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.)