Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relates to pre-14 February 2024 when the company was sold. In no way can anything said relate to the company or its new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders after that sale.
Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s planning permit required [emphasis mine]: “55. Prior to the commencement of the use groundwater monitoring bores must be drilled on the site to the satisfaction of Southern Rural Water. The results from the groundwater monitoring bores must be reported to the responsible authority and to Southern Rural Water every 12 months”.
The requirement of the permit condition was that “Prior to the commencement of the use groundwater monitoring bores must be drilled on the site to the satisfaction of Southern Rural Water”. This was accomplished, with man X, man Y and CASACIR having submitted an application to SRW for three water monitoring bores. The resultant Southern Rural Water (“SRW”) conditions in the licence granting the drilling of the bores stated: “1. The location of the bore[s] must be indicated on a map which will be sent to the Licensee after the bore has been constructed. The map must be promptly returned to the SRW”, with the deepest being only 15 metres deep.
The SRW permit specified that the bores had to be located within 20m of the proposed sites – however, the northern bore was some 125m away from the proposed site, and the other two were some 40m to 70m from the proposed sites (it is hard to tell because they were shown in various locations on the various monitoring plans – but none of them were in, or close to, the locations proposed in the application). However, while the locations and identifications were suspect and confusing, they were also contradictory and unsubstantiated, and their claimed locations were largely untrue:
The locations of the bores were extremely confusing to say the least (yet this met SRW’s satisfaction). Some of the confusion[1] is revealed below:
1. The plans within man X, man Y and CASACIR’s water monitoring bore application to Southern Rural Water were revision 2 and were dated 29/10/2007 and showed: OB1 (presumably supposed to be GW1) at almost the top of the hill on the northern boundary, approximately half way between Palmer Road and Neerim North Road. OB2 (presumably supposed to be GW2) was shown to be approximately 43m to the north-west of the filthy (falsely called “clean water dam”) in the middle of a track and gateway, and OB3 (presumably supposed to be GW3) was shown to be at the extraction boundary approximately 235m from the western WA boundary – somewhat too close to the office and amenities block where it could be hit by truck traffic, polluted by the hydrocarbons spilt on the ground near the bowser, and polluted by the septic tank and lines nearby – each much further that the allowed 20m from the application site.
2. The monitoring plan within the endorsed work plan appendices was stated to be revision 0, was dated 22/3/2009, and showed: GW1 at almost the top of the hill on the northern boundary, approximately half way between Palmer Road and Neerim North Road, GW2 close to the proposed office and amenities site, and GW3 at the north-north-west edge of the filthy “clean water dam” – each much further that the allowed 20m from the application site.
3. The “drill hole map and cross section” [Figure 2-15] plan within the Hyder Hydrogeological Assessment (assessment was dated 13/8/2009 but the plan had no revision number and no date) showed: GW(? – un-named and un-numbered) towards the western side, but within the road reserve of the disused end of Palmer Road just inside the site, GW(? – un-named and un-numbered) almost on the haul road – further from the proposed office and amenities site than shown on the endorsed monitoring plan, and GW(? – un-named and un-numbered) to the north-west of the filthy “clean water dam” (i.e. a bit further to the west than on the endorsed monitoring plan and possibly in the position of the application in relation to OB2 (presumably GW2)).
4. The “2009 Bore (GW1-3) …monitoring location” plan [Figure 3-17] also within the Hyder Hydrogeological Assessment (assessment was dated 13/8/2009 but the monitoring plan had no revision number and no date) showed: GW1 within the paddock at the western side of the disused end of Palmer Road just inside the site, GW2 close to the proposed office and amenities site but to the north of the same bore shown the “drill hole map and cross section” plan [Figure 2-15], and GW3 was now on top of an overburden mound to the north of the filthy “clean water dam” – each much further that the allowed 20m from the application site.
5. The “Surface Water features” plan [Figure 5-20] also within the same Hyder Hydrogeological Assessment (assessment was dated 13/8/2009 but the monitoring plan had no revision number and no date) showed: GW1 within the paddock at the western side of the disused end of Palmer Road just inside the site, GW2 close to the proposed office and amenities site but to the north of the same bore shown the “drill hole map and cross section” plan [Figure 2-15], and GW3 was now some on top of an overburden mound to the north of the filthy “clean water dam” – each much further that the allowed 20m from the application site.
6. The additional monitoring plan supplied to SRW (presumably by Hyder Consulting) had no revision number and no date and showed: GW1 at the close to the proposed office and amenities site, GW2 was on top of an overburden mound to the north of the filthy “clean water dam”, and GW3 was towards the western side (but within the road reserve) of the disused end of Palmer Road just inside the site – these were the only ones that proved true at the time, but none of man X, man Y, CASACIR, SRW, WGCMA, DPI and/or council saw nothing wrong in such inaccuracies and confusion.
(Summary of monitoring bore information: *The ground water monitoring bore at the northern boundary was variously quoted as being: OB1, GW1, GW3 & unlabeled and its location was variously shown as being: at the top of the hill at the northern boundary at Palmer Road inside the road reserve, and at Palmer Road within the paddock close to the road reserve. *The ground water monitoring bore close to the office and amenities block was variously quoted as: OB3, GW2, GW1 & unlabeled and its location was variously shown as being: close to the proposed office and amenities site, almost on the haul road – further from the proposed office and amenities site than shown on the endorsed monitoring plan, near the office and amenities block, and was actually within the road itself, close to the proposed office and amenities site but to the north of the same bore shown the “drill hole map and cross section” plan [Figure 2-15], and at the extraction boundary ~235m from the western WA boundary somewhat too close to the office and amenities block. * The ground water monitoring bore near the filthy “clean water dam” was variously quoted as: OB2, GW3, GW2 & unlabeled, and its location was variously shown as being: at the north-north-west edge of the filthy “clean/fresh water” dam, to the north-west of the filthy “clean/fresh water” dam (i.e. a bit further to the west than on the endorsed monitoring plan and possibly in the position of the application in relation to OB2 (presumably GW2)), approximately 43m to the north-west of the filthy “clean/fresh water” dam (in the middle of a track and gateway), and towards the western side (but within the road reserve) of the disused end of Palmer Road just inside the site, and was actually about 40m to the east-north-east of the application site and is on top of an overburden mound – you can clearly see the confusion, contradictions and inconsistencies (yet this was determined by man X, man Y, and SRW as being perfectly satisfactory)).
Only GW1 was claimed to have been tested for water level and quality prior to any works commencing on site, and that was performed 19 April 2009 – one month before the bores were drilled and nearly two weeks before a licence was applied for!!! And which bore was GW1 in fact??!!!
They could have drilled to 25m or 45m or 65m depth but chose to go to the minimum they thought they could get away with and appear “reasonable”: 12m, 14m and 15m. I argue that they should have been drill to the depth of extraction as a minimum and to the depth of any watertable below that extraction in order to ascertain any impacts from recharge.
The SRW conditions were very clear, but man X, man Y and CASACIR failed to meet the conditions of being at a location no greater than 20m from the authorised site(s).
In addition, the bores marked on Figure 2-15 of the Hyder assessment clearly showed: *the 1974 “DDH” – “diamond drill head” bores for which no bore logs had been provided; *the “PH” – “percussion hole” bores for which no bore logs had been provided; *the 2006 “P” – “percussion” bores for which the bore logs were first provided for VCAT; the 2008 “WB” – presumably “water bore” bores for which no bore logs had been provided, no licence applied for or granted (according to FOI results), and no information provided in spite of being used as the basis for Figure 4-19 (they stated in clause 4.5.1: that the “assessed stratigraphy and water levels as retrieved from the 2008 and 2009 bore logs”); *the 2008 “Samp” – presumably “sample” bores for which no bore logs were provided and no information provided in spite of being used as the basis for Figure 4-19 (they stated in clause 4.5.1: that the “assessed stratigraphy and water levels as retrieved from the 2008 and 2009 bore logs”); and *the 2009 “GW” – “groundwater” bores marked by stars – but were unidentified as to GW number.
The truth is that:
*the bores were in different locations to those permitted by their licence,
*the various plans were confusing, uncertain and contradictory;
*one of the bores was too close to the septic system and the hydrocarbon storage (which for a time went directly onto the ground and therefore leached into the sub-surface), and was so close to traffic that it was finally moved;
*another of the bores was located with no protection from cattle (a) rubbing it, and (b) defecating and urinating close to it;
*and the third bore was deliberately located on an overburden mound so as to have very little proper value. In addition, they serviced machinery close to the bore.
The conditions of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s SRW licence 9038105 granting the bores specified very clearly that: “7. Decommissioning of the bore(s) shall be undertaken as set out in section 18, ‘Decommissioning of Bores (Abandonment) published within the book entitled Minimum Construction Requirement for Water Bores in Australia, 2nd Edition Revised September 2003’.” In the “other conditions” of the same licence, it further states: “6. If the bore in unsuccessful, it is necessary to tae action to protect the groundwater resource from wastage and pollution. This may be done by decommissioning the bore in accordance with the approved methods.”, but this bore was ripped later out without being properly decommissioned (man X, man Y and CASACIR’s unlawful storage of material in breach of their work plan was in part the cause of ripping this bore out).
They also did not take quality measurements of the bores prior to having polluted them by their quarry works. They then used the polluted quality as the “control” level. All this is absolutely contrary to their fraudulent claims to the Supreme Court of Victoria “Casacir has been environmentally responsible in its operation”.
Man X, man Y and CASACIR fraudulently claimed[2] that my former website had falsely stated: “[That CASACIR had] no apparent care of concern that three bores on its property at the Casacir quarry land could not be properly or adequately monitored”. They then clarified their stance[3] by claiming that: “It is false to assert that Casacir had no apparent care or concern that three bores on the Casacir quarry land could not be properly or adequately monitored; the bores on the Casacir quarry land were and are regularly, properly and adequately monitored by the quarry manager on a weekly basis …”.
In spite of the permit condition requiring that [emphasis mine] “…a flow and water quality monitoring program … must be in place prior to Stage 1 works commencing” it was not done – the program was not approved until February 2010 and the monitoring had not been not performed prior to works commencement because the works commenced on or prior to 4 August 2009. It should be noted that the requirement was “prior to Stage 1 works commencing”, not the “use” commencing. However, even if we take the “use” date, using the definition provided by the 2008 tribunal (and the associated wording contained in the permit), the date the “use” commenced was no later than 10 September 2009, and the new flow monitoring supposedly commenced almost a month after that, and the program was not approved, as stated, until February 2010.
Other than the one reading having been done in one of the bores prior to the quarry works commencing, further readings were not done until to December 2009, 4 months after the works commenced and those later readings were used as the “control” readings – i.e. the water quality that could have been and/or was polluted by the quarry activities was now used as the standard against which to check for further or other pollution.
Man X, man Y and CASACIR also claimed that: “At each of the community meetings addressed by Casacir, Mr Jack Kraan, a town planning expert retained on behalf of Casacir, principally addressed the attendees. [Man X] only addressed those meetings if requested to do so in response to specific questions. All information provided by [man X] in response to such questions has been accurate and true and therefore [he] has not deceived the public”, “At each of the community meetings held by Casacir, it was Mr Jack Kraan, an expert retained on behalf of Casacir, who principally addressed the attendees”, and “All information provided by Casacir in response at community meetings has been true and correct. Casacir has not deceived the public. It has not been alleged by anyone other than the defendant that Casacir (or man X or man Y) has provided inaccurate, fictional and/or deceptive information at community meetings”[4]. However, Kraan, said (with man X sitting next to him and approving what he said):
- at the 21 October 2009 [emphasis mine] “Monitoring of bores on site will be done regularly”, clearly showing that the monitoring had not commenced, and this is proved by the quarterly monitoring reports which unequivocally stated that the monitoring did not commence until December 2009;
- at the 27 September 2010 [emphasis mine] “Groundwater is monitored from 3 Groundwater bores on a monthly basis (pH,Temp, Turbidity & EC)” and “Question: When will bore No. 2 be replaced? Jack Kraan: It is dry. Intend doing one more round of monitoring to meet WGCMA, DPI and Council requirements. After that we will meet with authorities and determine when and where to replace the bore which may be around the end of this year”. He certainly seemed to contradict himself by saying that all 3 bores were monitored, but then said bore 2 was dry and had to be replaced. They were happy to only have two bores that were operational, even though none of them were of a depth to interact with deeper aquifers and he said that the monitoring would be done “to meet WGCMA, DPI and Council requirements” – showing that man X, man Y and CASACIR, along with the authorities showed no apparent care or concern that the 3 bores could not be properly or adequately monitored; and
- at the 5 April 2011 community meeting that “No 2 Bore is not working well due to very little water entering it and thus monitoring of this bore is difficult. A fourth Bore is going to be established in a different location near Peace Road…”. Kraan also said that they were going to continue to monitor bore 2, but at the time of making this claim the bore had already been pulled out by man X, man Y and CASACIR – without being decommissioned in breach of environmental guidelines and in breach of their bore licence!
[1] Sadly, this has been systematic from the start, with me accusing them of submitting contradictory, inconsistent, vague and unsubstantiated claims, and they have not denied it. The listed bore issue is just one of many such examples.
[2] at 19(m)/28(m)
[3] at “as to Casacir…” 20(m)/29(m)
[4] Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s statements of claim made as absolute and unassailable fact to the Supreme Court of Victoria.