The debate around the state of the kanamaluka/Tamar has been going in circles ever since a greater understanding of ecological issues put an end to sediment raking several years ago.
Since then, the estuary has been the subject of much study. And not to mention, much scrutiny from the public.
But no study has been as comprehensive as the 286-page Tamar Estuary and Esk Rivers program report from June, drawing upon technical and ecological reports from the past few decades and applying them to a 2021 setting - that is, where modern environmental regulations must be adhered to.
It considered the need to end the practice of informal levies, the cost and environmental risk of each proposed long-term management option, and how the estuary had responded to human intervention. It was a combination of every relevant government body and was assessed by a range of experts in the field.
Two conclusions it draws will be difficult to convince the public of: that the sedimentation build-up - or mud - has largely reached its peak and won't increase from its current levels, and that flows have a negligible effect on the mud anyway. The rice grass issue is well and truly in the too hard basket.
These conclusions show that the estuary we have now is the estuary Launceston is expected to learn to live with. And to do that, it needs to capitalise and enhance these natural values through the establishment of wetlands at Launceston.
The Tamar is home to a range of threatened ecological communities, from saltmarsh and Melaleuca through to the grayling. These rely on specific conditions provided by the estuary, and any action that puts them at risk would be highly unlikely to gain environmental approval.
Large-scale dredging, raking and the Tamar Lake proposal seem like 20th century solutions to a 21st century estuary management issue.
What all sides can agree on, however, is the need for an over-arching authority.
Would that authority come up with different conclusions to the TEER report though? That seems unlikely.