Jan Morris, West Tamworth

Our government and our courts have hammered nails into the coffin of charitable donations for natural disasters after the decision by a judge to refuse the $51 million dollars raised by the Australian comedian to be given to the families who suffered great losses during the worst fire season recorded in Australia.

I can guarantee that many people have been totally disillusioned by the outcome of the courts and of course the government would not interfere that's $51 million dollars they don't have to give to RFS.

It's a big win for everyone but the people it was meant for.

How about a split of 40/60, but no, the laws and legislation are enforced strictly when it is to the advantage of government.

It saddens me to see people who have lost everything still waiting for the promised help that was so readily offered during and shortly after the fires.

Yes decision makers sleep comfortable in your beds at night, enjoy all the comforts of your home and keep saying, "it's a process, it takes time" while the victims live in makeshift dwellings wondering what tomorrow will bring.

Mark Hamlin, Tamworth

LOWER LAKES MURRAY RIVER LOCAL HISTORY

I have read with interest the CSIRO lead report on the effect of the barrages at the mouth of the Murray.

Quite an impressive list of members of the panel and a staggering amount of technical detail. With all that expertise and attention to detail, I am confounded that no one apparently took the time to read recorded interviews in 1999 with probably the last surviving adults at the time of construction of the barrages.

These interviews by Rose Geisler are readily available on the web page of the Alexandrina local History Archive. In my life span of some 84 yrs, I have found one can learn more from a person who lived through an event or time, than any amount of professional projections by people who did not. Especially on this occasion, when the first interview was with Jim Marsh, barrage superintendent at Goolwa. One could expect that a person holding that position would have a fairly accurate knowledge of the behaviour before and after the construction of the barrages.

I invite you to read in full the record of those interviews, if you are genuinely interested in the allocation of water throughout the river, and the preservation of our environment, you will find it fascinating reading. I would however list a few assertions in those interviews which I find at odds with the report findings.

Report finding that historical evidence that the lakes were largely freshwater prior to European settlement, and that removal of the barrages would lead to build up of sand at the mouth of the river.

All evidence since European settlement shows the percentage between fresh and salt has ebbed and flowed with the volume of the river flow.

Charles Sturt in 1830 when approaching Pomanda Point wrote in his journal: "Thus far the waters of the lake had continued sweet, but on filling a can when we were abreast of the point, it was found that they were quite unpalatable, to say the least of them. The transition from fresh to salt water was almost immediate."

The fact that following European settlement the water was more often salty led to the local push for the construction of the barrages. Jim Marsh barrage superintendent at Goolwa at the recorded interview about the construction of the barrages said in response to a question: 'they listened to the locals"?

''Yes, just asked the locals. Ecological considerations were not taken into account. If they wanted to do this now, there is no way they would get it up. It would not be approved because of the impact it had on the ecology. They reduced the size of the estuary by nearly 90 per cent (87 per cent, actually) and that reduction of the estuary was the start or the cause of a lot of the problems they are having now.

Since they built the barrages we've had a series of fairly wet years with good flows out through the mouth. In the last twenty years we've had enough dry years and a very very significant increase in the diversion upstream, which has had quite considerable effect on the amount of water that we've got to pass out through the mouth, and when you get back to size of the estuary reducing by 87 per cent they reduce what we call the tidal prism. This is the force, the column of water that surges in and out of the mouth daily by just the effect of the tide. That was enough to keep the mouth clear.

When they reduced the size of the estuary, they reduce the size of the tidal prism and greatly reduce the velocity and volume of water that was passing in and out. Ever since 1945, we've had yearly a net gain of sand, and that was shown up fairly soon after, with the formation of Bird Island. That wasn't there before they built the barrage. That's really the nucleus of all the sand shoals there now.

So daily you get a net gain that's building up now to a critical level and this is causing all the problems. The possible incidence of a mouth closure has been reduced from something like one-in-twenty to about - they were quoting one-in-six several years ago - but I venture to say its about one-in-four now.

This has also had an effect on the native fish - the Mulloway, Mullet, Flounder, Bream- all need the estuary conditions to complete their breeding cycle. Especially the Mulloway, they use the Coorong now - which is all that's left of the estuary - they used to use the whole lower lakes as a nursery area. The Mulloway would come in and feed because the brackish water has its own particular ecology.

It was a very rich nutrient area where a lot of the smaller vertebrates and predators are, that started the food chain - a very rich feeding area for the Mulloway. They would come in, fatten up, get in good condition for breeding and go out to sea to spawn and when the spawn hatched, the fry would come back in through the mouth and live in it for about the next twelve months. As they grew they'd feed up and grow on until they were big enough to withstand the rigours of the open sea. It was the a similar story for the small flounder and Mullet and the Bream. By reducing that estuary, you reduce the size of the local fishery by a proportional amount.

That is why there is now a strong move to modify the operations and the structure of the barrages to facilitate the movement of fish through them again, to try and restore some of those conditions, increase the number of fish that can take advantage of it. Hopefully that won't get bogged down with red tape and "we might see some result of it in a year or two."

The interview reports go on to talk of the huge number of Mulloway which were trapped when the barrages first closed. Apparently they were caught and stacked along the Goolwa wharf, said to be about 160 tonnes of fish.

The Lower lakes Independent Science Review goes on to state removing the barrages would have significant ecological and socio-economic impacts. This will significantly change the ecological character of the Ramsar-listed site , which is a wetland of international importance and which we have an international obligation to maintain.

Forgive me, but I have difficulty understanding that we did not incur the wrath of the international community when approximately 80 years ago we destroyed an equally important site. But now if we tried to rectify that error and restore the environment to its natural state, we will be in big trouble.

I cannot help feeling the same concerns when last September (2019) in Yarrawonga I watched a mighty river perhaps half-a-kilometre wide and I don't know how deep surging downstream. We are told by the experts that the river is dying due to excessive irrigation. Well I have photos of the river in the same area in 1915, a drought year similar to 2019, and it shows family gatherings together with their horses and carts and the occasional T model Ford having a picnic in the dry river bed. What am I missing here?

Bill Weakley, Gunnedah

Mark Riley need not be concerned as to how 'borrowed' money will be paid back.

On 11th May 2020, on the steps of Tamworth Town Hall, Barnaby Joyce said,"What this means is we're borrowing money again and money has to be repaid. Only people who can repay that money are you people. You have to repay that money." https://www.facebook.com/TamworthRegionalCouncil/videos/663504091161450/

It reminded me of the WWII posters put out by the British Government, one of which read "Your courage, your cheerfulness, your resolution will bring us victory".

Joyce Webster, Tamworth