South Esk River to be destroyed

[RiverFly]

Now doubt many of you paddle,fish or swim in the South Esk and Lake Trevallyn. About a month ago the Draft South Esk Draft Management Plan was released which will see the South Esk die a death of a thousand cuts, if passed un-changed. I urge all that care about Tasmania's longest river to comment on the plan whilst the period is open, till December 11. Make no mistake, the river will die if the plan goes ahead - I've worked on the river for the past eight years guiding, so my comments are based on experience.

If Nik allows, follow this link for more information http://riverfly.com.au/south-esk-river-draft-management-plan-have-your-say-now/
If you don't have your say, you may as well be nailing the coffin yourselves; this sounds harsh, but that's how it is.

[Son of a Beach]

No problems posting that here.

However, would you please consider adding a brief summary here explaining why you believe the plan would cause the river to be destroyed? I know that you've got further information at the link you posted, but a brief summary here (enough to help people decide on if they really want to read the linked page or not) would be great (or a complete copy/paste if you'd prefer).

[RiverFly]

Thanks Nik,

In a nutshell, the Government's scientists are recommending flows greater than 100ML/Day to maintain or enhance the health of the river (which includes listed species) - this also coincides with the level at which the river becomes un-fishable (levels under 100ML/Day). Whilst acknowledging this recommendation, DPIPWE is planning for a minimum level of 40ML/Day to facilitate irrigators. This is the difference btw half the river bed being covered, and 20% of the river bed being covered, and will kill the river.

Secondly, environmental flows will be measured at Llewellyn on the Fingal HWY, not at the end of the system - therefore in theory there are no flow guarantees below Llewellyn, where much of the irrigating takes place. Thirdly, the increased use of groundwater at the headwaters (more than 15000 hectares of plantations have gone in over the past couple of years)is un-accounted for in the water-use modelling.

The river will continue its slow death, and Trevallyn will feature more and more blue-green algal bloooms if DPIPWE push the plan through as intended.

Have your say! Details on my link above.

[sthughes]

Yeah having worked with it a bit I think the DPIPWE approach to water allocations and environmental flows is a bit stupid, especially for smaller streams. When all is said and done how much water irrigators are taking can never be effectively policed, so if you aim for 40ML/day then it could well end up less than that.

How much does Hydro Tasmania release through the the Trevallyn Dam each day as an environmental flow?

[Singe]

This State... Determined to cut off its nose to spite its face

[flyfisher]

Macquarie river at Ross around 5ml/day Blackman river at Tunbridge about 2ml/day but usually nothing at this time.

Couldn't agree more Riverfly, they are killing our rivers with over use by irrigators, and no one seems to take much notice.

One would think the Murray - Darling experience would be enough to make them more carefull. There always seems to be an arrogant attitude towards all things environmental.

FF

[RiverFly]

Write a letter demanding recommended environmental flows guys!

Thanks, Daniel Hackett

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[Son of a Beach]

Environmental flows is a tricky thing as that word is not particularly well defined last time I saw this debate (from the farmers' side). Is it the percentage of the average flow of a river measured across the year or what is expected at a time of the year, ie winter, summer are very different? Irrigation is generally a summer activity so the hardest impact would be in mid summer which is when the rivers are at there lowest so a yearly allocation could in winter barely impact on a river but in a long dry summer stop a river running.

This is a good point. I don't know how they're measuring it. In terms of release from the Trevallyn Dam for the lower reaches (ie, through the First Basin), the Hydro has a commitment of a minimum flow at all times, but that's not necessarily the same for the general flow of the river elsewhere.

However, it does highlight that the best way to manage this (from one perspective, at least) is to use off-river storage for agricultural irrigation. Ie, funnel water off to farm dams during winter for storage and later use in summer, and hopefully allow a better flow in the river during summer. Of course this is also an expensive scheme to set up, and I've no idea how it would be funded. But if it could be done, it would be a good solution, I would think.

The South Esk is a classic example of a river been used for irrigation, power generation, town water, sewerage disposal, etc and remarkable it has any native river life left. Even been cheekier is not trout considered by some to be the river "rabbit" thus should be removed from the eco systems of Tasmania rivers and lakes? At least we do not have Carp to my knowledge but there was a scare a few years back or was that another exotic fish?

I'm fairly sure there's no sewerage in the South Esk. People certainly swim in it at Trevallyn dam, Duck Reach, the First Basin, and even further down stream, and get drinking water from Trevallyn Dam, and there's nowhere further downstream for sewerage to get into it that I can think of. I think there used to be (and maybe still is) sewerage going into the North Esk. But yes, the river is certainly used for a variety of purposes.

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[Son of a Beach]

Good point. I was fairly confident there was no official large scale sewerage lines into the South Esk, but I hadn't considered outflow from individual domestic septic tanks. They really are a nuisance when they're not looked after properly. There are several along the road where I live that appear to just run into the road-side storm water ditch, which later just flows into the Tamar (where I do swim!).

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[flyfisher]

Even been cheekier is not trout considered by some to be the river "rabbit" thus should be removed from the eco systems of Tasmania rivers and lakes? At least we do not have Carp to my knowledge but there was a scare a few years back or was that another exotic fish?

We in fact do have carp in lake Crescent and lake Sorell. And between these pest fish and the irrigators desire for as much water as possible these lakes, which were the two best trout fishing lakes in Tasmania, are pretty much stuffed and have been for many years.
Trout fishing in Tasmania is a multi million dollar sport and provides employment for a lot of people and as trout can happily co-exist with other river and lake creatures, let's not hear any more about eradication. One cound just as easily say lets get rid of horses, sheep, cattle, and all no indigenous humans.
No trout fishing is very much a way of life for many Tasmanians and mainland visitors.
Riverfly is correct about the environmental flows being too low.The scientists have said 100-140ml should be minimum daily flow for the South Esk but always the greedy want more. Without sufficient daily flow the water becomes too warm, too much of the river bed is exposed and the eco system can be damaged.
Surely we don't want to follow the north island with their river disasters.

ff

[RiverFly]

Jus to quickly answer a couple of questions, the environmental flow levels are prescirbed as different amounts for different times of the year, to reflect the natural flow regime. They are also scientifically detemerined to maintain the natural processes of the river and riparian area.

And in regards to trout being the 'rabbits' of the river, if this view is held by anyone, it would be due to a lack of information on the topic - they do eat native bits and pieces, but they have never been responsible for the extinction of a native fish etc in Tassie - happy to talk about this on a different topic post, but not on this one.

And as for any farmer shelling out thousands for irrigators etc and not being allowed water - they didn't study their business case very well did then did they? This is hardly a plausible excuse to kill a river.

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[corvus]

Have no exact knowledge of the the South Esk but ask the question what is more important to most of us Trout Fishing or producing Food or Cash Crops ?
Will be happy to be enlightened but bemused about the defense of an Introduced species with the potential to have competed with or eaten out our Native Aquatic Life,how many Black Fish do we find now and are the Galaxias as abundant as previously ?
Open to edification
corvus

[flyfisher]

Mate this is not about trout as such, this is about the destruction of the river's ecosystem.

Anyone who thinks that trout shouldn't be here because they are exotic, I must ask you, do you think Europeans should be here with sheep, cows pigs ,willow trees and heaps of other things which were brought here for mans comfort and pleasure.I guess you could add the fruit trees, vegies, grapes etc etc so why single out trout. Just for the stir factor?
There is so much more to lost in quality of life by overusing the water and then poisoning all creatures great and small which might nibble some of the profits.
In the forests and in the fields they poison beetles, mayflies, wallabies etc by the use of insectisides and 1080 strychnine,cyanide or whatever.
When the last devil has gone, and the wedgetails and orange bellied parrots will people say "we didn't learn much from the thylacine or Lake Pedder did we.

The south esk is a beautiful river and to overuse the water is shamefull.Take the water in flood time and store it, dont take too much in summer when it's hot and the river needs the cooling flow. This poor river has survived and come back from mining polution which made a long section from around Avoca downstream for many kilometers almost sterile from tailings.Without good flows this recovery could not happen.

Surely in the better watered areas of the north west there must me spare farm capacity with the events of the last week or two.

Current flow in the South esk is 385ml/day. They are trying to get a cease to take flow of just 40ml/day

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[Singe]

Hi

I was going to have a go at Riverfly for not posting a link to the report (at least that I could find) but then use Google and found that the report is Copyrighted What an earth is going on with our bureaucrats. Regardless of everyone's respective views this is a document prepared by a public body, affecting the public, asking for public feedback but can not be freely distributed by the public Where ever I find a politician lurking I will take great pains in explaining that this is not how open and transparent government works. Extremely disgusted

Below is the rules

Copyright Notice
Material contained in the report provided is subject to Australian copyright law. Other than in
accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 of the Commonwealth Parliament, no part of this
report may, in any form or by any means, be reproduced, transmitted or used. This report
cannot be redistributed for any commercial purpose whatsoever, or distributed to a third party
for such purpose, without prior written permission being sought from the Department of
Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, on behalf of the Crown in Right of the
State of Tasmania.

Brett

SOP really - this section is pertinent:

This report cannot be redistributed for any commercial purpose whatsoever, or distributed to a third party for such purpose...

Emphasis mine. It would be negligent of the gov't to spend taxpayer dollars on something then let other entities profit from it without permission or acknowledgment of the source. At least it's been released into the public sphere, unlike some of the more controversial reports commissioned by the govt of late - otherwise it takes someone with serious commitment to go through the FOI merry-go-round (not to mention knowing that the report exists in the first place to be FOI'd!).

A slightly O/T aside - last year I attended a forum on the future of FOI legislation; speakers included an FOI expert from UTAS (head of the law school IRRC, can't recall his name), senior public servants and a State gov't minister. The attitude of the latter two parties was quite revealing - it's their information and they are resistant to giving it to 'pesky' people who hassle them for it. The 'new paradigm' view is that as taxpayers we have paid for the info and we shouldn't even have to ask for it, let alone go through a confusing bureaucratic process to get it - the agencies should be pushing it out to the stakeholders and people with an interest. This is difficult to swallow politically though, even for a 'clever, kind and connected' government

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[Singe]

Material contained in the report provided is subject to Australian copyright law. Other than in
accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 of the Commonwealth Parliament, no part of this
report may, in any form or by any means, be reproduced, transmitted or used.

This sentence stands in isolation in its own right so means photocopying the report to distribute for a public meeting would run foul of this sentence. Also if Riverfly has a commercial interest (as would a farmer drawing water) then this could trigger the second paragraph. This is a document put out for public discussion so surely any interested party should be allowed with out any restriction to distribute it? As for giving credit to the authors this is standard academic practice and should be followed by any person or business along with my pet provision that any quote should be representative of the report as a whole to avoid one of the favourite tools of the ACA and their ilk of quoting a sentence or even part of sentence out of context to beat something up.

My opinion is clear, governments are not businesses and we all should be deeply suspicious when they claim rights of businesses such as copyright and commercial in confidence as such things hide pertinent facts that might influence how people would cast their vote and that is a much greater "crime" than merely losing a few dollars, well at least in my humble opinion.

Anyway slugging my way through the report and noting the "skilful" use of English with "abstracting" used instead of "extracting" water. Subtle is the difference between such words but such subtleness can hide true intent. Trouble is I can not figure the intent out as even I am confused by the use of such a word

Cheers Brett

Ah - good point. Might be interesting to read the Act - but who has the time Typically IME 'normal private use' is ok, and I suspect that this would apply in this case. Either way, linking the doc appears to be fine provided you don't reproduce it (though 'use' needs clearer definition - if no-one is allowed to 'use' the document then taxpayers aren't exactly getting value for money!).

Commercial in confidence is a tricky one - on the one hand it can be abused as an excuse to refuse reasonable access to information, on the other there are examples such as a Department submitting a request for tender where it may harm third parties if their tenders are made available to other third parties. But in general - anything a Government produces with taxpayer funds should be available to taxpayers unless there is a good reason against it. And the flip side is that while Government agencies are not businesses - we do expect them to be efficient in their use of tax dollars (cue nods from the front rows, coughs from the middle and hysterical laughter from down the back ).

What's even more interesting WRT the language point is the way these subtle spin words work their way into the vernacular - a number of friends and close relatives work for the Forest Practices Board and FT - they never, ever talk of 'reserving land' or 'placing land in a reserve' - without exclusion it is 'locked up'. Similarly greenies have their own politically loaded terms.

So I guess the good news is that our water resources are no longer over-allocated - the bad news is that they are badly over-abstracted

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[flyfisher]

Slightly off topic, but 6 of us went to Ross on Hobart show weekenk for our annual small holiday fishing trip.

We stayed at the Ross caravan park as we have done now for 30 consecutive years, in units both new and old. Our accomodation cost was $920

We had dinner at the pub on 3 evenings at around $200/night $600

Ladies spent around $700 on plants and ornaments. $700

Golf green fees at Campbell town $30

Petrol, milk, bread, papers, coffees,snacks etc purchased locally around $300

That's a total of over $2500 which would not go to this town, and may not in the near future, if the extractive water use which has developed only since wool prices dropped, continues to deplete the water in this river.
The aquatic insects which used to be so prolific in this waterway have dwindled to an all time low, partly because of drought, but because of irrigation as well. These insects which were many and diverse cannot cope with the insecticide sprays used for pests in cropping.

So the South Esk is but one midlands stream under threat. Others are Macquarie , Blackman, Tin dish, Corryjong, Glen morrison or Johnsons creek, Kitty's creek Floods creek, Isis river, St Pauls river to name a few. How foolish is man to ruin the world in this way. Sold out for 30 pieces of silver.

[corvus]

Mate this is not about trout as such, this is about the destruction of the river's ecosystem.

Anyone who thinks that trout shouldn't be here because they are exotic, I must ask you, do you think Europeans should be here with sheep, cows pigs ,willow trees and heaps of other things which were brought here for mans comfort and pleasure.I guess you could add the fruit trees, vegies, grapes etc etc so why single out trout. Just for the stir factor?
There is so much more to lost in quality of life by overusing the water and then poisoning all creatures great and small which might nibble some of the profits.
In the forests and in the fields they poison beetles, mayflies, wallabies etc by the use of insectisides and 1080 strychnine,cyanide or whatever.
When the last devil has gone, and the wedgetails and orange bellied parrots will people say "we didn't learn much from the thylacine or Lake Pedder did we.

The south esk is a beautiful river and to overuse the water is shamefull.Take the water in flood time and store it, dont take too much in summer when it's hot and the river needs the cooling flow. This poor river has survived and come back from mining polution which made a long section from around Avoca downstream for many kilometers almost sterile from tailings.Without good flows this recovery could not happen.

Surely in the better watered areas of the north west there must me spare farm capacity with the events of the last week or two.

Current flow in the South esk is 385ml/day. They are trying to get a cease to take flow of just 40ml/day

Thanks for the edification FF ,
I have been perplexed for years as to why cropping occurs in this obvious dry area so perhaps the idea of channeling water from the wetter Highlands does have merit
corvus

[flyfisher]

have been perplexed for years as to why cropping occurs in this obvious dry area so perhaps the idea of channeling water from the wetter Highlands does have merit
corvus

I think that if the wool price haden't gone pear shaped then grazing would be the preferred farming method in these dry areas. It does seem a shame to see properties where world record wool prices were commonplace, have to turn to cash cropping for survival.
I was chatting to a lady landowner only about 2 weeks back, near Ross and she said they would love to go back to grazing, and if wool picked up enough, they would do that.
With regard to the amount of water taken from the river, if say 25 properties took 2 ml/day less in low flow times, the result for the river would be fantastic.
I have been to the headwaters of the south esk (and north esk) many times in late summer and autumn and the flows in the upper reaches are plenty , but last year for instance the stretch near Evandale had b%#@$er all flowing, and this is the situation that Riverfly has wished brought to peoples attention so that submissions,protests etc can be lodged before the cut off date.
I dont think it's too extreme to expect some reasonable amount of water to be allowed to flow down the river for its own sake.

p.s. Would be nice to see a pipe from the top of the Poatina pipeline running to the midlands (would gravity feed too) but the area around Woodbury Tunbridge is very salty so the result might not be all good.
ff

[sthughes]

So the South Esk is but one midlands stream under threat. Others are Macquarie , Blackman, Tin dish, Corryjong, Glen morrison or Johnsons creek, Kitty's creek Floods creek, Isis river, St Pauls river to name a few. How foolish is man to ruin the world in this way. Sold out for 30 pieces of silver.

I was Kayaking on the Macquarie a few weeks back. While it had plenty of water from rain the day before I was quite taken aback by the state of it. Cattle are still allowed to graze (and bog up) to the waters edge and introduced weeds are everywhere. The water was very turbid and in general I was a little amazed at the poor practices being undertaken. While having enough water is one thing, maintaining a rivers health is more complicated than just reducing water use.

Nuclear fusion reactors would solve the problem

[flyfisher]

I was Kayaking on the Macquarie a few weeks back. While it had plenty of water from rain the day before I was quite taken aback by the state of it. Cattle are still allowed to graze (and bog up) to the waters edge and introduced weeds are everywhere. The water was very turbid and in general I was a little amazed at the poor practices being undertaken. While having enough water is one thing, maintaining a rivers health is more complicated than just reducing water use.

Nuclear fusion reactors would solve the problem

Really the water quality this year has been generally better than for many years due to the lovely series of floods which occured during winter and early spring.
This flushing is natures way i suppose of cleaning out the river, but in recent years it has been lacking due to drought.

Brett wrote

Also do you accept that parts if not all of the river system does naturally stop running?

Have never seen the South Esk stop running and doubt whether it ever has.

ff

[BarryJ]

By definition, a river flows continuously. If it stops flowing (through natural causes) on an annual basis, it is only a creek.

[sthughes]

Guess whoever named the Todd River forgot to read the dictionary first

[RiverFly]

Corvus - this isn't about trout fishing vs irrigation, this is about killing a river, inlcuding dozens of Federally Listed species. The loss of my family's livlihood is just a cause of the effect. BTW, recreatinal angling is worth $60M sustainable dollars to Tasmania annually.

Brett, I posted a link to my webpage which in turn among other things has a link to the Draft Management Plan.

Thanks, Daniel Hackett.