Comments on: Andrew Bolt wants to flood this

By: matt

matt — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:48:59 +0000

Andrew Bolt, real? I thought he was a straw man.

By: Brian Walters SC

Brian Walters SC — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:20:55 +0000

The original 1890s weir was downstream of the Den of Nargun.
The Hamer Government’s proposed damsite was at Angusvale, upstream of the Mitchell Gorge and the Den of Nargun, but the whole of Angusvale is now in the Mitchell River National Park. Other damsites within the gorge were considered.
There is in fact nowhere realistically to construct a dam on the Mitchell which is not in the national park now – so the proposal involves loss of national park (just like the flooding of Lake Pedder).
The original plan was for a much larger dam, but the Hamer government settled on a smaller dam which would really only service the irrigation needs of the farmers downstream. They left open the option of increasing its size later to take water to Melbourne.
What’s now being pushed is a recrudescence of the original very large dam proposal – precise size, of course, not identified, nor the location.
The Den of Nargun is on a tributary – Woolshed Creek – but in the midst of a magnificent stand of rainforest. It sometimes flows very strongly (I’ve seen huge spates go down it) but in late summer often completely dries up.
A dam at the base of the Gorge would significantly affect the Den of Nargun.
Any dam would radically alter the river flow and ecology downstream, as has happened with the Thomson – and we all know about the Snowy.

By: Helen

Helen — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:45:09 +0000

Notice, also, that in the Den of Nargun photo (third from the top) if you look up other images on Google Images there is a waterfall on the left hand side. In the photo Robert took there is no water. So the flow is limited anyway.

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:46:48 +0000

15 GL? Two weeks of water for Melbourne. The newly reconnected Tarago Reservoir holds more than twice that.

You’d need a much, much bigger dam than that to make a substantial difference to Melbourne’s water reserves, which would presumably be easier to fill downstream with a bigger catchment. But downstream of the National Park it’s too flat.

Bye-bye, Den of Nargun…

By: wilful

wilful — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:19:14 +0000

pretty pissant dam, 15 GL. A puddle. This is not the water solution you are looking for, Andrew.

By: Tony of South Yarra

Tony of South Yarra — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:12:35 +0000

60 km north-west

By: Tony of South Yarra

Tony of South Yarra — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:07:39 +0000

Wilful,

From a 1980 report on the proposal to ‘proclaim’ the land in the Mitchell River catchment area. The proposed site (now part of the Mitchell River National Park) was at Angus Vale, 60 km north-east of Bairnsdale.

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/DPI/Vro/egregn.nsf/0d08cd6930912d1e4a2567d2002579cb/d322bcde0f31b132ca2571060080e328/$FILE/Mitchell%20River%20Catchment.pdf

The current development (Stage I) will store 15,000 megalitres, and will contain approximately 34 days mean river flow. As a consequence it is anticipated that the spillway will be operating for most of the year. The total surface area of full storage level will be about 360 ha. The State Rivers and Water Supply Commission will acquire some freehold land adjoining the proposed full supply level. The area to be inundated is predominantly cleared grazing land, with shoreline slopes being gentle in most situations.

“The major uses of the water resources will be domestic supply for both Bairnsdale and Paynesville, irrigation, light industry processes, and stock and domestic farm supplies. It is also intended to manage the storage to allow for the maintenance of minimum flows for river freshening. Water for irrigation on the Mitchell River flats will be drawn by private diverters from sites downstream of the proposed offtake. Above the offtake and dam site 2 diverters draw up to 94 megalitres per annum from the Dargo River while a further 5 diverters draw up to 298 megalitres from the Wonnangatta River.”

By: wilful

wilful — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:12:20 +0000

Logging catchments greatly increases bushfire risk, as you well know.
O rly? Sez which scientist?

Labor insider indeed.
Not me guv.

So the desal plant will produce enough water for 5.6 million people then? Awesome, we may as well blow up the Thomson.

You know, linking to your own blogwiki isn’t exactly a showstopper as far as arguments go.

Helen, just a joke. Sadly, I have already bred, and don’t plan on sterilising my kids. As a matter of fact, I consider myself a strong light-green, I’m not a radical but firmly committed. Of course I hear sniggers from you and Peterc, but I don’t really care, I know enough to know that timber harvesting is about the lowest impact primary industry in Victoria, and is part of the solution, not the problem (though we wont go on). The essential point is, timber harvesting in the Thomson has a) nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of damming the Mitchell, b) far less to do with Melbourne’s future water supply than is typically claimed.

Tony of SY, whose proposal? That’s all farmland there.

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:59:28 +0000

Tony: never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Thanks for pointing it out. However, I reckon Bolty would consider flooding the Den a bonus.

Even so, if the dam were built further up, you’d

a) still in a National Park, presumably featuring similar terrain
b) screws up the flow on pretty much the only wild river left in Victoria.

BTW, one of the Den photos is Deadcock Den.

By: Tony of South Yarra

Tony of South Yarra — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:45:17 +0000

While I agree the flooding of The Den of Nargun – the subject of most of your photo essay – and The Amphitheatre would be entirely inappropriate, the proposed dam site is at Angus Vale, some 15 km further upstream, towards Dargo.