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.
SRW (Southern Rural Water) was a party to the obstructions of justice as well as to the injustice of what happened to us. Some of the details have been provided below and in other pages.
SRW had and has the responsibility to ensure that all applications and permits and licences required, were required to be applied for and obtained prior to anyunauthorised use of, or impact on, surface water and groundwater and catchments, and are not ignored or just handed over; and that all permit and licence applications would be subject to the full community consultation processes in accordance with SRW policy and the Water Act 1989; and that measures be taken against the permit applicant to the full extent for each and every failure, to the full extent for each and every failure.
SRW had and has the responsibility to ensure that there were no negative impacts on neighbours (or their visitors or workers), neighbouring properties, catchments, groundwater, springs, waterways, watercourses, bores, rivers, drainage lines, and dams (etc) and that all the aforesaid remain safe, secure, uncontaminated, unpolluted, with the same water quality and quantity from the same natural systems as previously existed. It also had and has the responsibility to ensure that the groundwaters were and are safe from contamination and/or overuse.
There were a number of SRW personnel who took various roles and had various responsibilities in relation to the operations of the Neerim North quarry and ensuring that man X, man Y and CASACIR all met their statutory and legal demands. It is my considered opinion, based on facts, observations and FOI results, that SRW and its relevant personnel should be deemed to be grossly deficient, and even perhaps negligent, due to their failures to uphold the law.
SRW had ignored the fact that man X, man Y and CASACIR did not have the right to remove our water rights and/or take our water, but I have been unable to discover anything that shows that SRW had done, or were doing, anything about it despite the fact that they have such responsibilities under the Water Act 1989.
I have included some of the multitude of deficiencies in relation to thing that happened. Other issues are included on separate pages for Vince Lopardi, Trevor McDevitt.
An outline of some of what went wrong follows.
Conditions
Council sent referrals to SRW in 2007 and received no answer which, according to the Planning & Environment Act 1987, implied no objection. Council sent a further referral to SRW in early 2008 and, yet again SRW failed to return a response to that referral. It was only when we responded to WGCMA’s letter of 11 April and pointed out all their failings that WGCMA pointed out to SRW that they had also better put in some conditions (which they finally did on 30 May 2008)!
The SRW conditions inserted into the DPI work approval
14Southern Rural Water Requirements
14.1 A copy of any hydrogeological assessment, investigations, reporting of groundwater monitoring bores and water quality testing as required by Southern Rural Water is to be delivered to the District Manager prior to the commencement of associated or affected works.
This was not done prior to the affected works, yet there were no repercussions. No surprises there.
The SRW conditions were finally inserted into the planning permit – let’s look at the various conditions and see how well man X, man Y, CASACIR and SRW did (or, should I say: didn’t do?).
In relation to condition 53:
53. Prior to the commencement of works the applicant must provide a brief hydrogeological assessment to Southern Rural Water. The assessment must address but be not limited to:
Aquifer Conceptual Hydrogeology
i. aquifer identification and known aquifer characteristics at the work site;
ii. is groundwater at this site confined or unconfined at this locality?;
iii. known trends in aquifer behaviour (eg increasing drawdown decreasing quality);
iv. has groundwater in this locality a beneficial use?
Potential Impact to Groundwater
i. whether the proposal will cause unacceptable pollution to groundwater;
ii. whether the proposal will impact on the natural movement of groundwater.
Surface Water Features
i. identify any surface water features within close proximity and assess whether this proposal will impact on the water quality and quantity, including springs and waterways. If so, to what degree?
Man X, man Y and CASACIR did produce a brief hydrogeological report (“the report”) – however: in relation to the “aquifer conceptual hydrogeology”, (i)-(iii) the report lacked complete aquifer identification. The identified characteristics, details of confinement and known trends, were very different to those expressed before the 2008 VCAT members in 2008 by the same hydrogeologist, John Nolan of Hyder _ so did he give fraudulent information to VCAT or is the fraudulent information in the report? In relation to (iv) while the beneficial uses were vaguely identified, the fact that we were one of the beneficial users was totally ignored. In relation to the “potential impact” by pollution and the natural movement, again the details were different to those expressed before the 2008 VCAT members in 2008 by the same hydrogeologist, John Nolan, and failed to take into consideration the fact that the bores were deliberately drilled into locations where they were either entirely ineffective, and/or were subject to hydrocarbons, septic issues and/or damage; and in relation to “surface water features”, the report entirely failed to report anything to do with the real south-west spring (they called the south spring the south-west spring (thereby causing significant confusion and inconsistencies). Further, the report failed to properly assess whether there would be any impact on water quality and quantity, including the fact that the position of the haul road allowed and promoted the pollution of Kookaburra Creek and the spring that fed it.
When looking at the communications about the report between myself and SRW personnel, particularly Trevor, it was easy to see that all the above failures met SRW’s satisfaction criteria.
In relation to condition 54:
54. The permit holder must to the satisfaction of Southern Rural Water:
i. undertake sufficient investigations to ensure all springs and waterways potentially affected, whether on or off the site, are mapped and any party potentially affected by interception of water caused by the excavation is identified;
ii. determine the extent of the impact based on reasonable assumptions and how it intends to mitigate or compensate for the potential adverse impacts;
iii. describe what contingency plan is in place if an unanticipated water source is intercepted during the development of the quarry, ie how will they contain the discharge and disposal of water;
iv. consider the need to obtain a licence if it is identified that the excavation is likely to intercept water.
Any recommendations arising out of these investigations must be implemented to the satisfaction of Southern Rural Water.
Note:If groundwater or water surface water supplies (other than stormwater harvested from roofs or from what stormwater falls within the quarry itself) will be used for industrial or commercial purposes, a licence in accordance with section 51 of the Water Act 1989 will be required.
In relation to (i), as stated, the real south-west spring and waterway were not mapped; there was no identification of myself and my related parties being affected by (a) the impacts to the south-west spring and waterway (a tributary to Kookaburra Creek), or (b) the impact to the south spring and Kookaburra Creek; in relation to (ii), there was no plan to mitigate or compensate us for the losses or impacts (the only “mitigation”, if you can call it that, was a proposal to take what had been clean clear spring water (prior to man X, man Y and CASACIR’s pollution and contamination of it), and “replace it” with filthy quarry wastewater and drainage, contaminated with hydrocarbons, E.coli and many other such contaminants – all without any discussion with us, without our permission, in the face of our strong objections and in breach of the law); in relation to (iii), there was no real contingency plan to deal with unanticipated interception of water; and in relation to (iv) and the “note”, the report[1]certainly stated that there would be interception of aquifers, yet they ignored it and did not apply for any licence for a take and use the water they told everyone, including VCAT and the Supreme Court that they would be using in a commercial manner.
SRW ignored the fact that the document Water Act 1989 Guidelines for Mines and Quarries stated [emphasis mine]:
1. Introduction
The Water Act 1989 (the Act) was amended by the Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) Act 2002 to require licensing of all irrigation and commercial use from waterways, springs, soaks and dams. Under these amendments some previously unlicensed water use for quarries and mines now needs to be licensed.
These guidelines have been prepared to assist licensing authorities with licensing decisions in relation to quarries and mines.
2. Licensing Overview
Licensing the taking and use of water from waterways, springs, soaks and dams, and licensing the construction of dams, are Ministerial responsibilities under the Water Act 1989 that have been delegated to the following Licensing Authorities: … Southern Rural Water …
3.1 Licences to construct and operate works
Under section 67 of the Act a licence is required to construct, alter, operate, remove or decommission works (including a dam) on a waterway.
“works” includes—
(a) reservoirs, dams, bores, channels, sewers, drains, pipes, conduits, fire plugs, machinery, equipment and apparatus, whether on, above or under land; and
(b) works for, or which may result in—
(i) the drainage of any land; or
(ii) the collection, storage, taking, use or distribution of any water; or
(iii)the obstruction or deflection of the flow of any water.
A private dam (as distinct from a dam owned by a water authority) is defined under the Act as follows:
“private dam” means anything in which by means of an excavation, a bank, a barrier or other works water is collected, stored or concentrated but does not include—
(a) anything owned or operated by a public statutory body; or
(b) any works of an Authority or a licensee; or
(c) a channel, drain or pipe; or
(d) a bore;
“waterway” means:
(a) a river, creek, stream or watercourse; or
(b) a natural channel in which water regularly flows, whether or not the flow is continuous; or
(c) a channel formed wholly or partly by the alteration or relocation of a waterway as described in paragraph (a) or (b); or
(d) a lake, lagoon, swamp or marsh, being—
(i) a natural collection of water (other than water collected and contained in a private dam or a natural depression on private land) into or through or out of which a current that forms the whole or part of the flow of a river, creek, stream or watercourse passes, whether or not the flow is continuous; or
(ii) a collection of water (other than water collected and contained in a private dam or a natural depression on private land) that the Governor in Council declares under section 4(1) to be a lake, lagoon, swamp or marsh; or
(e) land on which, as a result of works constructed on a waterway as described in paragraph (a), (b) or (c), water collects regularly, whether or not the collection is continuous; or
(f) land which is regularly covered by water from a waterway as described in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) but does not include any artificial channel or work which diverts water away from such a waterway; or
(g) if any land described in paragraph (f) forms part of a slope rising from the waterway to a definite lip, the land up to that lip;
Licensing authorities apply waterway determination guidelines to assess whether a particular site is a waterway as defined by the Act. Under these guidelines they will determine that a waterway exists at a particular site if a natural channel is present and there is a catchment above the channel of 60 hectares or more, or if a spring or absorbent soil feeds the channel.
Works licences – implications for operators of mines and quarries:
* The construction of new works on waterways require a works licence.
3.2 Licences to take and use water
Under section 51(1)(ba) of the Act a licence is required to take and use water from a spring or soak or water from a dam (to the extent that it is not rainwater supplied to the dam from the roof of a building or water supplied to the dam from a waterway or a bore), for a use other than domestic and stock use.
The Act allows licences and water rights to be transferred on application by the holder of the entitlement. This may occur when a property is sold or when a person sells the water entitlement to a different property owner.
In capped catchments, where the available water is fully allocated, a new user will need to purchase a water entitlement from an existing entitlement holder to ensure that the cap is not exceeded. This needs to be done before a new licence can be issued or an existing licence transferred.
From the above document, it is easy to see that the law required that man X, man Y and CASACIR apply for a licence prior to any taking and using of water – which, unsurprisingly[2], they did not do. From this we also see that SRW did not require that man X, man Y and/or CASACIR stop work until the required licence was applied for, transferred agreed to and completed. Again, unsurprisingly, SRW did not enforce the law because man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failures to comply with the law obviously met SRW’s “satisfaction” criteria. None of man X, man Y, CASACIR or SRW complied with the Water Act 1989, but that was deemed to be okay and explained why they were all so angry with me for trying to get them all to comply.
In relation to the fact that “any recommendations arising out of investigations must be implemented to the satisfaction of SRW”, it was clear that SRW was very “satisfied” by the lack of facts, the errors, the failures and the gross and illegal works and impacts listed perpetrated by man X, man Y and CASACIR – particularly the impacts on us.
In relation to condition 55:
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 bore information provided was what can only be called very “interesting” and “creative”:
Man X, man Y and CASACIR applied for a licence to drill three bores, purportedly for the purpose of groundwater monitoring. It appears that SRW was happy with the inaccurate information provided in the licence application. In addition, it appears that SRW considered that only having three bore holes was sufficient to cover an assessment of some 43ha, especially given that one bore was only 12m deep (when they were going to quarry approximately 75m at that location), another was only 14m deep (when it was predominantly on overburden and was (not surprisingly) later identified as being “ineffectual”), and the third was only 15m deep (where they intend to excavate approximately 59m at that location) and was close to septic lines and fuel leaching which could well cause contamination) – but all this apparently met SRW’s satisfaction (a requirement of permit condition 55). In addition, SRW apparently did not enforce the conditions relating to that licence.
Further, the contradictory plans, andthe added uncertainty as to which bore was which, was acceptable because it apparently met SRW’s satisfaction (a requirement of permit condition 55).
It was noted by Peter McWhinney of council on 22 September 2009, after a visit to the site, that “[Man X, man Y and CASACIR] seemed to be up-front with their comments, even to pointing out that [she] had picked up that one of the monitoring stations put in (at the far south east corner of the works area) was located on fill and would be ineffectual for the purpose”. But it apparently met SRW’s satisfaction (a requirement of permit condition 55).
It also appeared that SRW were not aware that GW2 was been ripped out in early 2011 without having been decommissioned – and without a permit or licence to do so (the ripping out was done during man X, man Y and CASACIR’s unlawful storage of material in breach of their work plan, and in breach of council and DPI officers repeatedly demanding that the stored material be removed). But this apparently met SRW’s satisfaction (a requirement of permit condition 55).
A new bore, GW4, was belatedly installed on 24 June 2011 (over two years after the first three were installed and over 21 months after knowing that the GW2 bore was “ineffectual”). But this lengthy delay apparently met SRW’s satisfaction (a requirement of permit condition 55).
Apparently Trevor and his team did not check the actuallocations of the monitoring bores, or else they were totally unconcerned that the actual locations of the bores were not in accordance with the licence (but surely they had the responsibility to check for compliance)! SRW apparently did not require a replacement bore for GW2, even though it had been repeatedly identified that itdid not work. But it all apparently met SRW’s satisfaction (a requirement of permit condition 55).
The bores were not in the locations man X, man Y and CASACIR stated they would be drilled, nor were they within the required distance from where man X, man Y and CASACIR said they would be drilled. In fact, from the information provided after they were drilled, it was uncertain as to which bore was really which. SRW appear to have also ignored these failures and it apparently all met SRW’s satisfaction (a requirement of permit condition 55).
Vince Lopardi again arrived on the scene, taking over from Trevor McDevitt (Trevor moved out to western Victoria for a time). Vince said in an email to me dated 27 April 2011 (at least 1½ months after the GW2 bore was unlawfully and irresponsibly ripped out of the ground without a licence or permit to do so): “GW 2 is to be maintained and monitored – it should be noted that because of poor groundwater interception the data obtained from this bore will be limited” – I’ll say it was limited – how could it be anything but when it no longer existed!? So, it seems, that it was acceptable to have “used” a bore that was known to have “poor groundwater interception the data” for at least 21 months without requiring a replacement, and it was apparently satisfactory to SRW that man X, man Y and CASACIR just ripped out the bore and deceived SRW and others about it, because this had to meet SRW’s satisfaction and obviously did (a requirement of permit condition 55).
The locations of the bores were extremely confusing to say the least (yet this had met SRW’s satisfaction). The confusion is shown below:
- The plans within the man X, man Y and CASACIR’s water monitoring bore application to SRW were revision 2, 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) approximately ~43m to the north-west of the filthy dam[3] (in the middle of a track and gateway), and OB3 (presumably supposed to be GW3) was shown to be at the extraction boundary ~235m from the western WA boundary somewhat close to the office and amenities block, the septic lines, the fuel leaching, and the truck and vehicle traffic.
- The monitoring plan within the endorsed work plan appendices was stated to be revision 0 and 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, the septic lines, the fuel leaching, and the truck and vehicle traffic, and GW3 was shown to be at the north-north-west edge of the filthy dam some 40m from the application site.
- 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) shows: GW? (un-named and un-numbered) towards the western side, but within the road reserve) of the now disused end of Palmer Road just inside the site, approximately 125m from the application 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 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)).
- The “2009 Bore (GW1-3) …monitoring location” plan [Figure 3-17] 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 now disused end of Palmer Road just inside the site, approximately 125m from the application site; GW2 close to the proposed office and amenities site, the septic lines, the fuel leaching, and the truck and vehicle traffic, 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 ~40m away from the application site and was on top of an overburden mound to the north of the filthy dam.
- The “Surface Water features” plan [Figure 5-20] 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 now disused end of Palmer Road just inside the site, approximately 125m from the application site; GW2 close to the proposed office and amenities site, the septic lines, the fuel leaching, and the truck and vehicle traffic 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 ~40m away from the application site and was on top of an overburden mound to the north of the filthy dam.
- The additional monitoring plan supplied to SRW (presumablyby Hyder Consulting) had no revision number and no date and showed: GW1 at the close to the proposed office and amenities site, the septic lines, the fuel leaching, and the truck and vehicle traffic; GW2 was now some ~40m away from the application site and was on top of an overburden mound to the north of the filthy dam, and GW3 was towards the western side (but within the road reserve) of the now disused end of Palmer Road just inside the site, approximately 125m from the application site.
Summary of monitoring bore information:
The ground water monitoring bore at the northern boundary was various quoted as being: OB1, GW1, GW3 & unlabelled 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, * at Palmer Road within the paddock close to the road reserve, and * was actually within the road itself, and about 175m from the application site.
The ground water monitoring bore close to the office and amenities block, the septic lines, the fuel leaching, and the truck and vehicle traffic, was various quoted as: OB3, GW2, GW1 & unlabelled, and its location was variously shown as being: * at the extraction boundary ~235m from the western WA boundary somewhat close to the office and amenities block, * 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, * 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 * was actually about 45m to the west of the application site, and in danger from the septic lines, the fuel leaching, and the truck and vehicle traffic.
The ground water monitoring bore near the filthy dam was various quoted as: OB2, GW3, GW2 & unlabelled and its location was variously shown as being: * at the north-north-west edge of the filthy dam, * approximately ~43m to the north-west of the filthy dam (in the middle of a track and gateway), * to the north-west of the filthy 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)), * was towards the western side (but within the road reserve) of the now disused end of Palmer Road just inside the site, and * was actually about 40m to the east-north-east of the application site and was on top of an overburden mound.
Only GW1 was tested for water level and quality before the “commencement of works” (condition 53) and that testing was purportedly performed on 19 April 2009 – purportedly one month before the bores were drilled and nearly two weeks before a licence was applied for (so how could it be tested unless they drilled before they even applied for the permit?) – and which bore was the GW1 assessed anyway?
They could have drilled to the depth of aquifers and extraction, but apparently chose to go to the minimum they thought they could get away with and appear “reasonable”: 12m, 14m and 15m. they certainly did not want to drill to the level of extraction and have to show that they were going to interfere with the aquifers.
The SRW conditions for the bore permit were very clear, but man X, man Y and CASACIR failed to meet some of the conditions:
1. “[licence approval] has been based on the location(s) specified in your application. When the bore(s) is / are drilled, if it / they is / are considered unsatisfactory you may drill again at a location no greater than 20m from the authorised site(s).”
However, the northern bore was approximately 125m from the applied for location, the western bore – who knows the distance from the application from the applied for location to because it was marked all over the place, and the eastern bore was some 40m to the east-north-east of the applied for location for (although the final position was marked some 75m from the applied for location and there was no monitoring bore plan or figure which shows its actual location); …
3. “The location of each bore must be given to Southern Rural Water as MGA co-ordinates listing 1:100,000 MGA map number, easting and northing.”
However, with so many plans showing so many different locations, were the eastings and northings provided actually correct?
The SRW additional conditions state: 3. “The location of the bore 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.” As stated, the bores could be anywhere because they were shown to be all over the place and the revisions and dates on the plans (where there were any) were also contradictory – so which one, if any, was the map referred to?
The bores marked on Figure 2-15 of the Hyder assessment clearly shows the: * 1974 “DDH” – “diamond drill head” bores for which no bore logs have been provided at any time; * 1974 “PH” – “percussion hole” bores for which no bore logs have been provided at any time; * 2006 “P” – “percussion” bores for which the bore logs were first provided for VCAT; * 2008 “WB” – presumably “water bore” bores for which no bore logs have been provided at any time and no information provided in spite of being used as the basis for Figure 4-19: they state in clause 4.5.1: that the “assessed stratigraphy and water levels as retrieved from the 2008 and 2009 bore logs”; * 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 state in clause 4.5.1: that the “assessed stratigraphy and water levels as retrieved from the 2008 and 2009 bore logs”; and * 2009 “GW” – “groundwater” bores marked by stars – but were unidentified as to GW number. Yet all this inaccuracy and confusion met SRW’s “satisfaction” criteria.
In relation to condition 56:
56. A contaminants spill containment kit must be available at all times that machinery is being used in the quarry pit.
The DPI field reports and audits[4]reveal that man X, man Y and CASACIR totally ignored both this condition and DPI’s repeated instructions regarding their failure to comply, but this clearly met with SRW’s “satisfaction” criteria.
In relation to condition 57:
57. The permit holder must comply with the requirements of the Water Act 1988, to the satisfaction of Southern Rural Water.
Ah, yes, man X, man Y and CASACIR had to all “comply with the requirements of the Water Act 1989 to the satisfaction of SRW” – clearly, inter alia:
* man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failure to apply for or obtain a take and use licence, but nonetheless take and use the water without a licence for many months met SRW’s “satisfaction” as complying with the Act;
* man X, man Y and CASACIR’s illegal deviation of Kookaburra Creek met SRW’s “satisfaction” as complying with the Act;
* man X, man Y and CASACIR’s destroying our rights to the water of Kookaburra Creek without any legal right to do so met SRW’s “satisfaction” as complying with the Act; and
* man X, man Y and CASACIR’s stated intention to send filthy quarry wastewater and drainage into Kookaburra Creek and our property against our wishes and against the Act met SRW’s “satisfaction” as complying with the Act.
In relation to condition 58:
58. The quality of any water discharged from the site (including but not limited to the flows to the gully to the south of the land) must be tested and maintained to the satisfaction of … Southern Rural Water …. The testing must include the following:
i. routine groundwater and surface water sampling of the sump, two dams, and drainage line, should be undertaken to assess water quality during quarry operation and two years after rehabilitation. The samples should be analysed for major ions, pH, EC, turbidity and hydrocarbons by an accredited NATA laboratory;
ii. confirm the groundwater beneficial use based upon the analytical results;
iii. undertake further modelling to optimise the settling dam and farm dam (top dam) capabilities. This may require a deepening of the settling dam to provide for a suitable freeboard;
iv. prepare a contour drain section and level design based upon peak flow estimates at various locations along the drain.
Inter alia, man X, man Y and CASACIR’s intention to send filthy quarry wastewater and drainage from the filthy settling dam and filthy south-east dam they laughably refer to variously as the “clean water” and/or “fresh water “ dam, into Kookaburra Creek and our property against our wishes and against the Act, were all meeting SRW’s “satisfaction”.
We can see how much SRW’s “satisfaction was (not) worth.
The hydrogeological assessment
Trevor told me that I had to go through FOI to get a copy of the hydrogeological assessment, until I showed them SRW’s own documentation stating that any such assessment was open to the public. Having finally agreed that they did have to give me a copy, they did not offer to give me the information via electronic means, even knowing that I wanted it urgently and that I had then to travel all the way from Melbourne to Maffra to obtain a hard copy! Later I discovered that they had provided another person a copy of the assessment electronically!
A hydrogeological assessment was provided in July 2009 which was deemed to be insufficient by WGCMA, but was noted on 11 August 2009 by Trevor as being acceptable.
A further hydrogeological assessment was provided, dated 13 August 2009 which failed to contain some of the information required by the SRW conditions and which was, in places, contradictory, inconsistent and vague. It was noted by Elissa McNamarra, SRW’s senior hydrogeologist as being acceptable.
A third hydrogeological assessment was provided early February 2010 which contained the same date (13 August 2009), identical (photocopied) signatures, no statement that it was a new version, and had identical information, but also contained an additional monitoring plan (which contradicted the others within the same document and also contradicted the council monitoring plan that had been endorsed as part of the planning permit), and some of the bore logs. There were a number of issues here: (1) SRW had the responsibility to ensure that full “change management” process was clearly exhibited and followed, which had not been the case; (2) the information was still contradictory, inconsistent and vague in parts; and (3) it still failed to meet all the requirements of SRW’s own conditions– yet it was deemed to be acceptable by SRW, and met their “satisfaction”!
Elissa acknowledged that there were 3 springs affected but then confused which was which. Further, she then said that the third (the one in the south-west corner near corner of Pearce and Neerim North Roads, outside the “site”) would be monitored – but there was no stated intention to do so, nor was it done, nor had she (or anyone else from SRW) required it. The losses were not proposed to be mitigated by equivalent quality spring water (which was a condition). In addition, none of the losses to any of the springs were proposed to be compensated for (which was a condition), and the third spring was not even mapped (which mapping was also a condition), and no impacted parties were identified (which was also a condition).
Elissa said that the impacts to the spring (at the head of Kookaburra Creek) would be between 3ML and 20ML while the hydrogeological assessment (clause 6.1) says the impacts would be between 4ML and 39ML during stage 1, between 5ML and 50ML during stage 2, between 6ML and 57ML during stage 3 and between 9ML and 86ML in stage 4 and [emphasis mine] “The development will result in a cone of depression in the perched aquifer, for all stages of the development” (and those figures were from man X, man Y and CASACIR’s hydrogeologist who presumably wanted to put the best spin he can on it)!!! Either Elissa was inaccurate in her assessment of the document and was trying to minimise impacts, or Hyder Consulting was not competent in their assessment (or both(?)) – because at least one of the two of them were in error.
As stated, both Trevor and Elissa approved the hydrogeological assessment/s that failed to contain all the information required by SRW’s own conditions. For example there is: (1) no identification of any affected parties, and (2) no map of allaffected springs and waterways, and (3) no determination as to the extent of the impact on allthe springs and waterways or parties, and (4) no identification as to compensationfor the potential (and in some cases, planned) adverse impacts, and (5) no identification as to mitigation for the potential (and in some cases, planned) adverse impacts for the loss of flow for all springs (they have saidthat they would “mitigate” the damage to the natural flow of Kookaburra Creek by providing a so-called “replacement flow” which would simply discharging be by discharge of their wastewater and drainage via an open drain into Kookaburra Creek and our property – this was without any communication or discussion with, or agreement with, or authorisation from, us!). Further, there was no guarantee of quality, quantity, provision or timing of this proposed discharge. Yet all this meets SRW’s satisfaction – as shown by Trevor’s and Elissa’s approval of the hydrogeological assessment/s.
There is more information on Trevor and Vince’s pages, but that all tis is only the start – the amount of obstructions of justice perpetrated by SRW and its officers all contributed to the severe injustices leveled against us.
[1] As well as man X, man Y and CASACIR’s work plan and planning report
[2] I say “unsurprisingly” because it is a pattern of conduct: they took and used water from the spring of Kookaburra Creek without a licence or permit to do so, they took and used water from the dam without a licence or permit to do so, they performed illegal works on Kookaburra Creek without a permit to do so, and they illegally deviated the flow of Kookaburra Creek without a permit or licence to do so and then refused to restore the flow until we took legal action against them – then they only restored the flow because we threatened further legal action which they had to avoid so that I could not stop the quarry. All those breaches were to the satisfaction of SRW, WGCMA, council and DPI – no wonder man X, man Y and CASACIR believed they could break the law pretty much at will – everyone seemed to be either too scared of man X, man Y and CASACIR to enforce the law, or too inept to even understand that the law had been broken.
[3] Variously, but fraudulently, referred to by man X, man Y and CASACIR as the “clean water dam” and/or the “fresh water dam” – fraudulently given that the dam was neither fresh nor clean.
[4] See pages under DPI in reference to both Anne Bignell and Bob Duncan for the ongoing refusal of man X, man Y and CASACIR to provide a spill kit until at least over 2 years after commencing – if they have supplied it at all even yet (in mid-2018)