Raking is a valuable solution to sedimentation in the upper reaches of the Tamar River but relies on occasional heavy rain spilling over the Trevallyn Dam and thundering through the Cataract Gorge.

These occasional spills enable this water to escape Hydro's clutches, but resistance to natural scouring means raking is needed to put the sediments into suspension for efficient transport downriver.

There has been very limited raking of South Esk spills for three years.

In 2017, there were only minor spills. In 2018, the EPA license for raking expired and permission to rake was withheld for most of the year.

A restrictive permit was finally issued, but the winter spills were lost.

This year, minor work was undertaken to redefine a channel to the Gorge and some work at Seaport, but permission was not granted for any further raking, although the North Esk was running strongly.

Raking is now accused of being ineffective, it is not.

Consider just one simple example.

Between March 2011 and July 25, 2011, before raking, there were four dam spills for a total of 4450 cumecs.

About 62,900 cubic metres of sediment was flushed out of the Yacht Basin and Home Strait.

Between July 25 and November 25, 2013, raking started following a pre-election promise secured by former Bass Liberal MHR Andrew Nikolic, three spills were totalling 1800 cumecs which flushed 145,955m3 in conjunction with raking.

Therefore, raking removed roughly two and a half times the amount of sediment while using only two and a half times the water.

Could anything be clearer? Using South Esk spills, raking is low cost and it works.

Many Launcestonians will recall that in 2008-09 sedimentation became such a major concern that dredging commenced.

The cost was $4 million for 13 months, but during the work, sedimentation increased 20,000m3 more than the dredger was able to remove.

The recommendation of the task force is now to dredge, which seems strange in the light of that experience, but the work will be limited.

According to the release, dredging will be confined to the channels because as a spokesman says, "the mudflats are part of the system and will not be dredged".

Can this be true? The mudflats are the problem.

Bad luck for those who enjoy the riverside walking riding and the dining delights of Seaport, bad luck to the rowers and sailors who will lose their training and Regatta course.

Bad luck for great citizens such as Errol Stewart and Josef Chromy, who have invested millions in waterfront facilities.

They no doubt expect authorities will keep their part of the bargain, by maintaining an attractive waterfront.

Bad luck also for the residents and business owners of Invermay.

Nothing in the TEMT release dealt with combating the flood risk from sedimentation build-up.

In the state government-commissioned report from the University of NSW Water Laboratory, Professor D.N.Foster an eminent river and coastal engineer made the situation clear.

In his very detailed report, he said: "To do nothing in respect of sediment build-up is not an option".

He predicted that levees would need added height to offset future major floods if sediment is allowed to build.

Clearly, that would be unaffordable or practical, so sediment removal is the only real option, but how, is missing from the TEMT plan.

In summary, the recommendations do nothing to combat increased flood risk which should be priority number one.

Do nothing to maintain the river as a sporting and recreational asset and nothing to prevent the re-emergence of unsightly mud banks which smell of sewage when exposed in showcase areas.

Removing the constant natural build-up of sediment was a persistent feature of the Flood Authority River Management Strategy.

It is not an option but a necessity for Launceston and there are only two practical methods left standing. Dredging or raking?

There was no effort to obtain raking input during the development of the report, which would have shown why the delays in permit permission and increased bureaucratic control of raking operations, destroyed the ability to react quickly to favourable conditions.

Consultation would have headed off a report which does not address the flood risk.

Neither does it address the lifestyle and tourist requirements of a city which is increasingly dependent on those for its future.

Every successful town and city blessed with a waterfront uses it as an enhancement to its prospects and lifestyle for citizens and visitors.

Raking conducted with flexible rules delivers a better silt management strategy than any alternative.