Lake Tabourie 1961 note the distinct lake of sand build up at the entrance. How pristine the lake was.
Mayor Green
Thank you for your response and the opportunity to offer comment and ideas for consideration by the Estuary Management Team, however, you did not specifically answer the question within my email but rather responded with general comment. To prevent confusion in what we are looking for I will endeavor to respond to your letter, raise further concerns and specifically list our questions so that you may answer them directly.
1, The sewage scheme for Lake Tabourie, We totally agree, this will have a significant impact on the Lake and the water quality as it was one of the major contributors poisoning the lake and surrounding wetlands. Without dismissing the value of this to the lake it would hardly be correct to say that the Lakes water quality was the ONLY reason Council provided this system, I feel a fair portion may also be contributed to cleaning up their act and providing modern services to a growing and thriving community – so a win, win situation for which we are all pleased with and thank Council for appropriating the local tax payers money accordingly.
One area that I feel needs dealing with is the old septic systems that still remain in the ground, have these systems been commercially evacuated so that in the case of a flood which is eminent in the lower regions these systems do not fill with runoff and once again overflow into the lake depositing left over pollutants.
Q1: What has been done to ensure this can not happen?
2, Poor water quality, Contained within several documents released by the State Government – are statements in one wording or another but to quote one “In recent years, concern has increased about the declining condition of the State’s natural resources. This decline is possibly nowhere more evident than in the rivers and estuarine environments. Water quality has deteriorated, land has become degraded, salinity levels in soils and streams have risen, and native vegetation and its dependent fauna have been lost” I feel that statement speaks for it’s self. But if we can put the interpretation to one side and concentrate on the subject mater, the water quality issue. There are I believe six sampling points around the lake of which can you advise how many are working and how often the samples are taken? It may very well be fair to say that the water quality is good if the lake has been sitting and all has settled leaving a relative clean water column, however, stir up the bottom and what are the readings. The once water covered lake bed is exposed to the open air and when stirred up the stink is putrid, a combination of rotten aquatic vegetation from low water levels, sewerage from days of old and other introduced contaminates. When the lake is open the beds are flushed and cleansed which has not happened for quite some time now, so to rely purely on water sampling and the only indicator of the Lakes quality and health is not by any means a correct practice.
Q2: How many sample points are in action?
Q3: How often are these samples taken?
Q4: Is the lake bed subject to health tests?
Q5: Do you agree or not that when the lake is open the system flushes and goes through a cleansing cycle?
Q6: Is Council stating that water quality is their only indicator of the lakes health?
3, Sand build up, we have all noted and agree the level of sand has increased in the entrance and how it got there, no one is debating that, nor are we debating the fact of low rainfalls and drought type conditions exist and impact on the lakes water level. Our concern is what are you going to do about it? if you leave the high sand build where it is and wait for high rain fall and high seas the flood plain will be massive a concern to us all. We appreciate that Mother Nature is having a bad run here leaving us to contend with and clean up her mess for a change and we should. The sand banks are too high, too high for the lakes to flow as they should and too high not to be of concern in flood management. Is that simply not enough reason to take preventative action and reduce the sand build up to something more inline with the traditional order of things? It has taken many years for Ocean storms to deposit the amount of sand in the lakes entrance as we see now and if cleared properly with little maintenance they should be able to be kept at a reasonable height.
Q7: Is the high sand build up levels in the lake entrances of flood concern?
Q8: Is Council going to reduce the height of these sand shoals as preventative maintenance in the case of flooding?
All of the above brings us back to our point of concern, the point we have been trying to get across, the point we have been trying to get direct answers to. Low lake levels are as unhealthy for the lake as high water levels, we have conveniently legislated action plans to open the lake for high water levels based on damage control. Well the damage control should also extent to low lake levels, when the lake is low the water quality diminishes, the visual appeal diminishes, the wild life diminished, the wetland diminish, the aquatic fauna diminish, the tourism dollar diminish, properly value diminishes, recreational fishing value diminishes and so on. Council has been empowered and obligated to maintain and halt the degradation of these resources according to State Policy so why are we not acting on those policies as the true caretakers.
Q9: Do you agree that Council is obligated and empowered under State policy to halt and prevent degradation of these resources?
Q10: Does Council agree that low water levels are damaging to the lake as a natural resource?
Q11: Does Council value the income stream generated from those that wish to enjoy this resource?
Q12: Will Council clear and maintain the entrance to preserve this resource for low or high water levels?
We look forward to your comments and most import the direct answers to our questions.
Regards
Michael Pawson
No comments:
Post a Comment