The history of the city and sediment build-up have gone hand-in-hand for decades, and the lack of action from authorities has continued to frustrate and anger residents and river users.

The Examiner has also been at the forefront of this community discussion, with many stories running in the 180 years of the masthead. The most recent campaign, which examined the history of the issue, and what could be done to improve it, called for a solution to sediment build-up for users such as the Tamar Yacht Club and the Tamar Rowing Club, and the establishment of an independent authority to make decisions for estuary management.

These aquatic clubs have had to watch sediment clog up the main channels of the estuary. While the function of an estuary is to mix intertidal currents and flush sediment around, it has caused a significant problem for those who want to use it for leisure.

The river is a community asset, and as such, its aesthetic and environmental values - such as the fact it is a home for endangered species and is home to a host of other migratory birds and wildlife - needs to be balanced with the needs of the community.

However, a plan by the Tasmanian government to target dredge certain areas of the channel is arguably history repeating itself. It may not represent the best course of action to improve the river. The City of Launceston, its residents and those in authority have a history of making decisions to improve the river's health that have dire consequences - consequences that we are paying the price for still in the modern-day.

Take the introduction of rice grass, for example. It was planted on the banks of the estuary to help beautify the area and create banks on which infrastructure could be installed. Today, the rice grass is considerably choking the estuary; it has narrowed the channel over the years and has trapped contaminated sediment on the banks.

While it has proven helpful in trapping contaminated soils, arguably, that decision has not led to a healthier estuary. What the men in power decided at the time is something that is largely regretted now because it didn't examine the future ecology of the estuary and how it might impact water quality.

Dredging the river could be the same thing - because an environmental report prepared by estuarine experts from NRM North and the Tamar Estuary Management Taskforce (despite it being a controversial report) has shown that dredging in any form is likely to have a significant environmental impact.

It has also shown that it would only marginally improve the channel access for river users and is a costly fix. Dredging must also be done annually, but the state government's proposal does not feature any ongoing funding for dredging or anything else. It is understandable that Premier Peter Gutwein would announce dredging during the election campaign, it was a good announcement to get votes in Bass, his home electorate. But if we fail to seek advice from scientists and experts, we risk repeating past failures, and future generations will pay.