Talk:Murray River/Archive 1

Potential Australian Collaboration of the Week

Seeing as it looks like this is headed for ACOTW, a potential breakdown -

• Leave the first paragraph as a decent lead section
• Move the tributaries and dams section up, turn it into prose as part of a geography section
• Exploration
• Steamboat trade
• Irrigation/Farming
• Decline
• Tourism Ambi 01:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for another two sections:

• Flora and Fauna
• Aboriginal history, mythology

-- Oska 05:48, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Section heading inserted Garrie 00:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Push for FA

---

Now that it's finally come up, I think it's about time we actually got another one of these featured, and I can't think of a better candidate than this.

I've got the resources right here to cover much of the history and tourism information, although as they're all Victorian books, they're not so hot on the South Australian end. But...would any of you be interested in actually making a go of this one? I'd rather not be trying to do it alone. It'd be particularly great if some science-ish people could be dragged in, because that side is something that's beyond me.

On another note, this really should make some mention of it being the state border and all, but I'm too tired to do it now. Ambi 12:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is one that I'm keep to help out on, count me in! -- Chuq 20:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Section heading inserted Garrie 00:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Named after Hume Sr not Hume Jr

---

Hume named the river after his father, not himself. Adam 14:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Section heading inserted Garrie 00:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I understood that the person who actually named the river was Hovell, who called it "Hume's River" (note spelling) after his companion Hume Jr., "... he being the first that saw it". -- JackofOz 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Murray's significance to Aborigines.

I've always wondered if the name "Murri/Murrie" ever had anything to do with this river? its an awkward thing to ask (and expect someone to know the answer)

Apart from that, AFAIK, The Murray has a cultural significant to Aborigines. And the term "Murrayians" was used to refer to second (main) wave Aboriginal arrivals to the continent.

We should aim to get some coverage on this aspect of the river.--ZayZayEM 03:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Goddamn. Found a massive book on Aboriginal culture hiding at the bottom of the bookshelf.--ZayZayEM 11:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Map

Catchment Map

Catchment Map second version - updated

I made a map showing the approximate catchment area of teh Murray river in Australia. Please feel free to comment or use in the article. Martyman 05:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not very easy to use as a thumb (only really legible at 500px+) Perhaps cut everything West of Port Lincoln, South Australia (the two gulfs near Adelaide). Or both WA & NT. --ZayZayEM 11:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have created a cropped version of the map. I think the full version is better as it gives a much clearer idea of what portion of the country is drained by the Murray. I don't think maps should have to be fully ledgable in their thumb form. Martyman 22:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the map is a good addition to the article. I prefer the second map myself - the Murray river has zero relevance to Western Australia. Couple of minor quibbles - perhaps have more color contrast than two shades of green and is it possible to detach Fraser Island from the mainland? Oska 01:52, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I will look into increasing the contrast between the greens, and it is definately possible to fix up Fraser Island. It will probably have to wait until next week though as I have left the file at work. Martyman 03:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like the second map. Perhaps non-catchemnt (ie. the rest of Australia) could be red/orange or some other contrasting colour? I do like this better than Adam's (sorry). But perhaps in belongs in the Murray-Darling basin article--ZayZayEM 08:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, obviously some people think that asking for comments means "Please ignore me and make your own!". Martyman 12:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adam's map

I've pulled Adam's map off the front page and put it here. I didn't think it right that his map should go straight into the article when Marty had already created a map and put it up for comments on the talk page first. We can discuss the maps here and maybe vote on which version should go into the article. I will leave a note on Adam's talk page about this. Oska 23:59, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

By the way the map shown on the ABC Murray series web-page is a nice one, and is worth having a look at. It doesn't show the river's tributaries though. Oska 23:59, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Both have their benefits. I would prefer the catchment map to cut off most of NT, Qld and all of Tas, so it can be larger and easier to read the relevant information. Adam's has the towns along the Murray, which are also important. Ideally both maps should be the same style (colours, etc.) and also consistent with other maps - though there isn't really a standard as yet. -- Chuq 05:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oska: so far as I am aware any user may make any edit to any article as they see fit. I am not aware that the addition of a map is an exception to this rule. Marty has done a map, I have done a map. The collectivity of editors will decide which, if either, should be used. My view is that Marty's map would go better at Murray-Darling basin. Adam 05:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then why didn't you make this comment about Marty's map before putting yours straight into the article thus giving the appearance of gazumping the prior candidate? The point is that Wikipedia works without rules through editers observing common courtesy. Oska 06:14, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your addition. I'm of the same midset, Wiki is open to any edit by anyone as they see fit, except for maybe admin pages and vandalism. Still like Marty's better.--ZayZayEM 01:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've made a mock-up of how we could possibly use all three maps in the article on this sub-page. There's one section talking about the river's place in the whole catchment basin with Marty's two maps below with the one on the left showing australia-wide location and then the second version on the right showing expanded detail of the catchment basin.

Then another section which brings the focus onto the river itself. I think it's good to have a map which shows the river and only as much of the tributaries as the space allows (i.e. not necessarily to their source). This then gives you more space to show more detail of towns and dams etc along the river. I've placed Adam's map here but Marty might want to come up with his own version of such a map too if he likes.

I'm going to bow out of this collaboration at this point. I just want to say that I value everyone's constructive contributions on Wikipedia, but I do want to say that with things like maps I think Marty has shown the right approach by putting it up on the talk page first to gather comments. We all have the power to edit the text of an article in as fine detail as we like but with a graphic all the editing details are locked inside the graphic itself so it's nice to be consulted about possible edits by the graphic's creator.

Oska 10:48, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

The article doesn't need three maps. It needs one map, showing the location of the Murray River, as mine does. Marty's maps are maps of the Murray-Darling catchement area, and are identified as such. So they belong at Murray-Darling basin. It seems quite straightforward to me. Adam 12:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agreee with Adam that we shouldn't have 3 maps in the article. If he is insisting that it should be his, then fine. I am not going to argue, even though Adam's argument seems to be that info on the catchment area of the Murray River has no place in an article about the Murray River, which I feel is anything but straightforward. I will target my map to the Murray-Darling Basin article and remember not edit any further articles that Adam might be working on, no more ACOTW for me. Martyman 23:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't be such a baby. I'm not "insisting" on anything. I am stating an opinion, which you are free to disagree with. If you can persuade others here that you are right, you will prevail and I will not. Adam 00:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More maps on the web

I've already mentioned the map on the ABC site. I've done a bit of a search and come up with some more that I think are worth a look. Not to suggest we grab any one of these but just to help inform our idea of how to do the map and what to include.

This one at the Murray Darling Basin Commission website gives extensive detail of the catchment system but cuts off the top part of the Darling.

This one also show a lot of detail however it also chops off the top of the Darling system and the scan of the image is low quality.

This map halfway down the page of an ABC news story shows the full catchment.

The map at the top of this page on the Save the Murray website shows the full catchment and also shows geographical context by putting a placement map of the whole of Australia in the top left. A good idea. The map has unfortunately been badly scanned in.

Oska 06:32, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

One more I forgot. This is not a map of the river system but is instead a professional map of the river basin systems of Australia. Really interesting map. Oska 06:35, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Some interesting maps there. I particularly like the last one dividing up the country by catchment areas. I could see that using some of the info from these maps I could do some worthwhile improving to my version of the map, but really I don't feel like putting the effort in, if further rude behaviour is going to just piss me off again. I could re-target this map at the Murray-Darling Basin article but how do I know I am not going to get gazumped there too.

This is actually the second time I have experienced behaviour that could be regarded as rude from Adam. After I rewrote the Lake Burley Griffin article including taking photos, and getting it to featured article status, Adam comes in and makes one edit, and places one of his photos as the lead photo for the article. I probably wouldn't have minded if there had been some discussion involved, but this kind of stress is really putting me off editing on the wikipedia at all. Martyman 12:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How terribly stressful for you to have your articles changed. You should try editing something controversial like Saddam Hussein or Zionism and see what aggressive editing really looks like. Reversion and counter-reversion is the way Wikipedia works, and edits are almost never discussed beforehand. If you don't like my edits, change them. None of it is meant personally (not by me, anyway), and it is actually quite fun once you stop being precious about your edits. Adam 01:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'Oral history' section changed to 'In the Media'

Someone changed the section titled 'Oral history' to the new title 'In the Media'. I think 'In the Media' is a title that conveys little meaning. I chose 'Oral history' because the series was essentially that. It was four or five separate 50 minute programs of essentially Phillip Adams interviewing people along the river. They got to tell their own stories. It wasn't some 'Media discussion' of the Murray.

As an oral history resource to the Murray river at the turn of this century I think the series was an important one and should be mentioned in this article. Ideally it would appear in the article as an external link to full transcripts of the interviews (and/or their sound files) but unfortunately after looking on the ABC website it appears these resources have not been made available. That's why I chose to write it up in the way I did which may look like documentation with little information content but I didn't see much alternative.

Oska 00:05, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Problem fixed. Went and checked the ABC site again and the series now does have its own page with links to audio files for all of the series. Have now added it in as an external link.

Oska 01:42, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Oral history didn't convey any meaning to me. "Oral History" to me recalls visions of tribal Jews passing down the Torah to one another (or here, Aboriginal history). Oh you've removed it... sorry--ZayZayEM 08:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Zay. Mentioning the series under 'Oral History' was my solution to the problem that at the time the ABC hadn't put up a web page for the series. They have now and so the article presently has the much better solution of referencing the series as an external link. BTW, I didn't remove the section but I'm happy with the outcome. Oska 00:17, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Murray Daring Basin

We should probably link to the Murray-Darling Basin article from somewhere in the article. I just can't see where. Martyman 00:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More to mention

Notes for further expansion, with accurate wikilinks, where possible:

• Locks, weirs, and barrages also sustain the river level.
• The 1956 flood and others should be mentioned.
• The construction of Ferries (cable ferry, in fact -- I guess we call them punts because they were once no more than that) and significant bridges should be mentioned in history too.

I started to pull together some info about bridges and ferries, but it quickly grew to be disproportionately long to insert in the article. Should I throw some of it away, or create a new page about bridges and punts, and link to it from the Murray River article?--ScottDavis 12:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would put it in a separate article; perhaps "List of Murray River crossings" if it's just a list of links, "Murray River crossings" if it has text for history, etc. Then mention any important ones in the Murray River article. The Yarrawonga Weir bridge is certainly now a two-lane road crossing and has been since I lived there in the 80s. Geoff/Gsl 10:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Also Hindmarsh Island, South Australia and secret women's business.

Definition problem

Making a map of a river is more complex than it might at first seem. Do you do a whole river catchment map or just a map of the river itself? Or something in between - say only the river and the tributaries that flow directly into it. If you took this approach with the Murray then you would show the Darling and the Murrumbidgee but not the Lachlan which is a tributary of the Murrumbidgee. And how is it decided which fork of a river keeps the name of the river and which gets a different name? Whichever is bigger? It seems somewhat arbitrary. While a water catchment basin and its river system can be rigorously defined it seems that the definition of a river is more vague.

So we have this problem with our map of the river and also for how we decide to split content between the Murray River article and the Murray-Darling Basin article.

My tentative suggestion is to limit this article to the historically defined Murray River and then with good linking from this article put all material that relates to the water catchment basin as a whole in to the Murray-Darling Basin article.

Oska 06:03, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

The fact that any rain that falls in the catchment is destined to either evaporate or reach the sea at the mouth of the Murray, interests me. That the Murray drains such a large part of australia is worth bringing up in the article (which it already is) and I thought worth illustrating with a map. Martyman 23:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We can have more than one map you know--ZayZayEM 01:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

River boats

I came across this Australia Post stamp issue : 150th Anniversary Murray River Shipping when I was working on the list of Australians on stamps, it contains enough detail for a section on the river boats- and some nice pics since stamps fall under fair-use/fair-dealing (as far as I can tell), I'll upload them tomorrow when I'm not on dial-up --nixie 11:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to this. I've been really busy the last few days, but I really will get onto writing about the riverboat trade soon - I'd like to see it become a featured article of its own, as well as a section in this. Ambi 12:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discharge

The average discharge is listed as 0.89 m3/s. Isn't this way too low for a river this size? DaMatriX 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the point. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Draining of lake Bungunnia

Just wondering if the author has "Swan Reach"(SA) confused with Swan Hill" (Vic) "Lake Bungunia Between 2.5 and 0.5 million years ago the Murray River terminated in a vast freshwater lake called Lake Bungunia. Lake Bungunia was formed by earth movement that blocked the Murray River near Swan Reach". 155.144.251.120 (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to challange the word "extremely" in the following sentence. "The draining of Lake Bungunnia 0.7 million years ago must have been an extremely dramatic event."

The rise in the land that caused Lake Bungunnia to form was only a few metres on terrain that was and is flat for hundreds of kilomentres. When the lake finally found its way through its gorge to the sea, the force of the water would have surely been very weak, because the drop in levels was small. Lacking strong erosive power, the new gorge would have been of minimum capacity, hence the modern name incorporating the word "Choke". Compared to a/some catatrophic floods in North America when ice dams hundreds of metres deep burst, the "draining of Lake Burgunnia" was surely quite timid.

Tabletop 10:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The sources I have read suggest the draining of Lake Bungunnia at least partly contributed to the dramatic incised channels the lower Murray flows through. Low relief of the land or not, use a bit of imagination and think what the draining of a 33,000 square kilometre lake might have been like. To be honest I don't care if you remove the word 'extremely' and I think its very sad if you are that wound up about such a trivial issue. No matter what you do, I suggest you read 'The Murray' (MDBC, 1990), particularly the chapters by Dr Jim Bowler. Codman

Further thoughts - remember, Northern Hemisphere standards about what's big and dramatic do not apply here in Australia. We are a unique island continent with our own unique standards. What is a big river here is a small river there. What is an extremely dramatic event here is a modest event over there. By Australian standards the draining of Lake Bungunnia would have been extremely dramatic (though of course, no humans were there to witness it). Codman 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

For those losing sleep over a single word, I've removed the word "extremely". Personally, I feel that by Australian standards the draining of 33,000 square kilometre lake, which was probably quite rapid, was extremely dramatic. Anyhoo... Codman 06:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Draining of Glacier Lake catastrophically.

Trawling through the "My Contributions" list, I tracked this down.

J Harlen Bretz was a geologist who spent half a lifetime arguing a theory about catastrophic floods caused by glacier/ice dams bursting. He did win the prestigious Penrose Medal in the end.

The Bretz flood(s) really do not resemble any Murray river flood, and thus the word "extremely" is not justified.

Tabletop 10:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Image: Murray Mouth

The image has been deleted due to copyright. Someone want to find or take one that doesnt void copyright? skorpion 03:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Murray

Does anybody have a reference for the mouth having been at either Port Pirie or Port Augusta. There's no applicable reference listed here, either city, nor at either Flinders Ranges or Adelaide Geosyncline. Port Pirie does have a matching uncited claim. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact references for the entire ancient history section would be good. Is it Lake Bungunnia or Lake Bungunya? --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mackay and Eastburn, 1990, listed at the bottom of the page. A bit lame, but I don't know how to do the linked reference thing. Codman 03:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[1] This website seems to have what you need... though I am not sure.SauliH 14:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That web page does not appear to claim that the Murray ever flowed across what is now the Flinders or Mount Lofty Ranges. It does talk about a tectonic dam creating Lake Bungunia (yet another spelling!), but it says that was blocking the flow along what is now the lower Murray near Swan Reach.

If Mackay and Eastburn is a suitable reference, we need the page number/chapter identified against that claim, perhaps even with a short quote if possible. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I got sick of seeing it there, so I've removed the following paragraph:

The ancient Murray had its mouth near Port Augusta where the landscape still forms a characteristic delta (visible on the map above). Due to uplifting of the land in the vicinity of the Flinders Ranges, the river was cut off from this mouth and was forced to make a sharp bend to the south to its current mouth.

It appears to be unsupported by any reference I can find, and appears to conflict with the age of the Flinders Ranges (older than the supposed ancient channel by millions of years). I used the other website as a reference to Lake Bungunia. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Numerous anabranches

In common with a lot of large rivers with relatively low changes in elevation the Murray has a family of anabranch rivers, such as the Wakool and Edward rivers. This is mentioned in Moulamein, New South Wales in passing. These rivers flow out of the murray and then back in. During some parts of the year, in total they carry more water than the main channel (even though all the water comes from the Murray originally). I don't have a decent source otherwise I'd put it in the article. Garrie 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sport and Recreation

The river is used extensively for sport and recreation purposes. This includes power boats, water sports (skiing, wakeboarding, tubes etc), canoeing and competitive rowing. There are also many 'shacks' along the river. Ozdaren 01:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1956 Murray River flood

An article on the 1956 flooding of the Murray River has been created. I note this article doesn't make any mention the of flood other than within an image caption which I added myself some time back. A multimedia CD/DVD has been produced locally detailing the history and impact of the flood at the time. I plan to get my hands on it (costs about $20 or so) to see what I can use here. If anyone else can contribute to the flood article, it'd be much appreciated-- Longhair\^talk 11:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ocean names

Scott and other Adelaide residents....congrats on excellent, thorough articles (Adelaide, Murray R.). In them, I see only one facet upon which Adelaide/Australian WP editors (or WP editors from any actual locality) don't have an unofficial but in my mind "authoritative leg up." Adelaidians (?) and Australians, perhaps unfortunately due to the common usage on Australian maps, no more "get to decide" the name of the oceans of the world than do the people of, say, Chile, who refuse to use "Pacific" and have their own name for it on all their maps. The group that does is the IHO (see the WP Southern Ocean article for references....the Adelaide article should not be cluttered with IHO references, I should think!) .

For good or bad (bad if you're a fan of Australian maps and terminology), they have decided that Australia is a continent sitting in the Indian Ocean, with the Pacific along its eastern side. They publish this with carefully delineated borders for these water bodies (see that mentioned in the WP Great Australian Bight article. So, certainly not for Australian use, but for a worldwide English enclopedia, its "Indian Ocean", not "Southern Ocean." The IHO very clearly ruled (after a vote of member nations) that the "Southern Ocean" stops at 60 degrees south, and north of that its the Indian Ocean. Not debatable, unless you want to try to overturn the worldwide and WP-wide acceptance of the IHO as the authority on these matters. Water bodies that Australia does not share with other nations are a different matter, of course. This is how world geographers (and the IHO) avoid having several names for various sides of various oceans. Having done the South Coast Track in Tasmania and looking southwest off the cliffs (an amazing place; huge old growth trees, remote beaches) and saying something to a local about the big Indian Ocean waves and getting an incredulous stare, I know this doesn't make sense locally.....But it's an international encyclopedia.DLinth 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The authority on place names in Australia is Geoscience Australia. They have an online place name search (gazetteer). I suggest people look up Southern Ocean and Indian Ocean in it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly....the authority on place names IN Australia. Southern Ocean and Indian Ocean are place names outside of Australia, shared with the world (and world WP) community.DLinth 19:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Longest or second-longest?

We currently say: "The Murray River, or River Murray, is Australia's second-longest river in its own right (the longest being its tributary the Darling)." My understanding is that the water course comprised of the Darling and that part of the Murray after its intersection with the Darling is the longest water course in Australia, but that the longest river that has the same name for its entire length is the Murray. The Darling as such is shorter than the Murray, but the Darling-Murray water course is longer than either the Darling or the Murray. -- JackofOz 14:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

JackofOz is correct on all counts. The worldwide convention followed by virtually all sources, all atlases, etc. is to list "longest rivers" by the longest watercourse regardless of name. Thus, "Mississippi-Misouri-Beaverhead-Red Rock" and "Ob-Irtysh" and many more. So the Murray-Darling is the longest river in Australia, and that's the way it is listed in most sources.DLinth (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Border issues

We currently say: "The Murray makes up much of the border of the Australian states of Victoria and New South Wales. The border is generally agreed upon to be the southern high water mark of the river (ie, none of the river itself is actually in Victoria). This boundary definition can be ambiguous, as the river has changed its course slightly since the boundary was defined in 1851."

My understanding is that until around the mid-70s (not sure exactly when), the entire river was the border. This caused a problem because of a man who lived on an island in the river and claimed he resided in neither NSW nor Victoria and was not subject to either state's taxes. Consequently, NSW and Vic agreed to adjust the border to the southern bank. It's not a matter of "general agreement" but law. Can anyone confirm this? -- JackofOz 14:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

water analysis text removal

I have removed a massive chunk of text from the article about water analysis details. Some of this may be of use as a reference, but not in this analytic form. Nomadtales (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Water Analysis and Health Check

Water Analyses by Simmonds & Bristow in five sections of the Murray River found:

Site 1: Junction of Murray and Darling Rivers: sample collected 29/8/07
The physical, chemical and microbiological quality of river water at this point is generally good, with no sign of salinity or conductivity (salts in the water). Nitrogen and Phosphorus levels are slightly elevated, but not alarmingly so; this may be due to fertilizer runoff from local industries. Excessive nutrient (Nitrogen and Phosphorus in their various forms) levels can lead to nuisance growth of aquatic plants, and therefore reduced dissolved oxygen in the river, which adversely affect the ecosystem of the river. Pesticides were not detected here, and algal results indicated there are no harmful algae blooms in this area. The faecal coliforms result detected in the river sample is well below the recommended maximum value for drinking water for livestock.

Site 2: 30km Downstream of Lock 10: sample collected 29/8/07
As seen at Site 1, the physical and chemical quality of river water at this point is generally good, with no sign of salinity. Nutrient levels were all within recommended ranges, and no pesticides were detected. The high blue-green algae result at this site indicates the likelihood of an algal bloom, which might lead to toxicity to livestock if cyanobacteria (toxic species of algae) are in high numbers. Cyanobacteria can release harmful toxins if not kept under control.

Site 3: 15km Downstream of Lock 7: sample collected 30/8/07
The physical quality of the river water here is again good, with a normal pH level; however the salinity is slightly elevated compared with sites 1 and 2. The salinity is still well within the recommended level for lowland rivers. Oxidised Nitrogen (Nitrate & Nitrite) as well as Ammonia are slightly elevated, which may be due to fertilizer runoff. Again, no pesticides were detected, and the microbiological quality was good, with normal levels of algae and very low Faecal Coliforms.

Site 4: 2km Downstream of Lock 6: sample collected 31/8/07
The salinity at this site was further elevated, slightly, compared with the previous sample location, but was still well within the recommended guidelines. Nutrient levels were generally low at this site, with a slightly elevated result for Ammonia. Again, no pesticides were detected, and the microbiological quality was good, with normal levels of algae and very low Faecal Coliforms.

Site 5: Kingston on Murray: sample collected 6/9/07
A further increase in salinity and pH were measured at this site, as we proceed down the Murray River. This will be a crucial trend to watch as we proceed further downstream. However the physical quality including pH and salinity was still acceptable, with the results lying within the recommended guidelines. However, a sudden jump in Total Phosphorus and Orthophosphate was observed at this site, with the result for Phosphorus showing as five times higher than the recommended value. The high nutrients in the river at this location indicate possible contamination from local industries, including fertilizers and cattle manure. No pesticides were detected, and the microbiological quality was good.

Site 6: Wakarie SA: sample collected 12/9/07
The physical, chemical, and microbiological quality of river water at this point is generally good; however, the salinity at this site was further elevated. Nitrate & Nitrite and Ammonia levels are slightly elevated but the overall nutrient levels were well below the trigger values specified in the Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters (ANZECC 1992) for lowland rivers. No pesticides were detected, and the microbiological quality was good, with low levels of algae and Faecal Coliforms.

Site 7: Morgan: sample collected 13/9/07
The physical quality of the river water here is fairly good, with pH level approaching the maximum trigger value and continuous elevated salinity. Nitrate & Nitrite and Ammonia levels are again slightly elevated but the overall nutrient levels is good, with results well below the trigger values specified in the Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters (ANZECC 1992) for lowland rivers. Again, no pesticides were detected, and the microbiological quality was good, with slightly elevated algae level and low level of Faecal Coliforms.

Site 8: Mannum: sample collected 17/9/07
The physical, chemical and microbiological quality of river water at this point is generally good, with reduced salinity level at this site compared to sites 6 and 7. The overall nutrient levels generally meet the Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters (ANZECC 1992) for lowland rivers, with the exception of Oxidised Nitrogen, which was slightly high. The faecal Coliforms result detected in the river sample is well below the recommended maximum value for drinking water for livestock. The algal results indicated that there are no harmful algae blooms in this area.

Site 9: Brinkley Station: sample collected 20/9/07
The river quality is fairly poor with pH level exceeding the maximum trigger value and continuous elevated salinity. The nutrient levels exceed the recommended ranges with obvious elevation in Nitrogen concentration. No pesticides were detected at this site. The high blue-green algae result at this site indicates the likelihood of an algal bloom. The faecal Coliforms result detected in the river sample is well below the recommended maximum value for drinking water for livestock.

Site 10: Goolwa Freshwater: sample collected 22/9/07
The river quality is poor with high pH level and salinity (5 times the maximum limit), exceeding the maximum limits for lowland rivers. This may be due to the location of the river (closer to the sea), which has a mixture of freshwater and saltwater. The nutrient levels far exceed the recommended ranges with significant elevation in Nitrogen and Phosphorus concentrations. Again, no pesticides were detected at this site. The high blue-green algae result is again high at this site, which indicates the likelihood of an algal bloom. The microbiological quality was poor, with the likelihood of an algal bloom; however, the Faecal Coliforms count was low.

Site 11: Goolwa D/S Barage: sample collected 22/9/07

The river sample has recorded the highest salinity up to date, exceeding 24 times the maximum limit specified in the Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters (ANZECC 1992) for lowland rivers. However, this may be due to the proximity of the ocean; this area may have a mixture of freshwater and saltwater. The nutrient level has recovered with slightly higher Nitrogen concentration compared to the maximum limit. No pesticides were detected, and the microbiological quality was good, with low levels of algae and Faecal Coliforms count....