LET'S TALK

Create your own web pages in minutes...

BACK

Let's Talk

Here is your opportunity to get involved with the site.

You can contribute directly by emailing the admin@clubmurray.com.au with any comments about the content and usability of the site, as well as submitting your own content to be published on our site.

You may also like to Register your Interest in Club Murray .

To the Editor,

Water usage and it's cost has had high media profile for some months.

As water is an important asset, do all users pay the same for a litre, or does industry get it cheaper than domestic users.

Also, why don't boat users, eg. speed boats, jet skis, pleasure craft and house boats pay for water usage.

All powered boats on the Murray use water to cool their motors, and flush bilges, with the resultant pollution returned to the river, and house boats run their spas, showers etc.

Wouldn't a charge for this water usage be fair to everyone.

James

16th Dec 2007

Very good questions James.

We should be able to obtain costs per megalitre for all states & users & will advise .

I do not know if the question of why boat users are not charged a water usage levy has ever been asked, but will try to find out

Ed 19/01

Letter to the Editor,

Murray Valley Standard,

03-02-07

In reply to "viewpoint" reference "wakeboarding".

Dear Sir,

We cannot agree with Russell that wakeboarding at times of low river levels can cause less

damage to the riverbank.

The "new" bank that is now exposed is being seriously damaged, particularly as wave action

is undercutting established reed and grass areas, also, as Russell would have observed,

the river level is frequently at normal height at least once a week due to the prevailing winds

blowing across the lakes.

Casting aspersions at Council for being "uninformed" is not exactly helpful, as our representatives

grapple with many other complex river problems.

Our group seeks to inform the public, and we note the continued riverbank degradation. The

fact is that the laws governing river use in our state have fallen behind technology. A wakeboard

boat is purely desiged to produce a "wake". The resultant damage to the riverbank is well

documented along with damage from PWCs and other types of craft.

We have submitted to the relevant authorities:

Zoning regulations should be introduced to separate "non compatable" river users,

and to move some activities to areas more protected.

4Kn signs should be replaced with "No Wash" buoys, as is the norm in many overseas

countries and major river complexes in Australia, like the Hawksebury and Swan.

(To check the veracity of this statement go to Google and search "no wash").

We argue that there is plenty of space on the Murray for all sports and users, but not all areas

are suitable,and not every riverbank is protected.

Please visit clubmurray.com.au and view the damage caused at Sturt Reserve, Further

information is is also beng collated from Albury Eucha, Swan Hill, Mildura and Renmark.

Editor

Club Murray

To Karlene Maywald

We have been asked why all water users are not treated equally.

As the editor of club murray we posed this question to various people "in the know":

"………..why don't boat users, eg. speed boats, jet skis, pleasure craft and house boats pay for water usage.

All powered boats on the Murray use water to cool their motors, and flush bilges, with the resultant pollution returned to the river, and house boats run their spas, showers etc.

Wouldn't a charge for this water usage be fair to everyone.

James

16th Dec 2007"

The dominating reply was:

David, The question you have raised regarding charges for usage of water by boats on the river is a policitical one and would need to be address by the local member. Perhaps the question could be directed to Karlene Maywald. At this stage I don't know of any proposal to charge water for boats. It is something that possibly could be incorporated into a Licensing fee.

This question has been posted to clubmarray.com.au and we would be most appreciative if you could reply.

Ed.

Clubmurray

WE HAVE NOW ASKED THE MINISTER FOR INFORMATION THREE TIMES. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT HER OFFICE HAS RECEIVED OUR EMAIL WOULD BE POLITE. ED

-----Original Message-----

From: Aaron Bell [mailto:belly005@hotmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2007 12:20 PM

To: admin@clubmurray.com.au

Subject:

To whom it may concern.

I am a waterskier/wakeboarder from echuca on the murray river, and have been

there for about 15 years now. i was recently shown your website by a fellow

wakeboarder and the way you guys seem to target wakeboarding as the main

problem along the murray honestly angered me. I feel the need now to point out

a few facts to you that you dont seem to know but is very important to the

whole issue.

Firstly you make reference to a study that was done a while ago now on

wakeboarding boats and the damage that the rollers to to the river banks. You

actually say that the results were never released but im sorry to say my

friend they were not to long ago and they actually proved that a smaller wave

that is going faster will cary more energy into that bank and do more damage

than a larger one that is slower and has less energy. I beleive the main

reason these results have not been so controversial is because they don not

help your cause on trying to ban us so the many people have tried to keep them

secret.

Now that has been pointed out I want to raise a question. Why wakeboarding

specifically? Sure us wakeboarders want to create the biggest wake possible

but what about a 4 year old kneeboarder behind a big fishing boat loaded with

people that want to see the youngster kneeboard for the first time. I can

honestly say i have seen bigger rollers come from boats in this kind of

circumstance than any wakeboarding boat. Besides the amount of people that

actually wakeboard behind bigger boats is minimal. Most of the people i know

have smaller older boats that produce much smaller wakes than most fishing

boats. So when you finally ban wakeboarding are you going to stop little kids

kneeboarding or skiing for the first time too or is it just us?

These are just two things that i would like you to answer, because I, and most

other waterskiiers/wakeboarders out there feel you have no real case and just

want to get rid of us because of some unknown reason. We are doing no more

damage than a bit of rain does after the banks have been dried out from the

drought. Please think about what you are trying to do properly.

Thanks for your time,

Reply To Aaron,

Many thanks for the time you took to correspond with us.We know that if you explore the clubmurray site a little more you will realize that our aim ,as stated, is not to ban wakeboarding or any other activity, but to have exclusive zones introduced before bans are bought in.

We do make reference to PWC’s and other large boats, as you point out, that are also damaging.

We are actively seeking to change the buoys from “4Kn to “no Wash” where applicable.

The study we refer to, and the info I’m now pointing out is found under “let’s talk”.

In further sections under “problems” you will find other pages such as “pollution” and river bank “degradation”, and along the header page photos of wave action.

We hope that you will work with us to achieve a better understanding, and we bear no malice to wakeboarding.

From: Aaron Bell [belly005@hotmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2007 3:36 PM

To: admin@clubmurray.com.au

Subject: RE:

Thank you very much for clearing that up. I do know understand much better what

your aims are. the reason for my email was simply because of the confusion on

what your aims are from me and many other people in the waterskiing community.

We all want to protect the murray so perhaps if we can all join forces a better

solution may be found.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for someone to join the site i will send the

link to and perhaps explain that as well. this is one of the biggest

wakeboarding sites in the world and i think you guys make your aims clear to

everyone here it would be a good start. The link is:

http://www.wake.com.au/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14500

Thankyou Aaron. Any info, studies or related articles we will print for you if appropriate. Ed

From: WAKEBOARDING!!!!!!!!! [WAKE@BOARDER.COM]

Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2007 3:14 PM

To: barrangul@lm.net.au

------------------------------------------------------------

Name of sender: WAKEBOARDING!!!!!!!!!

Email of sender: WAKE@BOARDER.COM

------------------------- COMMENTS -------------------------

U ARE FUKING WANKERS GET A LIFE U FUCK THE MURRY UP WAY MORE THAN A WAKE BOAT SO FUCK U!!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to wakeboarding

Thank you for your imput. It may be important.

From: Thane [melhuisht@bigpond.com]

Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2007 3:54 PM

To: admin@clubmurray.com.au

Subject: Lets Talk

Ed/Steve,

Your argument isn’t because the wakeboarding boats rock your floating restaurant (The Barrangul) by any chance is it? Because that would make a hell of a lot more sense.

You don’t seem to have too much proof if any at all. Any wake causes erosion, houseboat, floating restaurant, Dingy, Fat kid doing a seuy off a jetty… It is all relevant. If you really want to save the Murray move your restaurant off the river, do your bit!

Mate, Stop being so selfish. The river is for everyone so its best you learn to share it. The amount of money that is pumped into small Riverland towns by wakeboarders is what helps the towns survive.

If your dinner boat rocks from big wake, then buy one that doesn’t. The Barrangul is definitely due for an upgrade.. Stopping such recreational activity on the Murray will never happen because of the economic gain from the tourism which includes wakeboarding, and your making yourself look like a right wanker in the process.

WAKE up dude!!!!

Thane

Reply to Thane.

Please note that we are not just one person, but we represent many others including wakeboarders, pwc operators, anglers,skiers and ordinary citizens.(for myself its pwcs).

That the river is in strife is obvious. Under "degradation you would have noted us planting reeds to protect the bank.

Under "pollution" you would also have seen the effort taken to collect information. Photographic and video evidence of damaging wave action heads our pages.

News to hand has placed blue green alga bloom in the mainstream of the Murray, in the lower reaches of SA, and there will be more on this subject posted soon, but you would understand (cut taken from a recent edition of the Advertiser & reproduced below), that potentially all activity on the river may have to be halted soon. Now is the time to take responsibility and work with everybody else, so that we can continue to wakeboard,float in a restaurant or whatever

If you take the time to read our answer to Aaron, you will have a better understanding of our position in that we wish to work with all river users.

Regards

08-02-07

Dear Editor

Last saturday we moored on Sturt Reserve near the Bunyip.

The filth that was pumped from across the river was frightening. How can this be condoned.

The muck settled all around the 5 moored boats was putrid in the extreme, and the odour was foul.

To shower and wash our dishes in this must be a health hazard. The Dept. of health did not wish to

comment nor did any other of the "powers in charge".

How can public servants ignore this atrocity. Is any one responsible any more.

Garry 16/4/07

Subject: comment on pollution

We like to comment on Garry`s article on the 16.4.07

my husband and I where in one of the Boats moored on that day at Sturt Reserve and woke up to this foul odor, it was a sad picture to look at & it was very obvious where it came from, we never ever shower near the Sturt Reserve out of that reason!

I wonder how all the Water living Creatures cope with this ongoing pollution

Connie & Mark

We have directed these questions to another Parliamentarian,

Adrian Pederick

The Secretary, Murray Watch.

Dear Alan,

At a joint meeting with RCMB including Marine Safety, officer Hearn stated that during river events the group known as REACT operated as "river controllers" under letter of authority issued by the relevant Department.

It is our understanding that the Crown Solicitors Office has previously advised Magistrate Deegan in Murray Bridge that:

1. Authorization of REACT has no legal standing

2. Opening of the east side of Long Island for other than "non power" boats would take a special Act of Parliament.

With events being planned for the 2007 season we believe that this issue needs urgent clarification.

14-09-07

Editor

clubmurray.com.au

To: clubmurray@lm.net.au

Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:17 AM

Subject: MURRAY RIVER

G'day Ed,

I've been checking your effort about the river for a year now, and finally I see the public slowly coming onside as they begin to understand the problems of the Murray.

I cannot understand why some "water users" are paying heaps and others are still paying nothing.

My questions to the Minister about why boaties do not have to contribute financially (as the rest of us do) also go unanswered, though I am surprised that Pederick is ducking the issue.

Why don't you ask them again why boats using water are not paying any sort of levee. Sean

copy

To Premier Mike ,

Listened with some amusement to your assurances that South Australians would never drink recycled water.

The upper Murray town of Albury in NSW dumps about 40 cubic tennis courts per day of treated water into the River. This is added to by all the river towns with the possible exception of Murray Bridge.

Your advisors could tell you that Adelaide residents have been drinking this since the pumps were completed to the Mount Bold and Kangaroo Creek reservoirs in the mid 1950s.

Submitted by J.Taylor Oct 07

Attn Rob Fitzpatrick(CSIRO) ph 08 83838511

Hello Rob,

We have just finished studying a report entitled "Acid sulphate soils along the River Murray, Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert" that lists you as a contact.

Our experience around Murray Bridge is that the areas designated as "problem areas" are turning out to be exactly the opposite. Photos of the wetlands known as Riverglades attest to the fact that 18 months after drying out this reserve is now the home to all sorts of plants including gum trees. As this experience is general along the Murray we question:

Is this a phenomena that will later on prove disasterous.

Should more emphasis be placed on the fact that the CSIROs hypothesis is not fact, but only possibility.

WE seek your reply for our web www.clubmurray.com.au

HELP SAVE THE MURRAY FROM SAND

Help keep our waterways healthy.

The River Murray and Lower Lakes supports local communities, tourism, recreational fishing and boating, it provides habitats for fish, plant and animal life along with being a water supply for many South Australians. We are in danger of adding more challenges to its health e and survival.

Don't dump sand. Why?

Putting beach and other sand into these waterways for boat ramps, landscaping, small beaches or for water edge grasses

is polluting this vital system. This dumped sand isn't natural to the ecosystem and damages the natural state of the River Murray and Lower Lakes. Wind, waves and water traffic quickly moves the dumped sand from where it is placed and redistributes the sand through the river system. It then creates uncharted sand bars and alters berthing depths causing navigation and boating hazards. Sand can block irrigation channels and the main water supply intakes. It also affects the breeding sites for fish, worms and other river species that rely on natural, healthy riverbeds for their survival.

There is an alternative.

To continue to enjoy what the wonderful River Murray o and Lower Lakes can provide we must work together. If you, or someone you know wants to create easier water access, we recommend the use of jetties, pontoons and approved beach building materials. For ideas, specific information and Development Approvals contact your local council.

Did you know it is illegal?

Putting sand into the River Murray and Lower Lakes is illegal and strong penalties apply.

" Dumping sand into the river or on its riverbank, may incur fines up to $30,000.

" Contractors and sand suppliers may also be fined.

" Removal and site remediation may also be ordered. Removal.

To find out more contact the EPA on 8204 2004 or 1800 623 445.

10th

Adelaide Advertiser Jan 2009

THE MURRAY RIVER ENVIRONMENT