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.
Having read man X, man Y and CASACIR’s various reports and documentation, I have discovered that they have, in the following manner, claimed that they would have, and maintain, a “closed system”:
Kraan’s planning report (endorsed by council as part of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s planning permit) states as fact [emphasis mine]: “3.12.1 The approach is to use a closed system so that any surface waters and any groundwater generated within the extraction area will be collected and stored within the primary settling dam”, “3.12.3 The water management system is a closed-cycle water retention and reuse system”, “10.4 The waste management system is a closed-cycle water retention and reuse system” and “5.1.1 …there should be no sediment and waste discharged from the site”.
Kraan’s statement of evidence to the 2008 tribunal as fact states that [emphasis mine]: “4.11.1 The approach is to use a closed system …” and “4.11.3 The water management system is a closed-cycle water retention and reuse system”.
The second work plan (submitted to the 2008 tribunal as absolute fact) states: “7.5 The drainage system ensures there will be no discharge of surface drainage water.”
The third work plan (endorsed as part of the permit and forming the major part of the work authority) states as fact: “7.5 The drainage system ensures there will be no discharge of surface drainage water”.
However, there was no actual real intention to have the closed system as shown, because man X, man Y and CASACIR have already allowed drainage from the bund to go off site direct into Kookaburra Creek (and our property), and by way of run-off into the filthy dam which then overflows dam into the EMO and down into the Latrobe River – see my page on “Drainage and pollution” to see how they do not control the discharge.
I have also observed that man X, man Y and CASACIR then tried to walk with “a leg on either side of the fence” (which contradicts their claim of a closed system: either it is closed or it is not). They, in contradiction to the previous quotes, claimed a totally closed system… apart from the proposed discharge (erroneously and variously called “replacement flow”, distribution”, “top up” and the like, but which would actually be discharge of the quarry’s polluted wastewater/drainage captured in the main dam from the haul road, the access road, the benches, the refuelling and service areas, and the general works areas). Thus, I contend that this makes the claim of a closed system both deliberately misleading and knowingly inaccurate.
Kraan’s 2008 statement of evidence further states as fact that: “4.11.1 An existing storage dam is located to the south east of Stage 1 of the quarry adjacent to Pearce Road. Water from the primary settling dam may be pumped into this storage dam for future irrigation use on the property or for distribution to immediate neighbours(s)”, and “4.11.2 [Man X, man Y and CASACIR] will ensure the flow regime below the weir remains similar to the flow regime prior to quarry operations commencing. This will be achieved by replacing any flows lost with clean water from the existing storage dam” (see photos of this “clean water” on my “water and dams” page).
The second work plan (submitted to the 2008 tribunal as fact) further states: “6.6.1 Water from the primary settling dam may be used directly for irrigation, or pumped to the surface dam for later use as irrigation or distribution to the immediate neighbour(s)”, and “6.6.2 CASACIR will, by supplanting and replacing spring flows with clean water from the surface dam, ensure the flow regime below the weir is similar to the flow regime before quarry commenced” (again, see the clean water they proposed to send in replacement of what had been the clean, clear spring water prior to their polluting of it).
The third work plan (endorsed as part of the permit and forming the major part of the work authority) further states as fact: “6.6.1 Water from the primary settling dam may be used directly for irrigation, or pumped to the surface dam for later use as irrigation or distribution to the immediate neighbour(s)”, and “6.6.2 CASACIR will, by supplanting and replacing spring flows with clean water from the surface dam, ensure the flow regime below the weir is similar to the flow regime before quarry commenced” (I still don’t understand how they can call this clean water and think we would be happy with them stealing the rights to our spring water).
John Nolan’s witness statement states as fact that “5.1(1) This water management system will be closed at all types [sic] [except for] being used to top up [Kookaburra Creek] as required.”
Peake (man X, man Y and CASACIR’s former barrister) submitted to the 2008 VCAT members as fact that: “10.8 [T]here is no discharge of surface water from the site [except that it] will be able to provide replacement flows in [Kookaburra Creek] to the south of Pearce Road”).
The third work plan’s Figure 5 – “wetland” (endorsed as part of the permit and forming the major part of the work authority) stated as fact [emphasis mine] “Collector at the end to feed a pipe under the road then poly pipe to carry discharge to [Kookaburra Creek].”
The proposal to “ensure the flow regime below the weir is similar to the flow regime before quarry commenced” would be to be reducing the quantity considerably because the only flow assessments were taken prior to the quarry commencing were taken during the worst of the drought, and no quality assessments were done prior to them seriously polluting the water!
The dam from which they proposed to discharge the drainage was, in fact, a very filthy dam and therefore the so-called “clean water” would not be clean at all (see the picture of the dam that is variously referred to as “storage dam”, “surface dam”, “clean water dam” or “fresh water dam”) – see my webpage on “Dams” to see the quality of water they consider to be “fresh” and “clean”.
Further, they had to have our permission to discharge the drainage and/or wastewater through our property – and they most certainly did not have that permission and would not have been able to obtain it – but that did not matter to them, they were going to do it anyway!
In addition, *there was and is groundwater recharge from the quarry, thus making another breach in the so-called closed system; *there was stormwater discharging from the southern boundary of the site (run off from the bunds washes into Kookaburra Creek); *there was drainage discharging from the south-west bund, onto and under Pearce Road and into Kookaburra Creek’s tributary; *there was drainage discharging from the western side of the property, particularly from the entrance, and the western paddocks where the overburden was stockpiled and which discharged into the drain on Neerim North Road, went around onto and under Pearce Road and into Kookaburra Creek’s tributary *there was an overflow from the upper dam into the EMO – this dam was fed by wastewater from the southern bund (with the intended additional supply to that dam for overflow to neighbours – particularly us). There were, therefore, further breaches of the so-called “closed” system.
In addition, man X, man Y and CASACIR attempted to address the aspect of out-flow from the site with misleading statements, concealments and inconsistencies. A truly “closed-cycle water retention and reuse system” system is nothing in and nothing out by any means or in any manner, and where the drainage is retained on site for reuse.
This is man X, man Y and CASACIR being entirely environmentally responsible – they claimed as absolute and unassailable fact to the Supreme Court of Victoria that: “CASACIR [and therefore man X and man Y] has been environmentally responsible in its operation”[1].