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.
Open drain “wetland” changed to a much shorter, narrower “swale”
In 2006, man X, man Y and CASACIR stated that there was going to be a new dam dug where they said that there would be no land disturbing works (I don’t know how they intended to dig a big dam without disturbing the land – vey interesting concept!), but then again, man X, man Y and CASACIR could apparently do almost anything (according to them) – including have water run uphill[1]!
In 2008 Hyder had told the tribunal members that man X, man Y and CASACIR absolutely would install a proper wetland, and it made this claim without any details or even hints at what it was proposing.
Description and purpose of a true wetland
While Valenza and Nolan were working for Hyder, the decision was made that the “wetland” would simply be a shallow open drain swale some 390m long. Valenza then started up his own company, ValenzaE[2], and continued, but altered, the proposal by moving the drain swale to a steeper piece of land, making it even narrower and a quarter of the length of the proposed Hyder drain swale “wetland”.
In stark contrast to both Hyder and ValenzaE’s proposals, the reality is that wetlands are described as being “swamps, marshes, billabongs, lakes, lagoons, saltmarshes, mudflats, mangroves, coral reefs, bogs, fens and peatlands”[3]; “swamps, peatlands, sloughs, marshes, muskegs, bogs, fens, potholes, and mires”[4]; and “marshes, estuaries, mangroves, mudflats, mires, ponds, fens, swamps, deltas, coral reefs, billabongs, lagoons, shallow seas, bogs, lakes, and floodplains, to name just a few![5]”and further go on to say that “Most scientists consider swamps, marshes, and bogs to be the three majorkinds of wetlands. A swamp is a wetland permanently saturated with water and dominated by trees”[6]Those who actually do know what a wetland actually is go on to describe wetlands as “an area of land that is saturated with water”[7], that “provide vital ecosystem services. They supply water, improve water quality, support primary industries, provide flood and storm mitigation, act as a carbon sink, provide habitat for biodiversity and threatened species and provide communities with recreation and tourism”[8],and “How wetlands work. Water from rivers or creeks is directed into the wetland, and slowly travels through several small ponds. This lets litter, sediment and other large pollutants sink to the bottom. Water is filtered by micro-organisms and algae that grow on wetland plants”[9]– nowhere does it say anything about a wetland being an open drain, let alone a narrow, shallow drain swale!
In fact, because, without any real details, Hyder, then ValenzaE, together with man X, man Y and CASACIR, intended to put man X, man Y and CASACIR’s quarry wastewater and drainage through the drain swale, they severely risk the health of it because, “… The health of wetlands can be jeopardised for many reasons. Wetlands are at risk of degradation or decline when they are converted to other uses (mainly agricultural and urban)”[10].
Again, those who actually know what a true wetland is say that “One of the most important benefits that wetlands provide is their capacity to maintain and improve water quality. When healthy, wetlands have a rich natural diversity of plants and animals. These can act as filtering systems, removing sediment, nutrients and pollutants from water”[11], and “One of the most important benefits that wetlands provide is their capacity to maintain and improve water quality. When healthy, wetlands have a rich natural diversity of plants and animals. These can act as filtering systems, removing sediment, nutrients and pollutants from water. The capacity of wetlands to maintain and improve water quality is under threat because human activity and extreme weather conditions have had a significant impact on water flows, nutrient balance and biodiversity. Wetlands in Australia improve water quality supplied to downstream environments in a number of ways. By spreading out and slowing down flows they reduce erosion and prevent sediment being transported downstream where it might affect the ecology and productivity of other environments, in particular estuaries, seagrasses and reefs. When healthy, their soils and vegetation can capture, process and store nutrients and/or contaminants, and if the natural rhythms and flows of the wetland are undisturbed, the release of potential stressors such as sediments, nutrients, acids and/or metals from the soil can be prevented. Healthy wetlands can assist in removing harmful bacteria, and wetlands can also be important in the management of urban stormwater and effluent by improving the removal of nutrients, suspended material and pathogens from water prior to its return to the environment. Wetlands are threatened by earthworks, drainage,…”[12]
Wetlands are not to be created to get rid of quarry wastewater and drainage because “The way that rivers flow and wetlands are filled in response to rainfall and groundwater flows is called the water regime. The water regime describes where, when and how much water is present, including the timing, frequency, duration and variability of the presence of water. Natural water regimes that provide a pattern of wettingand drying are the key to the health of rivers,wetlandsand floodplains. High flows and floods connect riversto floodplains and wetlands, moving nutrients around, allowing seeds to germinate and supporting breeding and movement of birds, frogs, fish and other animals. Low flows keep rivers flowing, allowing fish to migrate and breed. Dry periods where there are no flows can be important too and don’t necessarily indicate a wetland is not healthy. In Australia flows are highly variable both within and between years. Northern Australia has marked wet summers and dry winters. Most parts of south eastern Australia and south west Western Australia have wet winters and low summer rainfall or dry summers. A rich variety of plants and animals has evolved to suit these varying conditions. Australia’s arid areas have low, variable rainfall. Wetlands may be dry for much of the time, but plants and animals have adapted to respond and flourish as soon as the rain comes. This is a boom and bust environment. When the water regime is altered by human activity plants, animals, rivers and wetlands are impacted. The ecological function of rivers, wetlands and floodplains is changed as a result of: …changing drainage patterns, including by constructing levee banks and other structures such as farm dams. Alteration of natural water regimes can occur by increasing or reducing flows, altering the seasonality of flows, changing the frequency, duration, size, timing, predictability and variability of flow and changing the rate of rise or fall of water levels”[13].
Hyder’s so called “wetland”
After I presented a photo to the 2008 tribunal showing the dam man X, man Y and CASACIR falsely and variously called the “clean water dam” or “fresh water dam”, Hyder[14], without notice or warning or details, told the 2008 tribunal members that there would be a proper wetland in the location that the second upper dam had been proposed (the one they had previously been going to build without disturbing any land!). Subsequently the new work plan (not seen by the tribunal that made the decision to grant the permit based on the previouswork plan), the wetland was to be built and established part way through stage 1 in order “to allow the plants to establish”– but it wasn’t built then or even the last time I was there in early 2020 (10 years after it was required!!).
Then, in 2009, Hyder (remembering it is a water expert company) decided that a proper wetland was best depicted by a 390m long, narrow, shallow, open drain.However, in what has turned out to be sadly typical fashion, no wetland of any description was established, including when it was demanded by the permit; and man X, man Y and CASACIR actually worked together with DPI and council to change the boundaries of stage 1 in order to allow the continuation of the excavations without man X, man Y and CASACIR having met the many prerequisites, including the production of the very belated SWMP[15]. So, man X, man Y and CASACIR did indeed continue on with their stage 2 works without the installation of any sort of wetland, including by not installing the narrow, shallow, open drain swale that Hyder had proposed and considered appropriate as a “wetland”.
This drain swale was actually never going to be installed: it was just for effect and to convince the tribunal, and later the authorities (and perhaps even me), that man X, man Y and CASACIR were going to try to do something to remove all contaminants and pollutants they had caused – but nothing could have convinced me given (1) their previous deliberate and premeditated fraud over the water issues, and (2) their continued steady refusal to take our pre-existing legislated rights into consideration, and (3) the fact that they deliberately delayed doing any monitoring until they had a contaminated and polluted level to set as the baseline, and (4) in order to comply with the drawings of the drain they called falsely called a wetland, they would have had to pull up a number of trees that they had planted in accordance with their permit.
ValenzaE’s so-called “wetland” was actually supposed to be a smaller drain (“swale”) instead
ValenzaE took over the water monitoring and water responsibilities from Hyder in 2011.
In November 2012, in spite of the wetland being demanded by man X, man Y and CASACIR’s permit, ValenzaE stopped the pretense of Hyder’s attempt at a long open drain swale, and determined that the required “wetland” was even much more appropriately depicted by a much, much, shorter drain swale of some 100m in length and which was half the width of the Hyder narrow, open drain swale, but this time it was to be on a slope where the discharge would continue to emit regardless of the lack of its quality. Just as Hyder did before ValenzaE took over, ValenzaE clearly believed that would be much better than a proper wetland and even much, much, better than the pathetic longer open drain swale initially proposed by Hyder! Really? At least ValenzaE didn’t even try to call it a wetland but called it a swale (even though it was really just a drain) – but it, just like Hyder, totally ignored the fat that the permit demanded a proper wetland.
ValenzaE stated that “The swale will be a minimum of 100 m long, with a triangular cross-section of a maximum depth of 0.3 m and surface width of 2 m. The swale bed slope should be from 1 to 3%. The level difference between the Clean Water Dam level (424m AHD) and the swale outflow level (420 m AHD) is enough to cause gravity flow”. But: (1) there was no cross-section or close up provided of the proposed swale, (2) there was no photo of the actual location of the proposed drain, (3) there were no details of the massive impacts on existing vegetation, of the removal of large rocks, of a requirement for a retaining wall, of the need to remove and replace the belated 4th monitoring bore (unless they intend to just rip it out without decommissioning it, as man X, man Y and CASACIR did with the GW2 bore). Then we have the fact that ValenzaE stated that “The swale bed slope should be from 1 to 3%” – it had the detailed plan with contours and couldgo out with a theodolite, yet it is incapable of specifying what the slope would actually be? Really? Additionally, there is no indication as to who was supposed to build this swale: was it ValenzaE, was it Hyder, was it man X, man Y and CASACIR, …? My guess is that it was all a hoax set to impress the authorities, as well as to scare and demoralise me: and it certainly did scare and demoralise me given that the person who was supposed to oversee the matter, Dunn (WGCMA), was again clearly not going to comply with the law and demand a works on waterway permit be applied for or obtained prior to any works commencing, based on past performance[16], and based on the need for prior community consultation which Dunn was not prepared to insist on because he knew that our objection would stop the quarry (just as he had completely ignored, and in fact condoned[17], the illegal works done previously).
Like Hyder’s earlier proposal, Valenza’a proposal was also for a open narrow shallow drain swale (but was about a quarter of the length of that proposed earlier by Hyder). The following explains a swale: “Like a trench drain, a swaleis a surface water drainage device. However, it’s a lot more subtle interms of its appearance in thelandscape. A swaleis like a ditchbut it’s broad and shallow”[18], and that: “Too much stormwater entering our waterways can lead to erosion of river beds and banks, and provide unfavourable conditions for many plant and animal species”[19]. With the amount of quarry wastewater and drainage, including stormwater, they (man X, man Y and CASACIR, together with ValenzaE, and Hyder before it) intended to discharge from the site from the polluted and contaminated quarry sump, then through the additionally polluted and contaminated filthy dam, then into our waterway (all without our permission and in blatant disregard to our frequent and loud objections), would have caused significant erosion in addition to all the many other serious problems it would have caused. And that is putting to one side the facts that none of them were allowed to take our water without our permission (which permission they knew would never be forthcoming), and the fact that such discharge was totally against man X, man Y and CASACIR’s frequent and fraudulent claims and undertakings that the site absolutely was a retain, re-use and recycle site with nodischarge.
Other less obvious impacts of the proposed “swale” drain
Nothing has been said about the unnecessary removal of trees or the removal of the GW4 monitoring bore if the drain swale was to proceed. There would likely be additional turbidity from the southern bund as a further impact.
And where would the material (dirt, overburden, rocks, …) that was dug up to make the drain swale, be placed? If it was put to the side that would result in it being a source of sedimentation. Regardless, the resulting disturbed land would also result in being a source of sedimentation as rain washed over it. Therefore, this would be in breach of planning permit conditions 39 & 41 and of the closed system and the work plan and therefore the planning permit and work authority (as is the whole proposal for the same reason).
When the designated wetland was to be installed
Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s permit and work authority demanded that a wetland be installed half way through stage 1, and this was accepted and agreed to be undertaken by man X, man Y and CASACIR. Obviously they lied about doing a wetland at all, and they lied about even doing the drain swale during stage 1 because it was not done (they started stage 2 in about October of 2011, meaning that the wetland (or even as a minimum, the drain swale) had to be installed on or before September 2010. Further, as usual, man X, man Y and CASACIR, with the able assistance of their water specialists, then set it up so as to make the required “wetland” as minimalistic and ineffective as possible. They did this by having repeatedly chosen cheap and nasty propositions that had exceedingly little (if any) resemblance to a wetland.
Not only was the wetland not constructed during stage 1, the is no wetland at all and the drain (they call a “swale”) was not even proposed to be installed until mid 2014 and, in fact, there was no drain/swale or any such thing as at the start of 2020[20](10 years after it has to be installed, and Google maps show no indication of one yet)!!
In addition, a spring water management plan (“SWMP”) was required to be prepared and submitted prior to stage 2 of the quarry commencing[21]– ValenzaE stated unequivocally that its report complied with permit condition 27[22]in spite of blatantly failing to do so. The reality is that stage 2 commenced in about October 2011, based on man X, man Y and CASACIR’s own figures showing the various stages. However, while I don’t know when RD Consult was approached to do its part of the SWMP, ValenzaE did not officially request that it provide even a “concept design of the water quality treatment elements of the spring water outflow” until 16 May 2012 (over 7 months after ValenzaE should have produced the SWMP at the absolute latest). Then we have the RD Consult report not actually having been completed until 8 June 2012 (8 months after the SWMP had to be produced at the absolute latest) – and then ValenzaE did not produce the actual SWMP until 8 November 2012 (13 months after it had to be produced at the absolute latest) – but man X, man Y and CASACIR, and ValenzaE clearly believe this complied with the permit condition!! Hmm. I found this entirely unsurprising really, based on everything else.
And then ValenzaE considered it entirely satisfactory to not even propose the installation of any drain swale until “mid 2014”, again years after the impacts of the quarrying were felt andobserved,and even 6 years later than it was proposed, it was still not installed!! – But ValenzaE, as a water specialist company, again found this to be very satisfactory, as did man X, man Y and CASACIR apparently.
Again, there is no cross section or close up provided of the proposed swale, just this vague line, proposed width and rough length. I was going to say “how pathetic”, but it is sadly typical (which is pathetic) – much of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s documents are vague, obfuscating, contradictory, inconsistent and make many false claims, so it is consistent to that extent.
They perhaps “may” do something to control erosion – but, based on past performance, it is all rubbish.We had previously complained about their lack of control erosion (which they denied even existed) but, based on past performance, they won’t control it, in spite of planning permit conditions requiring that it be controlled.
They said that stock will be excluded, but they had not provided fencing that would exclude the cattle or their impacts to date (2020), so why would we believe that they would be able to now?
A grassed drain would not be able to maintain or improve the quality of the quarry wastewater or drainage – how can they use polluted and contaminated quarry drainage and wastewater to improvethe quality of what was the clean, clear, natural spring flow of Kookaburra Creek (i.e. as it was before man X, man Y and CASACIR commenced their quarry and polluted and contaminated it)? Further, they had no legal right to send it down into and through what was our property.
Monitoring the discharge
ValenzaE stated that “In order to mitigate the risks listed above, it is proposed to undertake the following: *Install a continuous flow and turbidity monitoring instrument at the discharge point to confirm that the water leaving the treatment system is within required limits; Install a continuous flowmeter on the pump to be setup in the Pit Sump (between Stage 2 and 4); *Integrate the entire monitoring infrastructure and define a regime consistent with the monitoring of the operation within the site boundaries, and the offsite discharge”[23]. “The proposed grassed swale will ensure that the turbidity of the replenishment water will be reduced to levels below that observed for the spring water before it is discharged into the gully…. Upon detection, a daily reading at both primary and secondary weirs of the South West Spring will be recorded and compared to background rainfall and spring flow data. That is to say, the South West Spring will still be active but with a reduced flow which shall be replenished with water from the Clean Water Dam. … In order to ensure sufficient water in the Clean Water Dam for replenishment purposes, the quarry manager will activate a continuous and automated sump pumping system installed in the Pit Sump to pump water to the Clean Water Dam. A permanent HDPE pipe will convey make-up water from the sump pump to a discharge point located on the western side of the Clean Water Dam. The Clean Water Dam will act as a settling pond. Upon activation of the replenishment plan, the quarry manager will commence the controlled release of water from the Clean Water Dam. The release will be controlled by a flow meter. This will be piped via gravity to the Grass Swale to replenish the spring water flow. …. The Grass Swale will provide water treatment to ensure that the current South West Spring water quality is maintained or improved”[24]. “A second weir, equipped with a continuous flow monitoring instrument shall be installed at the grass swale discharge point whilst the spring is redirected toward the Grass Swale 1 to ensure the consistency of the flow data is captured. A new sampling point will be placed directly at the outlet of the swale, on the northern side of Pearce road. A pad dedicated to sampling will be placed at this location. It is proposed to install a continuous turbidity monitoring instrument at this new sampling point, to confirm that the water leaving the treatment system is within required limits. In order to reduce the risk of having cattle accessing the swale and inducing additional turbidity, it is proposed that the grass swale would be fenced off. During the operational stages of the quarry, the pump discharge will be equipped with a flow meter and monitored. Whilst in operation, the replenishment data shall be recorded daily, analysed and included in the quarterly and annual monitoring reports”[25].
WOW, a monitor on the downhill end of the discharge end of the drain (the so-called “swale”)! As if that was ever going to work: how could they stop the discharge if they actually did check the quality and discover it was not meeting the requirement of the 2008 tribunal? The tribunal had been extremely clear: “We find it essential that the environmental flows to Kookaburra Creek be maintained with water of the same quality as at present emerges from the spring”. There would be nothing ValenzaE, man X, man Y and CASACIR could do to make sure it met that standard because they deliberately didn’t take any measurements as to the quality prior to the water being polluted and contaminated by the quarry, and also, because they have never taken readings at the actual spring, only in the weir which is right beside the road so that more hydrocarbons, dust and other pollutants are added thereby intentionally fouling the readings.
The proposed swale drain would be in the drainage line on north side of Pearce Road, east of the culvert, where it is steeper and water would move faster and collect more drainage from the bund, so how was that going to work positively for anyone but man X, man Y and CASACIR?
Fencing off the filthy dam and drain
ValenzaE observed that, “Based on the current records; turbidity and bacteria levels of the Clean Water Dam is higher than the turbidity of the South West Spring and the Pit Sump (see Table 3, in Section 5.2). High turbidity and bacteria are attributable to stock and wildlife access to surface water. It is therefore critical that cattle and wildlife access to any those features be removed before Stage 2 commences, to reduce the occurrence of turbidity and bacteria. The Clean Water Dam will be fenced to exclude cattle from its environs prior to any requirement to draw water from the Dam. … The Grass Swale and the clean water dam will both be fenced to exclude stock”[26], and “In order to mitigate the risks listed above, it is proposed to undertake the following: Fence off the entire treatment system including the Clean Water Dam and the grass swale, in order to reduce the risk of having cattle accessing the swale and inducing additional turbidity and bacteria”[27]. ValenzaE had continually told man X, man Y and CASACIR to fence off the filthy dam they falsely refer to as the “clean water dam”, but they continued to refuse to do so.
Again, they said that they would “Fence off the the [sic] entire treatment system including the Clean Water Dam and the grass swale, in order to reduce the risk of having cattle accessing the swale and inducing additional turbidity and bacteria”, but stock and/or their impacts have not been able to be kept out so far – in spite of repeated recommendations to control the impacts and to remove the stock. They have not provided fencing that would exclude the cattle or their impacts to date, so why would we believe that they would be able to now?
Ensuring no spills of hydrocarbons or dangerous chemicals
Over a period of 2 years Hyder repeatedly instructed man X, man Y and CASACIR to stop maintaining and refuelling machinery, vehicles and equipment around the site, and since then ValenzaE additionally and continually told man X, man Y and CASACIR to stop refuelling and maintaining their equipment, machinery and vehicles around the site and in the pit – all to no avail. Then, knowing man X, man Y and CASACIR’s continued ignoring of instructions and permit conditions, ValenzaE stated that “In order to mitigate the risks listed above, it is proposed to undertake the following: Ensure no hydrocarbon or other potentially dangerous chemical are spilt in the excavation or around the site (equipment will be serviced and refuelled near the workshop area, on a bunded concrete pad fitted with an interceptor trap)”[28]– but man X, man Y and CASACIR continued to refuel and perform maintenance on the machinery, equipment and vehicles in the pit and around the site, instead of on the very belatedly installed concrete pad with an even later installed triple interceptor trap which is possibly never emptied and appears to not be joined to the pad – so why would we think they would follow instructions now?
“Replenishing” the spring water flow
It is to be noted that we had the legal rights to the natural flow of Kookaburra Creek based on at least 2 facts: (1) The Water Act1989 (Vic) in s8 gave us the un-mitigated right to what was the clean, clear, natural flow of the spring water, and (2) man X, man Y and CASACIR signed a terms of settlement agreement binding them to not interfering with the flow ever again (having already illegally diverted from our use and forcing us to take legal action against them for the restoration of the flow). Man X, man Y and CASACIR committed deliberate, blatant, and premeditated, fraud by signing (or authorising the signing[29]) of the terms. Above and beyond our legislated rights under the Water Act, they therefore had no right at all to be taking the flow of Kookaburra Creek again, or destroying the spring, the catchment area and/or the aquifers that fed it, but they have proved that they fully intend to do so regardless of the law and of their own undertakings and the binding conditions of the terms. The following proves that man X, man Y and CASACIR committed deliberate and premeditated fraud with the signing the terms document because it shows their intention to absolutely take what was the clear, clean water flow and “replenish” it by way of quarry wastewater and drainage.
ValenzaE, acting on man X, man Y and CASACIR’s instructions, states: “The trigger for replenishing water will be defined by the observation of a decreasing trend in flow rate of South West Spring. … That is to say, the South West Spring will still be active but with a reduced flow which shall be replenished with water from the Clean Water Dam. … In order to ensure sufficient water in the Clean Water Dam for replenishment purposes, the quarry manager will activate a continuous and automated sump pumping system installed in the Pit Sump to pump water to the Clean Water Dam. A permanent HDPE pipe will convey make-up water from the sump pump to a discharge point located on the western side of the Clean Water Dam. The Clean Water Dam will act as a settling pond. Upon activation of the replenishment plan, the quarry manager will commence the controlled release of water from the Clean Water Dam”[30].
Again, they have no right to “replenish” the flows because they couldn’t legally take the flows from us in the first place (but that had not stopped them before), and it shows that they would not even try to “replenish the flows” until they observed “a decreasing trend in flow rate”, and then they may commence taking remedial action! Further, there is no “natural flow rate” to Kookaburra Creek from the dirty dam, and there in no known accurate or true “background spring flow data” at all because they did not commence monitoring before the quarry commenced or for the first 4 months. Further, the dam is not a “Clean Water” dam under any stretch of the imagination, but is filthy and admittedly polluted and contaminated. In addition, there is the matter of the slope, the fact that it is just a short, shallow, narrow somewhat-grassed area, and there is no guarantee that the pump would work or that man X, man Y and CASACIR would ensure the continuation of the discharge. Also, what would the second weir be monitoring because ValenzaE states here (and elsewhere) that the flow would not be “replenished” until there was a noticeable impact on the flow of KookaburraCreek! In fact, it is not even certain that the swale would have been constructed by this time (or at any time based on past performance)!
Quality of the so-called “replenishment”
Ignoring for the moment the illegality of the so-called “replenishment” (of what had been clean, clear spring water) with polluted and contaminated quarry wastewater and drainage, ValenzaE stated: “South West Spring flows are variable but within background ranges, and do not show any impact from the extraction activity”[31]; “The objective of the SWMP is to ensure that no adverse impacts to downstream waterway health result from quarry activities… this is to be achieved by replenishing the flow from the South West Spring downstream of the quarry impact zone. The water will be of a similar quality and be introduced so as to achieve a similar flow regime to that which occurred prior to any quarry impact. Water from the Pit Sump will be piped to the Clean Water Dam, then subsequently piped to a newly constructed grass swale which will be located along the northern side of Pearce Road to the east of the existing culvert under the road. The location of these features is shown on Figure 3. Stock will not have access to this area. The grass swale will provide water treatment to ensure that the current South West Spring water quality is maintained or improved”[32], “The proposed grassed swale will ensure that the turbidity of the replenishment water will be reduced to levels below that observed for the spring water before it is discharged into the gully…. Upon detection, a daily reading at both primary and secondary weirs of the South West Spring will be recorded and compared to background rainfall and spring flow data. … Based on the current records; turbidity and bacteria levels of the Clean Water Dam is higher than the turbidity of the South West Spring and the Pit. High turbidity and bacteria are attributable to stock and wildlife access to surface water. … In order to ensure sufficient water in the Clean Water Dam for replenishment purposes, the quarry manager will activate a continuous and automated sump pumping system installed in the Pit Sump to pump water to the Clean Water Dam. A permanent HDPE pipe will convey make-up water from the sump pump to a discharge point located on the western side of the Clean Water Dam. The Clean Water Dam will act as a settling pond. Upon activation of the replenishment plan, the quarry manager will commence the controlled release of water from the Clean Water Dam. The release will be controlled by a flow meter. This will be piped via gravity to the Grass Swale to replenish the spring water flow… The Grass Swale will provide water treatment to ensure that the current South West Spring water quality is maintained or improved. … The level difference between the Clean Water Dam level (424m AHD) and the swale outflow level (420 m AHD) is enough to cause gravity flow. The inlet and outlet of the grass swale may be treated for erosion protection”[33], and “Upon activation of the replenishment plan, the quarry manager will commence the controlled release of water from the Clean Water Dam. The release will be controlled by a flow meter. This will be piped via gravity to the Grass Swale to replenish the spring water flow. A minimum passing flow will be maintained throughout the year with event based discharges”[34]and “The flow from the Clean Water Dam will be discharged by gravity controlled by a flow meter”[35]– this “controlled release” would use “gravity” to rise over a hill of 5m high!
How could they possibly know what the “turbidity levels” were before the quarry commencedbecause no-one has ever monitored them; in fact, no-one took comparative measurements at the spring and at the culvert under Pearce Road i.e. the location where it exits the site (for a comparative of what impacts there could be), even after the commencement of the quarry, and there were none done prior. Regardless, the resulting disturbed land would also result in being a source of sedimentation as rain washed over it. Therefore, this would be in breach of planning permit conditions 39 & 41 and of the closed system and the work plan and therefore the planning permit and work authority, and once the discharge has left the swale there would be nothing that could stop it from entering Kookaburra Creek and our property, regardless of the gross lack of quality.
The proposed swale is proposed to be in the drain on north side of Pearce Road, east of the culvert, in a location where it is steeper and the discharge would move faster and collect more even pollutants and contaminants from the bund. Further, it would have to rise up 5m over a hill to leave the filthy dam!
How do they propose to clean the grass swale (there are no details), or wouldn’t they? If they don’t clean it then the sediment, hydrocarbons and whatever other pollutants would continue wash down into what remained of Kookaburra Creek when the next discharge came through. I note that man X, man Y and CASACIR clearly and repeatedly stated that they would install sediment and silt traps around the site and did not do so – they like to make noises of environment responsibility but reality can be vastly different to their claims, and I see this as another similar scenario.
ValenzaE goes on to state: “The July 2010 to March 2012 SE [sic] Spring flow and turbidity data, have been used as background data for the modelling of the performance of the Spring Management System. The inflow turbidity to Grass Swale 1 is assumed to be that of the water in the clean water storage, which shows the highest turbidity on records”[36]. So, even though they didn’t do any monitoring prior to the considerable pollutant and contamination impacts of the quarry until December 2009, they don’t intend to even use those earlier measurements, but have decided on taking the July 2010 to March 2012 results as the baseline – unbelievable (by all means, yes, let’s use the most polluted and contaminated result as the baseline – what wonderfully environmentally responsible thing to do, and soooo caring of the neighbours). But then you read on and discover that they are then going to use the measurements from the filthy dam rather than from what they call the SW spring (which is the weir adjacent to the haul road where it is additionally polluted and contaminated by all the dust and hydrocarbons from the trucks and works) – even more unbelievable.
After the quarry closes
After works cease the drain swale is intended to be moved to be amongst the established gum trees. Moving the drain swale would mean further vegetation removal and the remaining trees could well be killed by the flow of the contaminated and polluted surface water so close to them, with the discharge also being be absorbed by both the trees and ground. Further, there would not be anyone to supervise or ensure continuity, quality, or quality, of the flow etc., and, based on past performance (the strong predictor of future behaviour), cattle would be unlikely to be kept out.
Reality
The drain swale was not in any of the iterations of their work plan and was not on endorsed figures, so it would be a breach of their work plan, and therefore in breach of their planning permit, and in breach of their work authority (nothing new there) – thereby making any swale or drain an unauthorised activity.
In 2003I completed a “wetlands ecology and management” course run by Greening Australia as a 5-day residential course at Sale with experts from all over Australia,and then in 2006 I completed a “water quality monitoring” course – I undertook these two courses in order to protect the health of our waterways and the existing wetland[37]below our house. Firstly, nothing like the deliberately poor monitoring performed by Hyder and then by ValenzaE had been discussed at either course as in any way being a viable option for gauging and assessing the true condition of water quality and the setting of a background baseline – quite the contrary – but there again, those water specialists were actually trying to teach us how to monitor properly and professionally. Secondly, nothing like the grossly insufficient narrow, shallow open drain proposed by Hyder, or the even narrower and much shorter drainage “swale” proposed by ValenzaE, had been discussed at either course as in any way being viable options, with no suggestions of an open drain of any width or length having been put forward as being in any way appropriate as a proper and functioning wetland.
The “wetland”/drain ”swale” proposed by Hyder then ValenzaE was just an attempt to provide a cheap and nasty solution to a very serious problem. No-one has treated the water issues with any attempt at seriousness – they merely go through some of the motions in order to make it look good. These were obviously decisions made on the fly because the reality is that what Hyder, then ValenzaE were really proposing was not a way to have the sediment, pollutants and contaminants settle out of the quarry wastewater and drainage – it was simply a flowing diversion ditch to get rid of the quarry wastewater and drainage off-site in breach of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s undertakings and in the face of significant and continued opposition from us.
Further, man X, man Y and CASACIR committed premeditated fraud in relation to this by their frequent fraudulent claims of being a site that retained, re-used and re-cycled all its drainage and wastewater, and also by signing a binding terms of settlement agreement that they would not interfere with our water again when they knew at the time of signing that fully intended to continue on with their plans to destroy the spring together with its catchment and aquifers and to take the flow of water from us (they only signed the terms so that I would drop the immanent legal action against them – what a scummy thing to do you say? I absolutely agree).
In short form, a swale is actually just a drain built to specifically divert and carry drainage – and this absolutely corresponds with man X, man Y and CASACIR’s continued labeling of Kookaburra Creek as a drainage line and their need to discharge excess quarry wastewater and drainage from the site in spite of their multiple fraudulent claims of it being a so-called retention, recycle and reuse system with no discharge!
It is to be noted that, certainly as of 2021, there was no “wetland”, no “swale” and nothing that they were required by law to do in this regard in 2011 (10 years earlier) – yet no-one made them comply.
[1] Their first work plan at clause 1.4
[2] Valenza Engineering Pty Ltd
[3] The Australian Government, Department of the Environment has a fact sheet Wetlands and the Community
[4] https://www.nationalgeographic.org › encyclopedia › wetland
[5] https://oceanservice.noaa.gov › facts › wetland
[6] https://www.nationalgeographic.org › encyclopedia › wetland
[7] https://oceanservice.noaa.gov › facts › wetland
[8] The Australian Government, Department of the Environment has a fact sheet Wetlands and the Community
[9] https://www.melbournewater.com.au › about-our-water › rivers-and-creeks
[10] The Australian Government, Department of the Environment has a fact sheet Wetlands and the Community
[11] https://www.environment.gov.au › water › wetlands › publications › factsheet
[12] The Australian Government, Department of the Environment has a fact sheet Wetlands and water quality
[13] The Australian Government, Department of the Environment has a fact sheet Wetlands and changes in water flows
[14] Through John Nolan, one of Hyder’s water specialists
[15] Spring Water Management Plan required by man X, man Y and CASACIR’s permit
[16] He not only allowed illegal works, but denied there were works that had been done by man X, man Y and CASACIR without any application for a works on waterway permit let alone an actual permit, and he later excused them under oath at the Supreme Court, and at no stage did he call them to account for their illegal works.
[17] By saying that they had not occurred in spite of visual proof that it had
[18] ww.tlake.com>blog>french-drain-vs.-trench-drain-vs.-swale
[19] The Melbourne Water brochure: Healthy Waterway – building a swale: What is a swale
[20] The last time I was at the site.
[21]Permit condition 27 “Prior to Stage 2 works commencing and based on the results of the flow and water quality monitoring program, a spring water management plan to the satisfaction of the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority is required. The plan will need to ensure that no adverse impacts to downstream waterway health result from the activities including impacts once quarrying operations have ceased.”
[22] “1.2 This report presents the SWMP. It has been prepared in accordance with Planning Permit Condition No. 27”.
[23] SWMP, Clause 6.2
[24] SWMP, Clause 3.5.2
[25] SWMP, Clause 7.2
[26] SWMP, Clause 3.5.2
[27] SWMP, Clause 6.2
[28] SWMP, Clause 6.2
[29] Man X signed the document, with the authorisation of man Y and CASACIR, and under the supervision of Peake (their then barrister) and Smith (their solicitor)
[30] SWMP, Clause 3.5.2
[31] SWMP, Clause 3.5.1
[32] SWMP, Clause 3
[33] SWMP, Clause 3.5.2
[34] SWMP, Clause 3.5.2
[35] SWMP, Clause 3.5.3
[36] SWMP, Clause 5.2
[37] An actual proper wetland, not some arbitrary drain swale.