Hal and Steve, Note, my letter deliberately DID NOT mention the …

Comment on LETTER: Removing sand from the Todd makes no sense as a flood mitigation measure by Charlie Carter.

Hal and Steve,
Note, my letter deliberately DID NOT mention the Casino causeway. I did not want to muddy the water. I wanted to concentrate on the sand removal issue. The point about the bed-level causeways is that they reflect the “natural” level of the river bed. The Casino causeway is more complex. In smaller flows (up to a 1 in 20) it reduces the river “cross-section” and therefore increases the water velocity. You do not see a sand build-up below a constriction. What happens above is complex, and beyond my expertise.
I was trying to avoid putting my relatively inexpert opinions forward, and am suggesting that we listen to the experts. I have had the benefit of sitting through the meetings and briefings that were part of the process of compiling the Flood Plain Management Plan. However, it’s 16 years ago, and like the people who see sand build up in the river, my memory is not perfect. That is why I went back to the document before I wrote. I suggest others do the same. Greg Buxton from ASTC responded to my comments on ABC Radio on Thursday.
When asked for the science to support the decision to remove sand he blustered and waffled and finished up with “observations” Peter Latz has often observed that scientific conclusions are sometimes “counter-intuitive”.
I would prefer to rely on the science in the ASFPMP than Mr. Buxton’s observations. He also misunderstood, or misrepresented, the FPMP. It does not recommend sand removal. Nor does it recommend “building bridges”. It does canvas these options, and dismisses both.
Charlie Carter

Recent Comments by Charlie Carter

Pine Gap and the Nobel prize the Oz government ignores
Beautifully said Russell.
Thank you.

CBD planning: The vibrants are at it again
To repeat previous suggestions:
The National Indigenous Art Gallery and a Cultural Centre could be on the same site, but somewhat separate entities, and the Melanka site seems the obvious choice.
For the Residential Capacity Report (modelling how dwellings could be established in the CBD) the Railway Freight yard should be moved to the Brewer Estate, freeing up a perfect site for “in town” (if not technically CBD) medium density residential development.
And get rid of the eight storeys!

Master plan for town, reconciliation plan for Australia Day
Either I am not understanding Heather Wells’ comment, or she is misunderstanding the issue.
It is not about the two flags in the pic, it is about an additional flag, the Aboriginal flag.

As for the question;
“Is it to recognise the significance of the site to Arrernte people, which is quite separate from and predates anything to do with serving in the armed forces? Is it to more broadly acknowledge Arrernte people as the traditional owners of the land where the town has grown? Or is to recognise the participation of Aboriginal people in Australia’s armed conflicts?”

May I suggest “all of the above”?

As a point of clarity, as far as I am aware Australian forces have never fought under, or been represented by the NT flag. Always the Australian flag (in various forms, but that is another story).

The NT flag is presumably there because this is the NT and NT citizens have served in the Armed Forces…
Hmm… sounds like the same reasons to fly the Aboriginal flag.

NATS benefit to economy open to question
Yes Erwin, as I have written elsewhere: “Territorians need more than ‘bread and circuses’ from their Government,” but all we got is a couple of circuses, not even some bread.
These taxpayer funded circuses are always justified as bringing hundreds of thousands of dollars without any solid evidence.
I very much doubt anyone came to the Centre to see the light show. Naturally a few that were coming anyway went to see it, but that doesn’t constitute extra dollars.
As for the NATS I don’t think my tax dollars should be spent so that silly people can destroy expensive tyres creating massive stink, noise and pollution.
And I’m not just a basket weaving greenie, I still ride a motorcycle (at 71).
Even with the few hundred (my estimate) who came for the NATS, the main benefit probably went to the big accommodation places, most of which are interstate owned. And now tax payer subsidised.
If the local hoons want to destroy tyres, and silly people want to watch them, I’m sure they can do it locally (organised and off street) without tax payer funding.

SA Government mum on cattle deals in APY Lands
Erwin, the dust cloud picture does not have a date.
When was it ?
It was not mentioned in the story, but the subliminal message is “overgrazing leads to dust storm”.
I doubt very much that this is the case.
In fact I would guess that the dust cloud dates from years ago in the big dry of the 90s.
Cattlemen would not be paying for agistment if the land was bare.
Please identify the date for the picture.
[ED – Hi Charlie, I don’t have the date. I chose the picture as a metaphor for the latest controversy in the APY lands.]

Be Sociable, Share!