Mining open slather on underground water continues

by George Houen, Landholder Services Pty Ltd

Image sourced [here] 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miners will get to keep the Newman government’s gift of open slather on groundwater, plus the waiving of both the water licence requirement and the obligation to justify the volume of water they extract - and they will be able to use or dispose of the water any way they wish including by evaporation, which for obvious environmental reasons was banned in coal seam gas fields years ago.

At least miners who dewater will, for the first time, be subject to Chapter 3 of the Water Act which imposes a make good obligation and requires underground water impact reports. Successive governments have assured bore owners that if there is bore damage from dewatering the Chapter 3 make good scheme will protect them – that is false and when the scheme is called upon for a contested make good scheme the affected owners will find it is tragically flawed.

Natural Resources and Mines Minister Anthony Lynham announced on 10th November which parts of the previous governments water amendments he intends to repeal or amend. But open slather for miners stays – and after consultation with the Environment Minister and with stakeholders as to how it will operate it will be proclaimed into force, including for existing mines, on a date to be agreed.

Provided a mining lease and an environmental authority have been granted, unlimited dewatering is OK, even in a worst-case situation where dewatering is virtually certain to damage or destroy water bores as well as groundwater dependent flora or fauna.

Under present laws, groundwater impacts are a major factor in any environmental impact assessment for mining - often giving rise to objections supported by high-level expert evidence in the Land Court’s objections hearings. The Court directs any resulting recommendations on groundwater to the Environment Minister for consideration in deciding the environmental authority application.

But the Court under present laws doesn’t have jurisdiction to make recommendations about the licence for dewatering which - until proclamation of the change - is under the separate jurisdiction of Natural Resources and Mines. This segregation is artificial and should have been removed. However, under the Water Act an interested person who disputes grant of a water licence can request internal review of the decision and can also appeal to the Land Court about it.

Allowing dewatering without a water licence doesn’t alter the Environmental Protection Act assessment process for the proposed mine, nor does it alter the Land Court’s role as the independent assessor which makes recommendations to the Minister. Both of those phases are designed to assess and test the evidence on overall environmental impact (including impacts on groundwater and water users) and applications for environmental authority.

In spite of the miners gaining open slather dewatering, the current process of overall environmental assessment including the impacts on groundwater resources and on users of water bores, with a right for the public to object and be heard in the Land Court, will continue.

This tussle over the Newman government’s amendments gave Minister Lynham a golden opportunity to remove artificial demarcation and integrate the approval of dewatering with the well-established environmental assessment system – he let it slip. Now I expect that, true to form, mining company lawyers will use the advent of open slather dewatering and abolition of the requirement for water licenses to argue that objections about groundwater be no longer permitted.

RELATED PREVIOUS PUBLISHED ARTICLES

The Newman Government’s Water Act amendments: Part 1 - Deregulation of the Dewatering of Mines 

The Newman Government’s Water Act amendments: Part 2 - Uncoordinated Approval System 

The Newman Government’s Water Act amendments: Part 3, Make Good 

The Newman Government’s Water Act amendments: Part 4 - Stream diversions

Dewatering Mt Gibson Iron Ore mine, photo sourced [here]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Newman Government’s Water Act amendments: Part 1 - Deregulation of the Dewatering of Mines

by George Houen

 

Deregulation of  the Dewatering of Mines

To clear the way for the extraction process in open cut and longwall underground coal mining (and to a lesser extent other minerals), miners pump accumulated groundwater out of the pit, they also pump from bores to dewater the ground in advance. 

Image sourced [here]

 

 

 

The pit becomes a sump which drains all aquifers overlying the target coal seam, and the coal seam itself. The resulting drawdown extends outward in a radius determined by permeability of the ground and interconnection between aquifers. One expert report for the Galilee Basin predicted the radius of permanent drawdown to extend 30km – even with lesser distances, the scope for damage  to landholder’s bores is obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

That this dewatering has major implications for the environment and for owners of water bores is authoritatively shown by Land Court’s Alpha Coal judgement¹, in which the primary recommendation was to reject the mining application. Despite extensive expert study and evidence on groundwater, the Court found that evidence unsatisfactory as to the impact of the mine’s dewatering on other groundwater users and on the ecology. The Court’s fallback recommendation made any approval for the mine conditional upon:

1.  the proponent first obtaining water licenses on conditions which resolve all concerns pursuant to the precautionary principle, and
2. additional groundwater monitoring points on each of the objectors’ properties, and
3. the proponent must enter into make good agreements with each of the three objectors either within 12 months of grant of the mining lease, or before mining activities commence, whichever is the sooner.   

In contrast to the impacts of mine dewatering, dewatering for CSG (which is unregulated) targets the specific gas-yielding coal seam. It is usually deeper than the water supply aquifers and usually with poorer quality water. It is dewatered to liberate the gas from fissures in the coal. Except where private bores actually draw from that same seam, the impact of CSG dewatering on water bores is indirect. In response to the alteration in relative water pressures, and depending on permeability and interconnections, water from other aquifers may flow to the dewatered coal seam. Because the coal itself is not disturbed, presumably it is possible in the long term that the original saturation and pressure balance would be reinstated. 

Comment

The Land Court’s Alpha Coal decision shows, as is common sense, that mine dewatering impacts are difficult to predict but involve major, direct and permanent impacts on the groundwater relied upon by landholders and townsfolk, as well as significant environmental impacts. Accordingly mine dewatering should be made an integral part of the approvals process. But as explained below, CSG dewatering is very different in its process and its impacts. The proposition that mine dewatering needs to be deregulated to put miners on an even footing with CSG operators is contrived and invalid.

Skid mounted pump installed on a barge in a coal mining operation
Photo sourced [here]

 

Previous Related Posts

The Newman Government’s Mining Reforms - Part 1 Common Provisions, Restricted Land

 

The Newman Government’s Mining Reforms - Part 2 Common Provisions, Mining lease application and notification

 

The Newman Government’s Mining Reforms - Part 3 Common Provisions, Objections

 



The Newman Government’s Mining Reforms - Part 3 Common Provisions, Objections

by George Houen



Photo sourced [here]

Objections - environmental approval  

The Environmental Protection, State Development and Mineral Resources Acts all apply.    

• For environmental approval of small (standard) mining applications, nobody will be notified and nobody may object.
• Where the Coordinator General conducts an EIS for large (site specific) mining, he or she can (and I believe will) block all environmental objections.
• Only on the small number of mid to large projects where Environment and Heritage (DEH) - rather than the Coordinator General - conducts the EIS or the alternative environmental approval process, will there be assured public notice and a right to object.

For standard mining applications, there will be no advertising of the application and no direct notice to affected landholders of the application for, or grant of, a standard environmental authority. And nobody – not even the affected landowner - will have a right to make submissions or to object. Nobody can challenge decisions by the chief executive of DEH to issue environmental authority for standard mining projects. Nobody can submit that extra conditions are needed. Even if the applicant has a bad past record or is otherwise unworthy of being granted environmental authority, nobody can raise those concerns. On its record, DEH will invariably decide in favour of the miner.

 

For environmental approval of large (site specific) projects: 

1. If an EIS has already been completed through either the Coordinator General or alternatively DEH, any submissions previously made on the EIS (except any part relating to a Coordinator General’s condition) may, if the submitter requests, become objections initially to DEH and ultimately to the Land Court.
2. But if the Coordinator General, in stating conditions for the proposed environmental authority, has also stated he or she is satisfied the conditions adequately address environmental effects of the mining activity, no submissions can go forward as objections.
3. For a non-EIS project, the application to DEH for environmental authority and the application documents will be publicly advertised and any person may make submissions. Then once DEH makes its decision, submitters may elect to have their submissions treated as objections to be heard by the Land Court. 

 I believe, based on past performance, we can expect that in every case where the Coordinator General conducts an EIS he or she will invoke that power to prohibit objections. With standard environmental applications also rendered untouchable, only on the small number of site specific applications conducted exclusively by DEH is it assured that notification will continue and the right to object in the Land Court remain. 

Photo sourced [here]

Objection to mining lease applications.

 For small (standard) mining applications –

1. Only the owners of land subject to the mining lease, or of access land, or of adjoining land and the Shire Council, may object to the mining application; and
2. Grounds of objection are for the first time restricted and severely limited, as below.

For medium and large (site specific) applications –

1. As to the application for mining lease, only the owners of land the subject of the application, and of any access land and of any adjoining land and the Shire Council may object.
2. Permissible grounds of objection for owners of subject land are specified and severely restricted, ie: whether the Act has been complied with; whether mining is appropriate land use; whether mining supports sound land use management; impacts on the surface of the land within the mining lease; impacts on affected persons.

As is the case now, the Court can only allow objectors to give evidence and make submissions within the scope of their grounds of objection duly lodged.  All five of the new grounds of objection for owners of the subject land are inconsequential. They will be impossible, or near impossible, to substantiate with evidence. Impacts on the surface land might be a potentially viable ground if it referred to the owner’s land outside the lease, but it doesn’t – it refers only to land within the lease.

 A new provision covering both environmental and mining lease objections reinforces the Court’s existing ability to strike out non-conforming objections. A costs order against the objector would usually follow a strike out order. Since the court has always had discretion to strike out objections, this provision isn’t necessary. Perhaps it is included to further discourage objections.

 Some of the issues which are important and meaningful  for landholders, but on which objections are prohibited by the new restricted grounds, include:  is the land actually mineralised; are the size and shape of the lease  justified; is the proposed term justified;  is the applicant’s past record satisfactory;  would the project cause damage to the balance land, does the lease cut off vital access roads, does the applicant have the financial and technical capability for the project.

 

Adjoining owners have an even shorter list of permissible grounds of objection, but one is potentially viable:  impacts on the existing use of adjoining land.

Under the reforms, the important matters on which it is the Court’s job to report have been selectively culled. The Court can no longer report on: whether the proposed lease is mineralised and the lease size and shape OK; whether  utilisation of the deposit is acceptable; whether the applicant has the necessary financial and technical resources; whether the applicant’s past record is satisfactory; whether term of lease sought is appropriate, etc.  Those matters will in future be decided by the Minister alone, without either landholder input or the Court’s independent assessment.

 In a nutshell, as they affect mining lease applications the reforms:

1. restrict the right to object to only specified landowners and the Shire; and
2. restrict the grounds of objection to relatively inconsequential matters which will be difficult if not impossible to support with evidence;
3. consequently render it likely futile to object and for those who do object, increase  the risk of a costs order;  
4. remove from the Court’s jurisdiction the responsibility to assess and report on the bona fides and merit of mining lease applications; and
5. consequently restrict the Court’s ability  to independently advise the Minister on the merits of mining applications.

 

 

Previous Related Posts

The Newman Government’s Mining Reforms - Part 1 Common Provisions, Restricted Land

The Newman Government’s Mining Reforms - Part 2 Common Provisions, Mining lease application and notification

New bill denies natural justice

PRA: Hearing into new Qld resources bill

PRA: Regional Queensland deserves better