interpretation of what has been said, I don't see where anyone from SA has said WE need the water for anything, only the the River Murray needs the water to survive, as for your comment below, it would appear you are only seeing what you want, not what is actually happening, some cotton growing areas have changed to drip irrigation replacing flooding, pity QLD wouldn't take a leaf out of their book and save some water for the Murray - Darling River system (not for NSW, VIC or SA as you would interpret it)

I agree, the river needs to be helped, but i also see 2 sides of the story. You do not....

[The Sleeping Giant]

Would be interesting to see how much water the various states take out of the river. South Australia hasn't exactly done a great job protecting the river.

Water Use in The Basin

How much water is extracted from the Murray-Darling Basin by each State and jurisdiction?

South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria all rely on water from the Murray-Darling Basin. Key rivers in the basin include the River Murray, Darling River, Goulburn River and Murrumbidgee River. Although the River Murray covers only a small part of the Murray-Darling Basin, this critical waterway supplies, on average, more than two thirds of the Basin’s water resources.

The median annual diversion used by each state between 1997-2010 was:
New South Wales 4,362 GL (51%)
Victoria 2904 GL (34%)
South Australia 603 GL (7%)
Queensland 575 GL (7%)
Australian Capital Territory 28 GL (0.3%)

The following graph shows over-allocation of the Murray-Darling Basin over the last 50 years.

water-use-in-the-murray-darling-basin-11-1024x767.jpg

source - http://www.waterforgood.sa.gov.au/rivers-reservoirs-aquifers/murray-darling-basin-plan/water-use-in-the-basin/

So the rage against Queensland isn't really warranted.

[Roxy the Rat Girl]

So the rage against Queensland isn't really warranted.

Depends how you look at it. Looking at total volumes extracted by Queensland as a percentage of the total volume extracted from the entire system (7% of the total water volume in the MDB) then no. However
many of the water harvesting practices in Queensland have been extreme, unregulated and ad-hoc Ie: Cubby is the one that everyone knows about but also there has been a fair bit of floodplain diversion. This is the practice of building levees along and across floodplains to channel water to purpose built dams. The net result is that much less water running off the landscape reaches the river as it is all channeled to dams or irrigation areas. This has left northern NSW graziers without the water they historically received each year across their floodplains to rejuvenate pastures. Thus the animosity against Queensland. Of course this practice has also been employed by some in NSW.

The big users definitely are NSW and Vic though.

[RustyCage]

ideally the water that falls doesn't belong to anyone, it should go where it's needed.

[Roxy the Rat Girl]

agreed

[The Sleeping Giant]

Don't SA do the same thing with the locks all along the Murray?

[Roxy the Rat Girl]

Don't SA do the same thing with the locks all along the Murray?

The purpose of weirs 1 to 10 in SA, Vic and NSW is to provide:

permanent navigation between the Murray mouth and Wentworth;
relatively constant pool level to facilitate pumping for irrigation and water supply; and
Weir 9 also raises the water level high enough to allow gravity diversion to Lake Victoria.
Water is pumped for both irrigation and for diversion to major urban and industrial centres including Adelaide, and the 'Iron Triangle'.

Source - http://www.murrayriver.com.au/about-the-murray/locks-weirs-dams-barrages/

Therefore the locks do not divert water from the river, but maintain it at an artificial height. Floodplain diversion see kilometers of levee constructed paralel to the river channel for the purpose of intercepting surface water runoff before it can enter the river. The levees channel the water to a storage dam. See image below where there is no dam in the top picture and a newly constructed dam with levees channeling water to it from the floodplain in the bottom picture.

r282054_1198293.jpg (111.89 KiB) Viewed 1474 times

Source - http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2008/s2336376.htm

[Bully]

and saying everything belongs to SA and adelaide is not selfish or ignorant??? lol.......of course not .

That's your interpretation of what has been said, I don't see where anyone from SA has said WE need the water for anything, only the the River Murray needs the water to survive, as for your comment below, it would appear you are only seeing what you want, not what is actually happening, some cotton growing areas have changed to drip irrigation replacing flooding, pity QLD wouldn't take a leaf out of their book and save some water for the Murray - Darling River system (not for NSW, VIC or SA as you would interpret it)

I agree, the river needs to be helped, but i also see 2 sides of the story. You do not....

I am telling you that I agree that the river needs help . Take that the way you want and I don't need to explain myself and the views of most qlders to you.you are telling me I only see it my way , ummmm you are seeing it your way only too???

Take this the way you want - I believe the river does need help in evey which way it is required. But I also see both sides of the story ., if water falls in my back yard it belongs to me, if I have a fruit tree in my back yard and it drops fruit it is mine and mine only. And DOES NOT belong to my next door neighbour or auntie dot down the road (as an example) but I am sure you will twist that to your liking ......

End of argument from me. Thank you

[Ian]

Like I said before......................................

Not just arrogant, ignorant and selfish also come to mind!

[scoob]

and saying everything belongs to SA and adelaide is not selfish or ignorant??? lol.......of course not .

That's your interpretation of what has been said, I don't see where anyone from SA has said WE need the water for anything, only the the River Murray needs the water to survive, as for your comment below, it would appear you are only seeing what you want, not what is actually happening, some cotton growing areas have changed to drip irrigation replacing flooding, pity QLD wouldn't take a leaf out of their book and save some water for the Murray - Darling River system (not for NSW, VIC or SA as you would interpret it)

I agree, the river needs to be helped, but i also see 2 sides of the story. You do not....

I am telling you that I agree that the river needs help . Take that the way you want and I don't need to explain myself and the views of most qlders to you.you are telling me I only see it my way , ummmm you are seeing it your way only too???

Take this the way you want - I believe the river does need help in evey which way it is required. But I also see both sides of the story ., if water falls in my back yard it belongs to me, if I have a fruit tree in my back yard and it drops fruit it is mine and mine only. And DOES NOT belong to my next door neighbour or auntie dot down the road (as an example) but I am sure you will twist that to your liking ......

End of argument from me. Thank you

But if Auntie Dot down the road was starving you would still keep your excess of fruit?

[Roxy the Rat Girl]

Love the analogy Scoob

[Ian]

same principle, just on a different scale, great analogy

[therisingblues]

Hey Roxy, just a question about your figures for water usage in the murray basin. If SA and Qld both use only 7% of the water, does this mean that both states use more or less the same amount of water from that source, or does the use of levees to collect water before it enters the system not included in that 7 %? Also if Qld uses just 7 %, but only 10 % of water that originates in Qld reaches SA, wouldn't that mean only .7 % of the total amount of water taken from the basin overall is lost to the Murray mouth because of Qld's water practices?
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say/ask, because I'm just trying to wrap my head around the info you've given us, and I'm wondering if perhaps we are being too hard on Qld.

[Ian]

I interpreted it that the 7% used in QLD did not include any water diverted away from the river system prior to entering it, is that correct Roxy?

With the irrigation practices being used (totally unsustainable in a climate like ours) it would be hard to believe that 7% included all of the diverted water as well.

[CENTURION]

come on baby, you know you want to........

[Roxy the Rat Girl]

Hey Roxy, just a question about your figures for water usage in the murray basin. If SA and Qld both use only 7% of the water, does this mean that both states use more or less the same amount of water from that source, or does the use of levees to collect water before it enters the system not included in that 7 %? Also if Qld uses just 7 %, but only 10 % of water that originates in Qld reaches SA, wouldn't that mean only .7 % of the total amount of water taken from the basin overall is lost to the Murray mouth because of Qld's water practices?
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say/ask, because I'm just trying to wrap my head around the info you've given us, and I'm wondering if perhaps we are being too hard on Qld.

The 7% of water used is 7% of the total amount available (on average) from the entire Murray Darling Basin, regardless of the state it originates in. This would equate to somewhere in the order of 30 to 40% of the water that originates in Queensland. Sorry I dont have the exact figures on this

The 7% is from licenced water extractions, few of which are floodplain diversions and most of which are pumped directly from river channels There are however quite a few floodplain diversions (levees) and instances of people pumping water from the river channels that do not have a licence to take water and so are not factored into the 7%. These are called illegal or unregulated diversions or extractions. It is impossible to know the volumes involved as they are not regulated or monitored as licenced extractions are. They are however thought to be numerous in QLD and NSW.

To confuse the issue a little more, there are sleeper licences. These are where people have a licence to extract water but don't use it or dont use all of what they are entitled to. They let the water flow on past their properties and down the river system. There are also water speculators who's primary interest is to lease the water to downstream users in order to make money. They often own no property upon which to irrigate, only a water extraction licence for the purpose of making money. A prominent bank is a key player in this game amongst other key investment businesses.

Im not sure about the question of the 0.7% being 'lost' to the Murray Mouth. As I stated in a previous post it is not 'lost' as it creates an estuarine environment to which marine food chains and breeding grounds depend. As for the number of 0.7% being absolute, I doubt it as there are irrigation extractions in SA (7% of the total water available in the MDB). The water management system in the Basin tends to work on the Northern Basin (Darling River System) and the Southern Basin (Murray River System) due to the minimal volumes that make it down the Darling and into the Murray, unless of course there is a flood then sh1t loads of water comes down the Darling and enters the Murray after Lake Victoria has been filled.

I hope this has gone some way to answering your question

[CENTURION]

is it true that they can't fill Lake Victoria like they used to because someone discovered aboriginal bones in the lake bed?

[therisingblues]

Hey Roxy, just a question about your figures for water usage in the murray basin. If SA and Qld both use only 7% of the water, does this mean that both states use more or less the same amount of water from that source, or does the use of levees to collect water before it enters the system not included in that 7 %? Also if Qld uses just 7 %, but only 10 % of water that originates in Qld reaches SA, wouldn't that mean only .7 % of the total amount of water taken from the basin overall is lost to the Murray mouth because of Qld's water practices?
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say/ask, because I'm just trying to wrap my head around the info you've given us, and I'm wondering if perhaps we are being too hard on Qld.

The 7% of water used is 7% of the total amount available (on average) from the entire Murray Darling Basin, regardless of the state it originates in. This would equate to somewhere in the order of 30 to 40% of the water that originates in Queensland. Sorry I dont have the exact figures on this

The 7% is from licenced water extractions, few of which are floodplain diversions and most of which are pumped directly from river channels There are however quite a few floodplain diversions (levees) and instances of people pumping water from the river channels that do not have a licence to take water and so are not factored into the 7%. These are called illegal or unregulated diversions or extractions. It is impossible to know the volumes involved as they are not regulated or monitored as licenced extractions are. They are however thought to be numerous in QLD and NSW.

To confuse the issue a little more, there are sleeper licences. These are where people have a licence to extract water but don't use it or dont use all of what they are entitled to. They let the water flow on past their properties and down the river system. There are also water speculators who's primary interest is to lease the water to downstream users in order to make money. They often own no property upon which to irrigate, only a water extraction licence for the purpose of making money. A prominent bank is a key player in this game amongst other key investment businesses.

Im not sure about the question of the 0.7% being 'lost' to the Murray Mouth. As I stated in a previous post it is not 'lost' as it creates an estuarine environment to which marine food chains and breeding grounds depend. As for the number of 0.7% being absolute, I doubt it as there are irrigation extractions in SA (7% of the total water available in the MDB). The water management system in the Basin tends to work on the Northern Basin (Darling River System) and the Southern Basin (Murray River System) due to the minimal volumes that make it down the Darling and into the Murray, unless of course there is a flood then sh1t loads of water comes down the Darling and enters the Murray after Lake Victoria has been filled.

I hope this has gone some way to answering your question

Thanks Roxy.
Yes I think that cleans things up. But from what I gather, legally Qld takes 7 % of available water from the entire Murray darling basin. Aside from that there are illegal practices but legally Qld uses about the same as SA. I think there must be more to the issue than I understand, I don't know why we'd complain about water rights when legally we have the same entitlement as them.
Though I can understand why people are upset about what they take illegally.
The .7 % I mentioned as "lost" because it was being used for irrigation in Qld, hence it wouldn't reach the Murray mouth. I understand what you're saying about fresh water running out to sea still being of benefit for the environment.

[Roxy the Rat Girl]

You are correct that Queensland's take from the river is the same as SA, and even if they took 0%, only about 10% of the water originating in Queensland would get to SA (on average) in any case. Queensland gets alot of bad press over water because of Cubby and other such developments, not because of the total volumes used. If people want to point the finger they should do so at NSW and Vic, but there really is no point, as it is counterproductive to continue blaming. All states are now working together to fix the issues through the Basin Plan and this is productive and a step in the right direction. I hope the Basin Plan works!