Email to Council Re Dewatering Bore 21/01/14

Council must have read this communication, because they removed themselves from the process by sending the matter straight to VCAT without daring to make a decision themselves...


Dear Councillor,

Please find attached a submission of objection we have made to Goulburn-Murray Water (G-MW) regarding an application by Mandalay Resources to construct a 235m dewatering bore in Costerfield. We send this for your information only so that you may see the depth of concern felt by some local residents, landowners and primary producers at this further application by the mine.

Recently, Council approved the construction of another evaporative pond for Mandalay Resources' Augusta Operation - a pond which, contrary to the misinformed beliefs of some Councillors will contain more than just salt; will, in fact, be replete with heavy metals and toxic compounds - and as you will be well aware, that decision is due for review at VCAT in the near future.

At the time of Council's decision we were proactive in attempting to inform Councillors personally of the impacts such a pond would have on local residents and also in trying to convince you that it could not, indeed should not, be regarded in isolation from other developments by Mandalay Resources in Costerfield. We were adamant in our argument that the pond under contention was just the first in an ever-expanding accumulation of infrastructure that would starve the Wappentake and Majors Creeks systems of water and risk permanent environmental damage through the encapsulation of toxic waste in the landscape. All for the sake of installing a (re-usable!) desalination plant capable of dealing with the water the mine does not value in any way but that we certainly do. This new application serves as a bell wether for those expansive intentions.

According to G-MW's Submissions Fact Sheet, "Construction of a bore generally occurs before a groundwater licence is applied for or issued", so we feel quite confident in concluding that in the not-too-distant future Mandalay Resources will apply for an extension of their current 700ML dewatering limit so as to expand their extraction processes in the area into the Cuffley lode. As such we would like to alert Councillors that an application to Council for the construction of a further evaporation pond will, without doubt, be forthcoming in the coming year.

Mandalay Resources is so patently unable to deal with its present dewatering allocation - hence the application for the pond which Council approved - that it continues to truck (Yes, actually truck! Still! In 2014!) contaminated water 15km along a major road and highway, through residential areas to be dumped into the disused Heathcote Pit. And more ponds cannot be the answer. We contend that the mine should install a desalination plant in order to mitigate all of these deleterious environmental effects and more. Mandalay Resources pays no royalties on the gold it extracts and has declared an extremely profitable future for its mine, and yet is still recalcitrant in its approach to investing in infrastructure that would do much to ensure the longterm health of the Costerfield environment and community and even its own reputation as a mining innovator.

We ask you to please keep this application for a dewatering bore in mind when the time comes for yet another Council decision to be made regarding yet another evaporation pond, as will surely be the case. Once again, we insist that these matters cannot be treated in isolation from each other. The story of the boiling frog offers us all a salient lesson.

Please do take the time to read this document. Our concerns are real, time is pressing and the water is getting warmer...

Kind regards and all the best for the New Year

Sincerely

Steve Blackey


And here is the letter:

21 January, 2014

G J Cochrane

55 Kilmore Rd

Heathcote 3523

Manager Diversions Licensing

Goulburn-Murray Water

PO Box 165.

Tatura, Victoria, 3616.

Dear Sir/Madam

Re The construction of a bore 235 metres deep by Mandalay Resources for the purposes of dewatering on land described as Crown Allotment 39, Section 1 of the Parish of Costerfield.

Our family’s properties are situated 2 kilometres from this proposed bore along Cochranes Road, Costerfield and the South Costerfield-Graytown Road, Costerfield. The current dewatering program exercised by Mandalay Resources (and, previous to that, by AGD) has already had detrimental impacts on the flows of both the Wappentake and Major Creeks systems. Our property was selected in the 1850s and has been an ongoing commercial concern since that time. Family records show that in the intervening 150 years, and despite crippling droughts in the late 1800s and numerous further devastating water shortages during the early and middle years of last century, the natural springs on our property had never run dry…  until the operation of this mine commenced. URS, who were at one time the mining company’s hydrogeological representatives, claimed that this was caused by drought. But there have been many severe droughts over the years and no drying up of springs ever occurred previously. Recent above-average rainfall has done little to return the creeks to their former states. A more recent study undertaken by SKM Consulting confirms our continually-voiced concerns that there is connection between the basement and alluvial aquifers in the area. This fact in itself should be of real concern to any water authority charged with maintaining the integrity and availability of this precious resource for all residents, landowners and producers in the region.

It is essential that a complete raft of empirical environmental data be gained before anyone – not just Mandalay Resources – be permitted to proceed further with environmentally damaging activities in the area.

It is also vital that G-MW be aware that Mandalay Resources are still to complete a supposedly binding report into the effects of dewatering on neighbouring properties that was to be submitted prior to the commencement of any mining operations, over seven years ago.

Surely, this report does need to at least be completed before any consideration is given to allowing Mandalay to drill additional dewatering bores. What is its purpose otherwise? Has G-MW seen this report and assessed its conclusions? How can G-MW make a decision regarding the impact of further mining works on our properties without reference to the effects that such a pertinent and crucial report would document? Should not G-MW request that Mandalay Resources produce a copy of this report prior to licencing in order to adequately inform its decision?

Since, according to G-MW’s Submissions Fact Sheet, “Construction of a bore generally occurs before a groundwater licence is applied for or issued” we expect an application for an extension of the current 700ML groundwater extraction limit to be forthcoming from the mine. Yet, Mandalay Resources has already shown itself to be incapable of dealing with even half of the water it is currently licenced to remove from the area. It commissioned evaporation ponds to be constructed according to inappropriate climatic assessments taken in locations far removed from the area actually being dewatered. As a consequence the ponds do not function to the mine’s requirements. A Pollution Abatement Notice (PAN) is currently in force permitting the mine to truck (Yes! To actually truck!) and dispose of its waste water in the Heathcote Pit. But this is a ludicrous stop gap measure only, the PAN having already been extended to its limit and the Heathcote Pit fast reaching its ability to receive any more of this untreated water. Is it not part of G-MW’s remit to require evidence of effective and adequate removal/treatment/disposal of the water that it is allowing to be taken? Or is G-MW satisfied that the denial of this amenity to the area’s farmers in favour of its removal and wasteful evaporation is a responsible and justifiable utilisation (or non-utilisation) of this precious natural resource? These are not ‘philosophical’ questions, but real world, practical inquiries into G-MW’s responsibilities as a regulatory authority.

Does G-MW merely sell the water out from under us and then wash its hands of any adverse consequences that may flow from its permit and licencing decisions?

Mandalay Resources is currently licenced by G-MW to remove 700ML of groundwater per year – although the actual amount of water denied the area under the licence is over 1GL in view of the collective surface area of the toxic evaporation ponds dotted about the locale that serve to prevent rainfall from reaching the creek systems – and, as stated above, Mandalay Resources have neither the correct infrastructure nor the appropriate data to allow them to adequately deal with even that amount. To permit the construction of infrastructure to extract more water given this displayed incapacity to function under conditions which they have had the luxury of imposing upon themselves makes no sense and must surely open G-MW up to legal responsibility for any adverse outcomes caused by its licencing procedures.

The proposed bore lies in close proximity to five creek systems. How can it be doubted that additional dewatering will further limit the amount of water entering the aquifers in the region and thus further adversely affect the already depleted flows to the area’s creek systems? What of the effect of the cone of depression (in fact, the cones of depression) on the alluvial aquifer in the area? Evidence tabled by Mandalay Resources admits that at least one of the current cones of depression in the area (there are three) stretches over 4 square kilometres. The Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) document produced for Mandalay Resources by SRK Consulting in September 2013 predicts that the already extant and extensive cone of depression will “merge” with the (fourth) cone of depression from this new operation (p. 130). This is disingenuous: the cones of depression will do more than merge, they will overlay each other and compound their impacts, thus exacerbating the dewatering’s deleterious effects. The Wappentake Creek is now drying out faster than ever and our fears are that recent sediment sampling undertaken by the mine in conjunction with EPA will only confirm that the creek is soon to become a dry bed of toxic compounds and heavy metals. Is G-MW even aware of this sediment testing regime? Should not G-MW await the results before proceeding?

We must also raise the issue once again regarding our concern that these aquifers will lose their porosity and, once pumping ceases, never fully recover. This phenomenon has been observed in both Australia and the United States (Ground Water Issues, Chapter 8). Goulburn-Murray Water’s own literature supports such a conclusion and is also supportive of the concept of the aquifers feeding the creek systems. Is G-MW aware of any reason that this cannot happen here? Has any study been undertaken regarding this?

Given the dearth of detailed, consistent scientific evidence regarding the effects of dewatering in the area of the mine site, much of the data presented by Mandalay Resources is based on supposition and speculation. Despite their admission that the state of “the regional groundwater aquifer is confined to semi-confined” and that already “some dewatering has occurred along the line of the Cuffley lode”, SRK Consulting’s September 2013 PEA for Mandalay Resources reaches the patently fallacious conclusion that since “it appears that the current dewatering activities in Augusta do not affect the alluvial aquifer…there is no impact on local landowners or the surface water system” (p. 159, emphasis added). How a definite “is” can be reached from what “appears” to be, seems unfathomable to us. That is not science. Nor is it responsible mineral extraction. There is here the admission that the aquifer is “semi-confined” (i.e. not confined) and that groundwater levels have already been affected. What more is required to indicate the need for caution here? To worsen these potentially dire conditions by extending an already detrimental dewatering process with an additional bore seems irresponsible at best and deliberate environmental vandalism at worst. It is certainly a kick in the teeth to the many residents, landowners and primary producers of the area who have struggled to maintain responsible and productive use of Australia’s most precious and scarce resource over recent years and are continually told that they must see it drained from the ground and evaporated for no good reason.

It was once the mine’s contention that it was “probable” that the alluvial aquifers and the Wappentake Formation were not connected. Then came data indicating that there may indeed be a hydrogeological connection (URS Report August 06-07). More recently SRK has confirmed that dewatering for the Augusta lode has already impacted upon the line of the Cuffley lode. To claim no connection between these areas is to deny the cumulative evidence that Mandalay Resources has itself provided. More assessment needs to be conducted to examine the extent of this connection before any further development is considered. The long overdue hydrogeological report would be helpful in this regard…

Finally, and extremely importantly, matters pertinent to the dewatering undertaken by Mandalay Resources and to their modes of groundwater disposal via evaporative processes in the area are soon (March 2014) to be evaluated at a VCAT hearing. This hearing is likely to have a direct impact upon Mandalay Resources’ future operational methods and permitting requirements. Surely it would be unwise to pre-empt any VCAT decision until all relevant information regarding the effects of dewatering and evaporative disposal upon the area have been assessed and the way forward decided. With its intimate knowledge of the interconnectedness of natural systems it would be irresponsible and short-sighted of G-MW to proceed with this permit application as if it were isolated from the rest of the impacts that Mandalay Resources’ operations are currently having on the Costerfield area. This bore is not an isolated piece of infrastructure and it will compound the damage already being done.

Ongoing dewatering continues to deny the amenity of water to our property and to the properties of other landowners and primary producers in the area and is an issue that needs to be urgently addressed through closer study of its possible environmental impacts and a more sensible, foresighted and equitable permit assessment. Please do not exacerbate the Costerfield area’s existing issues (issues caused by current dewatering) by granting Mandalay Resources approval to develop this additional dewatering bore.

Recent government attention seems to have been paid (or was it mere lip service?) to environmental and water quality concerns raised in the wake of developments such as this mine. Is water conservation no longer an issue on this, the driest of continents? After once more detailing to the regulatory authorities the environmental impacts of dewatering and the ostensible environmental vandalism that the evaporation of such huge amounts of water constitutes, and after voicing its concerns, is it possible that once again the local ratepaying Costerfield community can have its opinions and wishes run roughshod over –and its water removed – by Mandalay Resources with G-MW’s blessing?

We would be most appreciative if, on this occasion, we could receive a reply to our submission; mere acknowledgement would be a start, but we would much prefer a reply that addresses one-by-one the issues we have raised here and elsewhere over the past decade that we have been writing to you and that confirms at least some consideration of the facts is being undertaken. As things stand we are very doubtful as to whether these letters of objection are even read by anyone before a rubber-stamping process takes place and Mandalay Resources proceeds just as it desires, and – like G-MW – without regard for the damage being caused.

Yours sincerely

Stephen C. Blackey                      and BA (Journ.) (RMIT) B. Journ (Hons. 1st Class) (RMIT)

Gilbert. J. Cochrane Diploma of South Eastern Studies BA (Hons.) Political Science MA Law and Legal Studies

For and on behalf of 

L. J. Cochrane	M. Cochrane
V.T. Cochrane C. J. Cochrane-Davis BA M Ed. Postgrad Corporate Management Postgrad Dip. Teaching	J. J. Cochrane A. M. Cochrane Dip. Arts (Fine Art) Dip Ed. (Monash)
D. L. Cochrane-Holley BA (Latrobe)	B. P. Cochrane-Davis BA BSc MBA (Melb.)
M. A. Cochrane-Holley BA (Latrobe)
L. V. L. Cochrane-Davis MBBS B Medical Science (Melb.)	M. J. Lovell BSc B Comm (Melb.)
A. G. J. Cochrane-Davis	J. P. T Cochrane-Davis
D. C. I. Cochrane- Davis	B. M. Cochrane-Holley
A. Cochrane Shnier	K. Cochrane Shnier

Reply to Response from Minister Walsh 26/04/12

Dear Colin [Thornton],

It has come to my attention that Mr John Mitas will be visiting Costerfield next Wednesday to speak to concerned residents and landowners there regarding the proposed extension of AGD’s dewatering capabilities. Unfortunately I will not be able to be in attendance, though others will certainly be willing to address Mr Mitas on the issues as we see them.

In my stead I attach a document sent to the Minister for Water Mr Peter Walsh in reply to matters raised by Mr John Lenders in the Victorian Parliament regarding the continuing detrimental effects AGD’s dewatering has had on our and neighbouring properties. I trust this will be of interest to yourself and possibly to Mr Mitas (please feel free to forward a copy to him).

Kindest regards

Gilbert Cochrane

***

Dear Minister,

RE: Your letter of reply in response to the question raised by Minister John Lenders during the Legislative Council Adjournment Debate on 13^th March 2012 regarding the Mandalay Resources mine at Costerfield and which Mr Lenders’ office was kind enough to forward to me.

What should be patently obvious after even a brief reading of our correspondence on this matter (and our correspondence should be available to you, a copy having been sent to each and every Victorian Parliamentarian – although some chose not to even acknowledge receipt) that our dispute with Mandalay Resources has nothing to do with an economic debate over the value of mining versus agriculture in the state, and it is disappointing that the matters have been framed in that light. The primary issue is, and has always been, the misuse of water resources and the Department of Primary Industry’s (DPI) apparent failure to enforce regulations at the Mandalay mine. By way of providing you with accurate information, we note here that as far back as November 2008, the URS-contracted hydrogeologist confirmed in a meeting at AGD’s office, that they had not been commissioned to undertake the hydrological study required by both Council and DPI permits. And this is still the case.

(Certainly a ‘water quality monitoring program’ was put in place 7 years ago. And at that time URS stated that it was ‘probable’ (?!) that the alluvial and basement aquifers were not connected. Then, in 2006, came the statement from URS that there may indeed be a hydrological connection after all (see the URS Report 2006-2007). The results in that paper highlight the fact that the original report was wrong.

This so-called report by URS (Letter 16/12/2005, Project No. 43270625.05005) had as its “main objective” merely “to summarise the information collected to date in regard to the hydrogeological and hydrology and assess the impacts of dewatering of the Augusta deposit on the environment” [emphasis added]. The conclusion (if one can call it that) was that the “basement aquifer is at least partially confined”. What does that even mean? What semantic games are being played here? What does “at least partially” mean? Twenty percent? Seventy percent? Even ‘totally’ is covered by the phrase “at least partially”, is it not? But so is ‘barely’… 

This is not science, Minister; this is guesswork!

At each turn we are met with obfuscation, equivocation and evasion. We cannot get a straight word or admission from anyone. Here is a reference to Bore No G917, which is to the South East of the mine site and of which URS states it “is likely that the decline in the water levels is in part related to the mine site dewatering activities”. And note the evasive ambiguous language – some would say weasel words – employed in a letter from URS to Mr. Rob Kirkpatrick (2/6/2008 Project No. 43270625) in relation to the connection between the basement and alluvial aquifers, viz., “does not appear”; “partly confined”; “appears”; “mostly likely”; “is in part related”. 

It is this information that you should be employing in your considerations, as it is the existence of this connection between the aquifers that lies at the heart of our concerns. And this information verifies that connection. And it is our contention that this is the principal reason for our water loss. In light of the history of vacillation on this issue by the very body contracted to investigate the matter, and its inability to make a definite statement regarding the connection, surely more thorough studies into the impact of dewatering on the mine’s neighbouring properties need to be conducted.

Your own letter follows the same line of illogicality laced with the misinformation and disinformation that you have been given regarding this matter. “None of these studies,” you say “have provided any evidence that the dewatering is having a regional impact on local groundwater”. No one mentioned anything about a regional impact! We are saying that the dewatering is having a local effect on local groundwater. Certainly, Bendigo is not going without water because of this mine, but our property in Costerfield, right next door, is! And the evidence is right here before you in URS’s own words. And really, such a simplistic evaluation of this complex situation as that which you propose in the above statement, is ludicrous in any case. The idea that water is entirely fungible, that volumes of water in one part of the state can act as substitutes for water in other areas, defies logic… and is a quite remarkable position for a Minister of Water to hold!

And what of the further possible contamination and decimation of the Wapentake Valley’s aquifers? (See previous correspondence.)

Perhaps we must invoke Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, to which Victoria is a signatory, in order to be heard here: that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation and that the precautionary principle should apply.  Since it is our contention that there is in this case:

(i)                the threat of irreversible environmental damage; and

(ii)              scientific uncertainty

It would appear that both ‘triggers’ identified by Preston CJ as necessary to bring about the ‘application of the precautionary principle and the concomitant need to take precautionary measures’ have been satisfied; the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) seems to provide much grist for our mill under Australian Law.

In closing, we draw your attention to the Federal Water Minister Tony Burke’s very recent comments (The Australian 12 April 2012) regarding the limiting of ground water entitlements in the Murray Darling Basin Plan because of concerns over the lack of science. You appear to be taking the DPI at its word in these matters, so I feel I must also draw your attention to the fact that that body has a proven history of failure to enforce regulations at this site; the numerous breaches of the regulations covering excessive noise noted by the Environmental Protection Authority attest to this (latest Information received 19 April 2012; can be provided if required). 

It would appear that you have little interest in the denial of natural justice that this issue represents and that consequently we shall not be privileged to meet you at the mine site to discuss any of these matters. That is most unfortunate. We are, however, definitely looking forward to the visit by the DPI’s Mr. John Mitas… although not a publicly-elected official, he is at least willing to be accountable, and has had the decency to personally acknowledge our grievances and agree to meet with us… It will be interesting to hear what he has to say; perhaps he can provide a rational, coherent and decisive solution to this ongoing and quite obviously political issue.

Yours sincerely

Gilbert Cochrane

(on behalf of the Cochrane family.)