I truly hope the meeting on the 25th ( Lakes Bowling club) over the lake is not another talk fest.
Without the tough medicine of a better water budget , any scheme to revive and improve the lake is doomed to failure , The only water that we will ever get is the water we get now - so we just have to use it a whole lot better - and that means two lakes - One more permanent than the other,
The only way something as complex as this lake system is to change is if the State Authorities study it properly .We have had a whole century of wishing and hoping , thinking and praying but most of it talking around the edges - the same old same old problems of shallow and inadequate water supply. (both for aquatic life and aqua loving life ) -
--So we haven't been willing to grab the water bull by the horns .We have had the courage , not that many years ago, to raise the water level by raising the weir down the Meredith Park end by over a metre.
--Have we the courage to put the weir where it would work,, or even more importantly talk about weir specifics at Thursday nights meeting?
Like some notorious political movements , it seems to me our leaders are afraid of upsetting somebody - esp those who might give in to a bit of half worked through worry and self maintained ignorance. Sure a cuaseway will change the view but not enough way out there to stop the lake's exapnse being obvious ,Infact everyone who uses it will surely say " Must stop here sometime"
Yet we have this consensus breeds sense nonsense . The only stakeholders who get to influence these dumb processes are the big stakeholders . Is this really the way to move forward ?
-- "We'll canvass all opinions and get back to you " is not enough if most of us IMO just want someone to study and make a studied recommendation on the real possibilities - its called making an informed decision " . In 100 years no one has got back to us except a few with hard edged decisions like ones sought for by a more clear thinking Council in 1942.
Sure there are downsides and I am certainly not ignoring them( see previous posts ) What this fear and giving into factions first up does is produce, not solutions, but ineffective sidelines and tokens ; attempts to cross things off the list without examining them properly . Another $50000 on talk fests from Sarah Henderson wasted . (I hoped that wouldn't happen after the meeting and said so in a previous edit )
Instead of properly researching and facing up to the tough tests of the biological and engineering truths we end up half way doing nothing - cause its easier . There is, quite clearly, by treating Nature as family, a strong possibility of worthwhile change ( a eutrophic lake is by definition a dying lake
--We can design something that will keep more birds and fish than we do now and with the same 200 -300 million .How many birds and fish have been in there in last 10 years ?
--We can be expected to achieve all that is there now ( without always having algae fish and life kills some new and bigger resilience targets , not just the inevitable eutrophic death and dying,that we will get for the next thousand years;
--We can have more --at least 2 new ecosystems that have perennial life ,
--We can still have the old type of eutrophic lake-- up north more ?
--We can have trucks crossing the lake without them looking too big from key vantage points ( see earlier posts )
Vote for a State government sponsored proper scientific review of the possibilities - which should include ways to raise and keep the water level higher .Will such a motion be put at the meeting? I have another appointment that day , so I wish you well
While the AURECONS report is completely inadequate as a study of all the issues, at least they made some estimates of the costs.( up to 300 million)
Interestingly a causeway really close to north shore would be a new type of proposal of little interest for sailors but would be easier to manage for water quality and levels . I think far too close for everyone's general comfort. But that's all to be discussed once the State shows a causeway is a positive possibility.
We haven't got even a way towards " how far out would be best for the causeway " YET. Clearly it can't be more than half way out as an effective long term water budget won't spread that far .
Whatever the change , How much different is to putting in a weir , or shifting the existing one at Meredith Park ?
Here the link to the report by Aurecon’s
four bypass recommendations and the estimated costs for each route.