Thursday, February 18, 2016

When tough and rigorous science is needed - ie NOW

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 )

My suggestion;
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.

No comments: