Vince Lopardi

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.

Vince was an officer acting on behalf of SRW, in the role of Manager Licensing Services. His conduct has been a part of the obstruction of justice and injustice perpetrated against us. Some of the details follow.

I initially had commenced my communications with SRW by contacting Vicki Lanigan (SRW Team Leader Surfacewater) with an email with some questions. On 11 September 2006 she responded:

Thank you for your e-mail requesting information regarding someone wanting to cut off water supply to your property. Under the Water Act 1989, a private right to water allows a person to take and use water free of charge (for domestic and stock use only) from a waterway where that person occupies the land adjacent to it. I have attached copy of the definition of domestic and stock use, as outlined in the Water Act 1989, for your information. A licence to take and use water is required if there is crown frontage or other land between the waterway and the property in question. If you wish to take and use water for any purposes other than domestic and stock use, you will need to contact us regarding licence requirements and water availability at that time. …. A waterway is not always defined by a blue-line on a map and so we would need additional information as to the area where the property is located and the waterway name (if it has one) before we can comment on your problem. Also, please advise details of any current licences/agreements relating to supply of water for the parties concerned. In addition, it would be helpful to advise us the nature (& location) of the works being undertaken and how.

Vicki thereby confirmed that (1) we had the right to the water flow of Kookaburra Creek for stock and domestic use, and that (2) if man X, man Y and/or CASACIR need to take and use the water, given that it was for commercial use, they had to apply for a permit in order to do so. I responded to her on 14 September 2006 as follows:

I have provided a plan (not to scale) of where we fit in the big picture (Neerim North). The two springs/waterways (one on the north of Pearce Road and the other on the south of Pearce Road) that feed the creek that enters our property in the north west corner are both in the land that is now owned by two guys who are planning on quarrying the land ([man Y] – Managing Director of the Stabilime Group and [man X] – Managing Director of Casacir Pty Ltd). The spring that feeds the creek from the north will be in the land that is actually [to be] quarried, the other is lower and will most likely be affected by the aquifer being affected. We have no written water rights but have the right of water currently coming through the property. We have 30+ acres of native revegetation that have been fenced off and the reduction in quality and/or quantity of water will seriously affect the ecology. Some of the water is used for stock, which reduction in quality or quantity will affect. The waterways from the springs are clearly marked on maps. Our property is unable to have dams as it is in an erosion overlay and the soil is too open. As far as how the quarry will definitely affect our water, we have not been able to get copies of the plans, but they were shown at a meeting that we were unable to attend (due to being in western Australia). Please, we urgently need your intervention so that this stops now.

On 16 September 2007 I added the following:

Further to the previous correspondence, please provide information as to whether Casacir, [man X] and/or [man Y] have put in for a licence to remove water for an extractive industry/quarry at Neerim North Road, Neerim North, or to demolish the spring and watercourse.

On 2 April 2007, Vicki responded and pushed me on to Vince:

Unfortunately we are unable to release details of other people’s applications; however, I have passed on your concerns to Vince Lopardi, Manager Licensing Services who deals with these applications, so that he is aware of your interest in this matter. Please contact Vince Lopardi … if you have any questions.

On 2 April 2007 I contacted Vince and sent him the following:

I understand from Vicki that you are the person to correspond with about the issue below. We own the property to the south of the subject land. I do understand the privacy issue, however, there is an application in at Council for a quarry on the Neerim North land (previously quarried by CSR but closed and rehabilitated in late 1990s). The plans show a spring and watercourse being quarried across. This waterway is a defined waterway under the Water Act 1989 and can’t just be quarried and destroyed. Under this understanding I don’t think that the privacy issue stands as this relates to a current work plan and Council application. So, to reiterate, is there an application for a permit for anything in for the land at Neerim North Road Neerim North in the names of [man X] &/or [man Y], or Casacir Pty Ltd, or any other person or company?

On 13 April 2007, Vince responded:

I have had a quick look at our records management system and there appears to be no correspondence relating to this matter. Under normal circumstances the Shire Council would forward such an application to SRW for comment. I have not followed up with Council at this stage.

On 19 June 2007, I sent Vince an email with the following [emphasis in the original]:

Baw Baw Shire Council is currently evaluating an application (PLA0010/07) for a permit to open a quarry in Neerim North for the extraction of rock. It has already had preliminary processing through the Department of Primary Industry (DPI) in relation to WA1347. According to standard planning procedures, in the event that Council approve the application, a number of referral authorities, including yours, will need to be approached for their approval. Since environmental and amenity impacts (amongst others) are key aspects of DPI’s assessment, we will assume that you will now ensure that these (amongst other issues) are adequately addressed under the evaluation of the application since it wasn’t adequately done prior to the work plan endorsement, when it should have been done. The proposed quarry is on land that abuts ours. Based on a number of serious shortcomings in the work plan and application, we have been advised that, to date, some relevant referral authorities have either not even been approached, or have not considered (or have not been aware of) several critical issues. It is to be noted that, in the event that a final permit is actually issued, we would, unfortunately, be placed in a position where any referral authority/authorities who did not act appropriately on such issues (for whatever reasons) would become the subject of litigation in an attempt to redress expected damages to our property arising from the quarry operation. Where permitted by the law, such claims for damage would be served on both individuals, and the agencies/departments that employ them. It is the obligation of each and every referral authority and their representatives to assess the affects both real and assumed to each and every neighbouring property and to judge the application accordingly. The issues that we believe must be fully and adequately addressed by your authority include, but are not limited to, the following:

*   Along with the many other failures, the applicants/proponents fail to show that they will have enough water for dust suppression, particularly based on how long it is taking for the dam to fill after being emptied for potato watering a number of months ago (did they have permission and a permit to do that?);

*   The likely affect on the water supply on local properties;

*   As shown by the application’s photo plans and the work plan, they intend on breaching at least two aquifers and possibly a third;

*   The application shows that the applicants intend to discharge water from the property and do not have any licence to do so;

*   We are only approximately 160m from the southern boundary of the WA boundary and there are two additional dwellings within the 500m EPA buffer which they intend to ignore;

*   The applicants do not own or control the buffers, which they are required to do;

*   The water would be severely affected and we are in one of the worst, if not the worst, droughts for 30 years or more;

*   The dust would be horrendous, the noise continuous during the open hours (definitely 61 hours a week, and potentially 66 to 77+ hours a week), and the vibrations potentially damaging the house (windows, frame, …);

* ………

The next day I added the following:

I need to clarify the email below – it is not meant to be a threat at all, just a desperate plea for full assessment as, to date, a number of the referral authorities have not seemed to look at anything other than the fact that the quarry is desired – even to the point of ignoring legislation! Council will most likely tell you that they are still waiting for some more information from the applicants prior to sending out requests to the referral authorities, but, judging by the lack of information in the application and work plan to date, I don’t expect that much in depth information will be provided, leaving the gaps to be filled by the referral authorities. I thought that it would most likely be too late for a further “look into the issue” once Council had requested replies, and a reply had been given, by any referral authority to Council and I wanted to get everyone’s attention to make sure that everything is addressed. The work plan and application are as vague as can be and next to no information is provided, hence my email to all relevant parties.

Not having had a response, on 23 July 2007 I sent the following:

It appears that, although SRW have the responsibility to dictate the usage and interference outcomes of groundwater, Baw Baw Shire Council will not be referring to you since you were not on the list given to me!! The plans clearly show that the application and work plan are to excavate through two perched aquifers (which provide the majority of water for our cattle by way of spring overflow. This will seriously impact our property viability and no reference is being taken of this. There is also the fact that the lower watertable is at risk of contamination. Surely this has more to do with SRW than any other water authority. Please look into this urgently. Your urgent response is sought.

His only response at that time was to ask for the name and contacts for the council representative. I provided the information and responded the next day with a request that he come to the property at a time and date that suited him – he did not come or even respond. On 4 August 2007, I sent the following [emphasis in the original]:

Could you please ensure that, since aquifer geology differs significantly across areas, the applicants immediately provide both of the full and in depth hydrogeology and hydrology assessments and reports from the specialists, based on specific drills on the site of the proposed quarry. Amongst other information they must specify:

*   the geospatial positions of the aquifers and the water table

*   the storage coeffecient in each of the aquifers and the water table

*   the direction of flow of each of the aquifers and the water table

*   the water yield in each of the aquifers and the water table

*   the hydraulic conductivity of each of the aquifers and the water table

*   the proof that the aquifers are perched since most are generally unconfined

*   the details of the downstream impacts of breaching the two aquifers

*   the details of the downstream impacts on the water table resulting from the continuing practice of ensuring that the mechanism is maintained of water migrating  through fractures in the floor back into the ground water regime

–   the turbidity of the water table

–   the water quality of the water table

–   the societal values

–   issues relative to each societal value

–   etc

*   the detailed and full assessments and reports of the impact of removing the water from the aquifers (thus cutting off spring and watercourse flows) from both downstream properties and the Latrobe River

*   etc,,,,,,,

So very many inconsistencies, inaccuracies, lack of substantiation and just plain lack of information what has been provided!!!!!!! Beats me how it got through DPI at all. We would still like for you or a colleague to come out to the property to assess the impacts for yourself, since those impact have to be taken into account.

Still not having heard back, on 28 August 2007 I sent the following:

Could have a response to my email … please?

Still no reply and no visit. In an email to Vince on 23 February 2008 I asked:

Could you please advise if the water table allocations are fully allocated or if there is available water in the aquifers. If there is available water, to what extent (how much) could someone obtain p/a please? I know that Forest Edge (Neerim East) requested an increased a few years ago and were refused, I believe that Gordon Lockett (Neerim North) also requested an increase and received a limited one. Then there was Michael Black (?) (Neerim North) who wanted 90 megalitres (bottling plant, and … ) but was only awarded 45 megalitres (I believe).

He asked in reply on 25 February 2008 what the issues were, As if I hadn’t already given him the issues I wanted answered! So I gave a short-hand version of some of the issues:

Would there be any concern if two aquifers were seriously breached and the water removed from availability and/or allocation? Under what conditions would that be acceptable please? I only want help to understand under what conditions a person or company, doing excavations, diggings or other works that would seriously breach two aquifers, would be permitted to do so and have the water flow to private dams for irrigation or reuse, but no flow back to the system?

No reply. No surprise there. After being asked yet again, on 14 May Vince provided the following:

I understand that the WGCMA is providing a revised response to the application. I am currently investigating whether the applicant will also require a take and use licence.

On 30 May 2008 I finally received some sort of reply after I asked if he was going to attend a community meeting regarding the quarry application:

Thanks for the notice; I am not sure whether I can attend however I am preparing a response to Council regarding this matter. From the information at hand, I am of the understanding that water use for quarry purposes will be restricted to water that is harvested from the roofs of buildings and from rainwater that falls within the quarry itself. In both circumstances there is an exemption for a licence – There is no requirements for a licence to take and use water in accordance with the Water Act. It would also appear that groundwater testing indicates that the primary aquifer is located below the quarry floor. Previous quarry operations seem to confirm this information. However, whilst investigations identify that the operations will not impact on groundwater (Stage 1), there is no doubt that stage 2 will encompass the waterway and spring located on the site, I am aware the WGCMA is looking into this issue. I am also investigating the potential issue such as groundwater interception and discharge (stage 2). The applicant will obviously need to conduct more ongoing monitoring and also have a contingency plan in place.

Here he says that there is no requirement for a take and use licence, however, the work plan he was evaluating stated unequivocally that [emphasis mine] “Experience from the previous quarry operation indicated there was minor groundwaterinfiltration into the excavation. This water, along with any storm water collected around the pit was stored in sumps at the base of the quarry. Stored water was used for dust suppression around the site. … Dust is controlled in and around the plant by use of water sprays. …Roads and stripping areas will be watered to control dust”, proving that groundwater would be used for commercial use – thereby requiring a licence. Further, John Nolan of Hyder, man X, man Y and CASACIR’s hydrogeologist told the VCAT members that the primary groundwater aquifer will most certainly be excavated and that it was well above the floor of the quarry. In addition, Vince himself noted that Kookaburra Creek and the spring would impacted (by their destruction) in stage 2.

On 4 June 2008 I sent Vince the following:

Please forward a copy of the email you sent to Council regarding requirements you have. Just for the record, when did you visit the site and see the water not running in the watercourse please?

Vince replied the next day:

You will need to approach Council for a copy of my response. As I tried to explain at the meeting, I would hardly call the spring and below a watercourse. I believe that the owners of the property improved a soak many years ago and water was used to supply the dairy. If the area was not improved I would think that all you would have is a soak area with a flow only occurring during heavy rain events – In any event, I would think that the spring in its present state is heavily reliant on rainfall – the water is probably coming from what we would call a “perched” aquifer. In response to your specific question, no there was no visible flow leaving the spring area or the property. As I said at the meeting, the applicant has provide some information on groundwater and the results from monitoring bores, however a more detailed hydrogeological assessment needs to be provided in order for SRW to make a fully informed decision on the proposal.

In spite of the Water Act under which Vince had responsibilities, clearly defining a waterway as:

“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,

Vince obviously knew better than the lawmakers – it was his considered opinion that he had the answers and that, in direct contradiction to the Act, according to his vast and superior knowledge, Kookaburra Creek was not a waterway and the spring was not a spring!

In addition, there were no monitoring bores drilled at that time, so how could they provide any such information? Really! No wonder he did not uphold the Water Act 1989– he had no or little respect for it since he believed that he knew better.

On 5 June and then on 8 June I asked again when he had visited the property and assessed the watercourse, and on 10 June 2008 Vince responded with the following:

I have looked at the property via our GIS system on many occasions; I actually inspected the property, the spring and its surrounds on the 2 June 2008.  I would like to interview the previous owner(s) who improved the spring. I am following this up.

I didn’t hear from him again. Further, he had the opinion (obviously, in his belief, far superior to that of the lawmakers) that the spring (that fed Kookaburra Creek) was not really a spring and that it was of no concern – maybe not to him!! His attitude was clearly one that supported man X, man Y and CASACIR, to the detriment of the environment as well as us – thereby obstruction justice and adding to the injustice of all that occurred against us.