Chapter 3
Rehabilitation, regulation, and planning
Rehabilitation
3.1
Rehabilitation is a key aspect of mining industry regulation. Submitters
and witnesses opposed to mining in the Liverpool Plains and the Darling Downs
claimed that existing rehabilitation methods are inadequate. Generally, those
opposed to mining could not see any circumstances where mining and agriculture
could coexist due to their lack of faith in existing rehabilitation measures.
When asked if there were any circumstances in which she would support mining in
the region, Mrs Blomfield stated:
In the case of open-cut mining I would say no, because of
what I have just explained about the contaminants. If we knew there was an
absolute guarantee that, in the case of the longwall mining, no water would be
lost from any sort of aquifer then maybe, but I cannot see how that guarantee
could be given.[1]
3.2
The ASSSI submission argued that the Australian mining industry had
developed the technology to successfully rehabilitate diverse landscapes.[2]
However, their submission did acknowledge that rehabilitated open-cut mines in
Queensland and NSW were, in most cases, returned to a state for grazing or
forestry rather than cropping.[3]
The ASSSI argued that there are currently no examples from Australia where
soils of the type typically found on the Liverpool Plains and the Darling Downs
have been successfully reinstated.[4]
While there were examples from the United States of America and Germany of the
rehabilitation of agricultural land, these soils had a much lower clay content
(around 35%) than the Liverpool Plains and the Darling Downs (around 70%).[5]
The ASSSI stated that:
If the community, industry and government believe that mining
should proceed in the Darling Downs and Liverpool Plains, but that the land
should be returned to its original productivity following mining, then
experience from both Germany and the USA shows clearly that the entire depth of
the soils need to be conserved and replaced (particularly to retain the plant
available water capacity). [The] Vertosols of the Darling Downs and Liverpool
Plains...are commonly 1.0 – 2.0 m deep...[6]
3.3
The ASSSI further argued that:
In order to return the soil close to its original state (and
cropping potential), the entire soil profile would have to be cut into layers
of the order of 25-30 cm which would have to be stockpiled separately and then
replaced, in order, after mining. Mixing of the soil profile would result in
depression of crop yields due to the increased salinity and ESP in the upper
layers. Additionally, the stockpiling of soil, which would be necessitated
because of the restraints of the mining process, would result in organic matter
breakdown in the surface layer and in the dispersion and erosion of the subsoil
layers.[7]
3.4
The ASSSI submission concluded that the potential impacts of mining on
the cropping soils of the Liverpool Plains and Darling Downs and surrounds
would include a reduction in the yield potential of the reinstated soil, loss
or reduction of underground water supplies and dust impacts on surrounding
crops.[8]
3.5
The ASSSI's position was echoed by the Sustainable Minerals Council who
argued that Australia has only very limited experience in the rehabilitation of
agricultural soils.[9]
The Sustainable Minerals Council further stated:
To ensure a successful re‐use of rehabilitated land for
agriculture, the re‐building of (mined) soils has to
be well understood and tested. Thorough and detailed rehabilitation research
programs will be required to demonstrate that mining prime agricultural
land is only a temporary cessation to agricultural production and that
disturbed landscapes and soils can be re‐constructed to pre‐mine capability and productivity.[10]
3.6
The Friends of Felton confirmed their scepticism about the possibility
of returning stored topsoil to its former cropping capacity by stating their
understanding that Felton's soil types could not be rehabilitated through the storage
and relaying of topsoil.[11]
The Friends of Felton stated that:
The fact of the matter is that they are completely removing a
hill. The topsoil on that is very complex and can vary every 15 centimetres.
They have talked about taking the soil off, stockpiling it and returning it in
layers, as it was when they removed it. Evidence suggests that as soon as you
remove that soil it will lose its structure. It will lose its inherent nature,
so when it is put back it will not return immediately. It will take significant
years, if it happens at all.[12]
3.7
The Queensland Murray-Darling Committee supported this assessment and
confirmed they were also sceptical about the potential for quality soils to be
rehabilitated to a croppable status.[13]
The Queensland Murray-Darling Committee concluded that:
In order for a company to put 60 to 80 centimetres minimum
back as topsoil to grow crops would be no mean feat to achieve. It is certainly
not something we have observed anywhere around here or in Australia that we
have heard of... If you stockpiled a pile of topsoil for 10 years, most of it
would be anaerobic. It would lose its biology and structure. To put that back
is quite a difficult job. At the moment all that is required to be put back is
quite a shallow rehab job, and those are being done; there is no doubt about
that. But certainly restoring land to croppable status is not being done.[14]
3.8
While the committee heard substantive evidence expressing doubt that an
open cut mine site could be returned to cropping land, it also heard that
longwall mining could severely affect the floodplain. The Jimbour Action Group
stated:
The Central Queensland experience will tell you that that is
not successful either. Because of the slumping effect that occurs as they go
through, the roof collapses, the ground slumps down, and you have got a hole
again. You will have taken something that is a billiard table and turned it
into hills and valleys, which we currently do not have, and created significant
erosion problems. Because of the nature of our soils, if water flows at more
than 0.3 metres a second—to be technical—it dissolves and washes away, straight
into the river and all the way to Adelaide, if you believe the rhetoric.[15]
3.9
In recognition of the value of floodplain soils to agriculture, the
Shenhua submission stated that any mining on the Shenhua Watermark project
would be located on the ridge country and not on the black soils.[16]
The Queensland Resource Council stated that commencing mining in the absence of
accurate information was the worst possible outcome for landholders, government
and resource companies alike:
If you have already started your operations and suddenly
think, ‘Hang on, this topsoil just keeps going and going and going,’ that is an
atrocious outcome because, from the company and the landholder’s point of view,
you have set up a legislative responsibility to fix something that maybe you
cannot. You are effectively signing a sort of blank cheque. The reason that the
QRC [Queensland Resources Council] agrees with what we have heard from a lot of
the individual submissions that you have had today for a rigorous planning
process is that at the front end you need to get that science, that
information, on the table so that you can see where the productive land is, you
can do it in an objective way and companies can then factor that in to the EIS
[environmental impact statement] process.[17]
3.10
The interconnection between groundwater aquifers and floodplain
agriculture concerned many submitters.[18]
They suggested that avoiding mining of the floodplains would not provide
adequate protection.
There is a concern, which others will speak to, about the
caveats on how much the restriction is to be applied on the black soil plains.
It is current technology. We have a bit of a question about what that means. With
the area that is still identified, it is unknown as to whether or not that is a
significant recharge area. Government maps such as the one I have here suggest
that it is. Again, you cannot expect significant recharge areas to continue to
be that when open-cut practices or longwall mining practices, which alter the
landscape, go into these areas. An aquifer, an underground basin of water, is
nothing if you cut off the recharge.[19]
3.11
The committee heard evidence that the rehabilitation of groundwater
resources was a major concern for many submitters and witnesses. The National
Farmers Federation (NFF) submission stated:
Experience has shown that mining operations can have
significant impacts on ground and surface water, which go on to impact catchments
and impair resource quality. The experience of the agricultural industries in
dealing with ground water salinity and the significant risk that this issue
still poses in many agricultural regions shows that once any damage is done to
ground water systems, the opportunity to turn the situation around is
difficult, costly and comes at an ongoing price as a consequence of
productivity decline.[20]
3.12
Evidence presented to the committee provided anecdotal examples of the
linkages between aquifers and the tributary rivers of the MDB.[21]
However, numerous submitters identified a lack of scientific data and evidence
regarding the interconnectivity of water resources.[22]
3.13
The committee understands that rehabilitation of complex soil profiles,
such as exist on the Liverpool Plains, presents significant technical
challenges. The committee believes that assessing the viability of groundwater
rehabilitation may be limited by a lack of understanding of the
interconnectivity of water resources in the region.
Regulation
3.14
The regulation of mining and the extent of water resource protection
were key features of evidence presented to the committee. There are three ways
in which mining can impact on water in the Murray Darling Basin:
- consumption of water (eg. In processing of ore)
- dewatering of mines and subsequent disposal of wastewater (which
can be highly saline); and
- aquifer interference (that is, where mining activities damage or
destroy groundwater systems).[23]
3.15
While mining is primarily regulated by the state governments, the management
of water in the Murray Darling Basin is achieved through a range of state and
Commonwealth instruments, and intergovernmental agreements. Water is regulated
through the Commonwealth's Water Act 2007 (the Water Act), the 2004
Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative (NWI), and existing
state water resource plans. State governments have a range of mining and
planning legislation that governs the approval of exploration and mining, and
the consideration of specific development proposals.
The role of the Commonwealth
3.16
Mining, like all activities in the Murray Darling Basin, will operate
under the Basin Plan (currently being prepared) and existing transitional water
plans. [24]
The Basin Plan
3.17
The Commonwealth Water Act 2007 has created new governance
arrangements for the waters of the Murray–Darling Basin by legislating
objectives of both the 2004 NWI and the 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling
Basin Reform.[25]
Under the Act, the Commonwealth Minister, on the advice of the Murray–Darling
Basin Authority (MDBA), is responsible for setting the framework for Basin-wide
planning and management of water resources across the Basin, through the Basin
Plan.[26]
The Act requires the MDBA to develop and oversee the plan, in consultation with
the Basin states. The first Basin Plan is scheduled to commence in 2011.[27]
The plan is legally enforceable and intended to be 'a strategic plan for the
integrated and sustainable management of water resources in the Murray-Darling
Basin'.[28]
During the initial years of operation, there will also be transitional water
plans that operate as exceptions to the Basin Plan.[29]
3.18
The Water Act 2007 specifies some of the main functions of the
Basin Plan, including:
- Setting and enforcing environmentally sustainable limits on the
quantities of surface water and groundwater that may be taken from Basin water
resources;
- Setting Basin-wide environmental objectives, and water quality
and salinity objectives;
- Identifying risks to Basin water resources and strategies to
manage those risks;
- Developing efficient water trading regimes across the Basin;
- Setting requirements that must be met by state water resource
plans, and
- Improving water security for all uses of Basin water resources.[30]
3.19
Whilst the Commonwealth will have oversight of and responsibility for
the Basin Plan, the Basin states and territories will be responsible for the
preparation of new water resource plans as current state water resource plans
expire.[31]
Existing state water resource plans are due to expire in New South Wales,
Queensland, South Australia and the ACT in 2014, and in Victoria in 2019.[32]
Each new water resource plan will need to comply with requirements detailed in
the Basin Plan and be approved by the responsible Commonwealth minister.[33]
Key elements of the Basin Plan
3.20
Two of the key elements central to the Basin Plan will be the definition
of sustainable diversion limits (SDLs) and the development of a water quality
and salinity management plan.[34]
3.21
There is currently a limit ("the cap") placed on the amount of
surface water which can be taken for consumptive use in the Basin. The cap is
currently set at a level based on historic use and not on sustainable use.
Further, the existing cap does not limit the use of groundwater, the
consumption of which has grown significantly in the context of the introduction
of the surface water cap. Under the Basin Plan, the cap will be replaced by
SDLs.[35]
3.22
SDLs are limits placed on the quantities of both surface- and
groundwater that can be taken from Basin water resources. They will be set by
the Murray-Darling Basin Authority at a level deemed to be environmentally
sustainable, defined as 'the level at which water in the Basin can be taken
from a water resource without compromising key environmental assets, key
ecosystem functions, key environmental outcomes or the productive base of the
water resource'.[36]
3.23
The Basin Plan will include a water quality and salinity management plan
which will seek to improve water quality and reduce salinity impacts across the
Basin.[37]
The management plan will identify the main causes of poor water quality in the
Basin and set water quality and salinity objectives and targets.[38]
3.24
Water quality targets may include pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, sediment load, soluble organic carbon, heavy metals, various
nutrients and blue-green algae levels.[39]
A salinity target may specify the level of salinity to be achieved at a
particular point on a river for a specified percentage of time.[40]
The Commonwealth's role and the
impacts of mining
3.25
Evidence presented by the MDBA intimated that the Basin Plan is likely to
focus primarily on establishing a sustainable level of water extraction from
the MDB system.[41]
The National Water Commission (NWC) submission conceded that due to the relatively
low level of water use by mining in the MDB (around 1 % relative to the 68%
used by agriculture), extraction and water use by mining operations was not
considered in recent CSIRO reports.[42]
3.26
The NWC submission stated that policy relating to mining is largely
beyond the scope of the National Water Initiative (NWI). The NWC submission
stated:
Clause 34 of the NWI states that the Parties agree that there
may be special circumstances facing the minerals and petroleum sectors that
will need to be addressed by policies and measures beyond the scope of the NWI
Agreement. In this context, the Parties note that specific project proposals
will be assessed according to environmental, economic and social
considerations, and that factors specific to resource development projects,
such as isolation, relatively short duration and water quality issues, and
obligations to remediate and offset impacts, may require specific management
arrangements outside the scope of the Agreement.[43]
3.27
As the Commonwealth's submission noted, an impact on water consumption
within the Basin is only one of the impacts on water that mining may have. It
may also present wastewater disposal issues, or may interfere with groundwater
aquifers.[44]
The Commonwealth currently has powers, defined in the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) to regulate
mining activity that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of
national environmental significance.[45]
Matters of national environmental significance, as outlined in the EPBC Act,
include: listed threatened species and ecological communities; listed migratory
species; wetlands of international importance; Commonwealth marine areas; World
Heritage properties; National Heritage places; and nuclear actions.[46]
3.28
The NWC agreed that if mining activities in the Basin were unregulated
they had the potential to impact surface and groundwater systems in the MDB.[47]
However, the NWC's submission did note that there were state regulatory
mechanisms in place to ensure environmental protection.[48]
The committee recognises that, historically, primary responsibility for
regulating the impact of mining on the environment, including water resources,
lies with the relevant state governments.
The role of the states
3.29
The NSW government submission emphasised that state government ownership
of minerals confers exclusive rights to allocate resources and collect
royalties resulting from their exploitation, making the people of NSW direct
stakeholders in the continued success of mining in NSW.[49]
The NSW government submission further stated that under the NSW Mining Act
1992, the government is obligated to ensure an appropriate return to the
State from mineral resources.[50]
The NSW government submission reiterated the enormous benefits (around $174 million
in royalties from mining in the MDB alone in 2008/09) delivered by mining that
helped build infrastructure across NSW.[51]
3.30
The NSW government submission contended there is a strong regulatory
framework that ensures that the impact of mining activities on the environment,
agriculture and water resources is minimal.[52]
These regulations are outlined in a number of NSW government acts including the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; Mining Act 1992; Petroleum
(Onshore) Act 1991; Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997;
Water Management Act 2000; and Water Act 1912.[53]
The NSW government submission intimated that the current mining operations in
the Liverpool Plains comply with the regulatory arrangements established by
these acts.
3.31
This position was strongly advocated in evidence to the committee from
mining industry representatives who argued that the existing regulatory
framework was rigorous and extensive. The NSW Minerals Council stated that they
firmly believed that the existing regulatory framework more than adequately
addresses the concerns raised by the inquiry.[54]
The NSW Minerals Council argued that:
This [regulatory] framework allows for the evaluation and
assessment of the potential impacts of any mining project, including impacts on
the environment. Water-sharing plans and sustainable yield projects also
specifically address the sustainable management of water resources that are so
critical to our major primary industries of mining and agriculture. The New
South Wales minerals industry, a leader in water management, is committed to
working with landowners and other key stakeholders to ensure the best outcomes
from developing the rich natural resources, both agriculture and mining
related, in mining areas, including in the Namoi catchment.[55]
3.32
The Queensland government submission, which echoed the views of the NSW
government, stated that they had developed a thorough and transparent process
that gave a voice to all interests including the local community, industry
groups, the mining industry and environmental groups.[56]
The Queensland government submission further stated that water management is a
condition attached to every mining lease and that this includes the reduction
of runoff and contamination.[57]
However, understanding of the impact of coal seam methane extraction on water
connectivity was not well understood due to the emerging nature of the
industry.[58]
The Queensland government submission pointed to the Commonwealth-funded coal
seam gas water feasibility study as an example of an initiative designed to
fill this gap in existing knowledge.[59]
3.33
In Queensland, mining operations of the type examined by this inquiry
are governed by a number of state acts including the Mineral Resources Act
1989; Water Act 2000; Environmental Protection Act 1994; Petroleum and
Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004; and Nature Conservation Act 1992.
3.34
The Queensland Resources Council submission argued that resource developments
in the state were required to meet strict environmental licence conditions.[60]
The Queensland Resources Council further stated that:
Both the EIS [environmental impact statement] and the
development of a company’s environmental operating requirements, called an
environmental authority, have multiple regulatory requirements and processes in
relation to public consultation, objection and appeal rights. In the case of
mining, this provides substantial opportunity for community input into what a
mine’s rehabilitation should deliver. In short, the resources sector in Queensland operates under a strict multistage approvals process, including leading
environmental safeguards to identify and recover the resources which belong to
the population of the state. This government’s accountabilities through its legislation,
industry development policies and regulatory framework can achieve this
potential.[61]
3.35
The NWC's submission stated that the regulatory regimes in all MDB
states have been designed to require that proposals for major changes in land
use, such as mining, will pass through detailed planning processes, including
environmental impact assessments, at both the local and regional level.[62]
3.36
As outlined by the NSW Minerals Council, concerns raised by community
members about the viability of rehabilitation were primarily a matter for state
government legislation:
We [the coal industry] do[es] not own the resources; the
people of New South Wales own the coal and other mineral resources. We are
merely acting on behalf of them in developing those resources and we return our
payments back to the government by way of royalties—that is, over $1.4 billion
alone for this year. That is a lot of money that the people of New South Wales
get back in consolidated state revenue.[63]
3.37
The NSW Minerals Council further stated that:
The [state] government has chosen to put those areas up for
exploration tender and obviously two of our members are interested in looking
at it. It is then up to the government to make the final decision about whether
or not any mining operation should go ahead, taking into consideration
everything, including the potential environmental impacts, the economic and
social contribution of mining and a whole list of other factors as set up in
the legislation here in New South Wales.[64]
3.38
Mining industry representatives also pointed to the regulatory
requirement for exploration and mining operations to lodge rehabilitation bonds
to be held by the NSW Government.[65]
3.39
The NSW Minerals Council and mining company submissions, including
submissions by Shenhua and BHP, further emphasised that a licence to explore is
not a licence to mine. They argued that there is a misconception within the
community that mining operations will automatically follow exploration.[66]
Mining industry representatives further stated that in order to proceed from an
exploration licence to a mining operation a rigorous environmental assessment
process must be completed.
3.40
While the committee acknowledges that this position does reflect the
current regulations it also recognises that, in an overwhelming number of
instances, mining operations do proceed when exploration has discovered commercially
profitable resources.
3.41
The NSW government informed the committee that the combined
$400 million paid by Shenhua and BHP Billiton for exploration licenses in
the Liverpool Plains was the highest amount ever to be paid for exploration
permits in that state.[67]
Mr Brad Mullard did, however, seek to reassure the committee that a mining
permit was not a foregone conclusion despite the record price paid for the
exploration licenses:
Senator WILLIAMS—So it is the highest. Wouldn’t it be
just natural that when a company puts in $300 million, such as Shenhua does, to
tender for the exploration rights they would expect to be mining at the end of
it?
Mr Mullard—The conditions of the tender made it very
clear that there would be no guarantee of approval of mining, that they would
need to meet all of the normal government approvals processes. So we were not
providing any assurance that at the end of the day they would be granted a
mining lease. That was an absolute requirement and it was made very clear that in
granting the exploration licence the government was in no way implying that
mining approval would be given at the end.[68]
A need for reform?
3.42
The committee recognises that management of water resources in the
Murray Darling Basin is undergoing significant reform designed to ensure the
sustainability of land uses in the region. There are aspects of the Basin Plan
that will be positive in this regard, such as the inclusion of groundwater in
Sustainable Diversion Limits. However, it was not clear to the committee that
the existing framework for managing impacts of new developments in the Basin is
adequate.
3.43
The adequacy of environmental protections guaranteed by existing
regulations was questioned by a number of submitters and witnesses to the
inquiry. The NFF submission expressed significant concerns over the adequacy of
the regulatory processes that support the evaluation and operation and mining
development. The NFF have sought greater clarity in regulations concerning
access to land.[69]
A number of other submitters and witnesses were concerned about the
independence of environmental assessments, arguing that they were often self
assessments by mining companies.
3.44
The Friends of Felton stated:
I think the mines tend to do their own monitoring. A common
complaint is that the results tend to be averaged over a monthly period, so you
can have a couple of really windy days with terrible dust levels and then a few
calm days after that and, as long as the average is under the maximum limit,
the EPA does nothing. There have to be changes there, I would say.[70]
3.45
A number of witnesses also expressed reservations about the independence
of governments that receive large amounts of mining royalties from the mining
industry. The Haystack Road Coal Committee also expressed concern that
independence was lacking in the Tarong Energy project:
The government owns Tarong and the government has been
suggesting to Tarong that they need to sell Haystack Road for a mine. So we do
not have a great deal of confidence that the government is this time going to
pick up $400 million for Haystack Road and then tell whoever buys it, ‘You
cannot mine it because it is prime country.’[71]
3.46
Such examples illustrate the range of regulatory shortfalls perceived by
submitters and witnesses. However, the most pertinent complaint made by
submitters and witnesses to this inquiry is the level of protection afforded to
water resources, including recharge areas, in the MDB. Many submitters and
witnesses argued that in the absence of detailed knowledge concerning the
interconnectivity of groundwater systems with the MDB and the potential impacts
mining could have on these water resources, the government should reconsider
its decision to grant Mineral Exploration Licences in these areas. Namoi Water
argued:
...the area should not have been released. I think the state
department is negligent in releasing exploration licences in rectangles and
then expecting the miners to go out and have a guess at what level of risk they
are willing to undertake. That is what the government is asking the miners to
do. That leaves landholders and communities in great uncertainty.[72]
3.47
There are some signs that actions are being taken to address these
concerns. There is some activity underway at a Commonwealth level to examine
the impact of mining on the MDB. This includes:
a) A $2
million multi-jurisdictional NWC commissioned project titled: Potential Local
and Cumulative effects of mining on Groundwater Resources – and the development
of tools to aid prediction and minimisation of cumulative impacts;
b) A $1.5
million contribution by the Commonwealth to the joint study into surface and
groundwater resources of the Namoi Catchment in NSW; and
c) Up to $5
million, subject to due diligence, for a feasibility study to analyse
opportunities, risks and practicability of the use of coal seam gas water in
parts of the Queensland MDB.[73]
3.48
Section 255A of the Water Act also seeks to recognise the relationship
between surface floodplain water and underground aquifers, specifically in the
context of mining activity. Section 255A states:
255A Mitigation of unintended diversions
Prior to licences being granted for subsidence mining
operations on floodplains that have underlying groundwater systems forming part
of the Murray-Darling system inflows, an independent expert study must be
undertaken to determine the impacts of the proposed mining operations on the
connectivity of groundwater systems, surface water and groundwater flows and
water quality.
3.49
What section 255A also highlights, however, is the lack of scientific
knowledge that is hampering effective planning of developments in the basin.
A lack of knowledge
3.50
Submitters and witnesses raised serious reservations about the viability
of mining in an area where water resources sustain agricultural livelihoods.
However, the committee found it difficult to substantiate the anecdotal
evidence without concrete scientific analysis of the damage mining could potentially
have on individual sites, the region and the broader MDB. Based on the limited
evidence presented to the inquiry, it is possible that existing mining
operations in the Liverpool Plains and the Darling Downs are largely compliant
with the current regulatory framework. However, a lack of scientific knowledge
can make it hard to know whether this compliance is complete, or whether it is
actually protecting water resources and water quality within the Basin.
3.51
Evidence presented by the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and
the Arts (DEWHA) supported the view that there is currently a lack of adequate
scientific knowledge around the groundwater management issues.[74]
DEWHA stated:
The sites and data that we hold about water resources
nationally and in the basin are much more comprehensive for surface water than
for groundwater. Therefore, in the absence of a comprehensive information set
about groundwater resources, when issues do come up they tend to have to be the
subject of special purpose studies of this nature....‘Do we know enough about
groundwater?’ I think the short answer is that there is a lot more to learn to
bring our knowledge up to the level we have with surface water resources.[75]
3.52
The Namoi Catchment Water Study is a study, partially funded by the
Commonwealth:
into surface and groundwater resources of the Namoi Catchment
in NSW. The study is intended to provide high quality information to help
identify the risks associated with mining on water resources in the region, and
to inform the NSW Government's decision-making processes.[76]
3.53
The Namoi water study has been endorsed by mining companies, industry
peak bodies and local community groups with funding provided by jointly by the
Commonwealth and industry.[77]
The study will look at the entire Namoi catchment area of which the Caroona
Coal Project is one part.[78]
Industry representatives and Shenhua Watermark have further stated that
information gathered during the exploration phase will be fed into the study.[79]
The Shenhua submission stated:
Shenhua Watermark is committed to the success of the Namoi
Water Study. All data produced as part of the Watermark Project will be
presented for inclusion in the Study. Shenhua has committed funds to the study,
an amount which has not yet been determined. Project Director for the Watermark
Project, Joe Clayton, will also sit on the SAG [stakeholder advisory group] committee.[80]
3.54
The NSW government has indicated that it would not be matching the funds
contributed by the Commonwealth government to the joint water study in the
Namoi Catchment. In an answer to a question without notice in the New South
Wales Legislative Council, former minister the Hon. Ian Macdonald stated:
I am not writing out any cheque in relation to this matter.
The Government has decided, following discussions with Mr Peters and the
department on this matter, that it would not be matching the funds provided by
the Commonwealth. Just because the Commonwealth has put up $1.5 million for
this or any other project does not mean that we should have to follow suit.
However, my understanding from discussions in the committee is that adequate
funds will be available for that water study.[81]
3.55
The committee is concerned that the NSW government appeared unwilling to
fund important water studies, and does not appear to have given an undertaking
to wait for the results of the Namoi water study before issuing further licences.
The committee urges relevant state governments to play their part in expediting
research so that the results can inform assessment and planning approval processes.
3.56
The committee believes that there is an important and increasing role
for regional planning and for the Commonwealth in light of increasing evidence
of impacts on water resources that cross jurisdictions within the Murray
Darling Basin.
Stronger regional planning
3.57
During the current inquiry, there was support from a range of
stakeholders for planning processes that operate at a regional level and take
account of the cumulative effects of developments. A regional approach to
planning was proposed by the Minerals Council of Australia during a previous
inquiry by this committee, into the operation of the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. At a public hearing on 9 December
2008 for that inquiry, the Minerals Council of Australia made the following
comment:
We therefore consider that a more appropriate role for the
Commonwealth would be in strategic bioregional planning, pre-emptive of
development pressure and across larger time frames. Individual projects would
then be approved by states and territories, which would have responsibility to
ensure that the project fits within the remit of the bioregional plan. The
Commonwealth’s role would then be to assess, list, monitor and report on ecological
entities of national significance, to develop regional plans that cross-cut
natural resource portfolios—for example, biodiversity, water, minerals and
socioeconomic values—and audit states and developers on the subsequent
implementation and compliance with these plans and approval conditions.[82]
3.58
The chair of the Haystack Road Coal Committee drew attention to this
proposal and supported it, suggesting it was a practical step that could better
inform the debate on mining in the Murray Darling Basin.[83]
Friends of Felton wanted a regional planning process that would involve land
zoning to restrict the areas where mining could be undertaken.[84]
3.59
The committee received evidence that the cumulative impact of mining is
not currently being adequately monitored, making adequate regional planning
impossible. Agforce stated that:
...the death by a thousand cuts or the cumulative impact that
we are constantly referring to is at no point in time actually monitored,
measured or verified by anyone other than the resource companies themselves. As
mentioned by my colleague earlier, at this point in time the state government
has the capacity to require that monitoring to be done under two specific
sections of the petroleum and gas act. But until very recent times, regardless
of the fact that some of these sites have been operational for several years
now, that information has not been made available to the government, nor has
the government actually chased it. So the overall knowledge about what that
cumulative impact is, regardless of an action plan if there is an impact, is
null and void at this point in time because it does not exist.[85]
3.60
This view was echoed by the Minerals Council of Australia in December
2008:
Currently, we have a number of disparate processes that are
occurring across the landscape. When mining companies are going for project
approval they are looking at a small area of land and potentially going through
six layers of processes to get access to that portion of land. A neighbouring
operation may be occurring that is perhaps a non-mining project. Currently,
there is no process for actually looking at what the cumulative impact on the
landscape is of those two disparate processes. There are two layers of
silos—the silos of the individual projects themselves, often occurring in
parallel with each other but not being considered as a combined entity and
there are also a number of silos at the different layers of biodiversity,
management and protection.[86]
3.61
The Queensland Murray Darling Committee was likewise concerned that the
cumulative effect of mining be assessed, to assess 'what the overall footprint
of the industry may be'.[87]
In Gunnedah, the committee heard similar concerns from Namoi Water, which was
concerned about the lack of a planning process that considered water at a
landscape scale.[88]
3.62
Section 255A of the Commonwealth's Water Act, mentioned earlier, represents
significant recognition of the need to plan development based on a holistic
understanding of the links between groundwater systems and water flows in the
Murray Darling Basin. The committee was however unable to determine if Section
255A covers interconnected underground water resources located in ridge country
above floodplains, and not just the floodplains themselves. The committee also notes
that this section of the Act does not seek to place a prohibition on the
licensing of mining should the expert studies result in negative findings.
Section 255A as it stands has the potential to ensure the discovery of
potential negative impacts of a mining development on the Basin, yet the
section triggers no mechanism that will prevent that impact.
3.63
Beyond such specific provisions, the committee believes that regional planning
mechanisms would provide a more robust knowledge base from which to assess the
viability of mining in a particular area and ensure that there is adequate
knowledge of the potential risks to national water resources.
3.64
There also needs to be greater inter-government coordination and
increased understanding of the cumulative impact of mining in the MDB. While
case-by-case assessments are important, the committee believes that aggregating
knowledge about a region and its water resource will enable a more thorough
understanding of the cumulative impacts of mining in the MDB.
3.65
The committee suggests that the Namoi Catchment Water Study is an
example of a regional planning process that is consistent with the proposal
made by the Minerals Council of Australia and supported by other stakeholders.
As such it deserves the support of all governments.
Recommendation 1
3.66 The committee recommends that all governments support the Namoi
Catchment Water Study and not take further decisions in relation to the licensing
of mining and extractive industries in the Namoi catchment until that study is
completed and publicly released.
Recommendation 2
3.67 The committee recommends that, as a matter of priority and preferably
prior to the release of future Mineral Exploration Licences, state governments
establish regional water plans in areas potentially subject to mining or
extractive industry operations.
Recommendation 3
3.68 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government:
- investigate the scope of Section 255A of the Water Act 2007
to determine whether it applies to groundwater resources located in ridge
country. If this is not the case, the committee recommends that the
Commonwealth Government amend Section 255A to include groundwater resources on
all land types.
- Work with the states to ensure the prohibition of the licensing
of mining or extractive industries in the event that a study conducted under
section 255A indicates that development would have adverse impacts on
groundwater resources and the environment.
Recommendation 4
3.69 The committee, noting extensive planning and research already being
undertaken including the National Water Initiative, the Basin Plan, regional
water plans and other studies currently underway,
- Urges all governments to maximise use of information and data
gleaned from planning and research activities to ensure that coordinated
analysis of regional water plans takes place, so as to better understand the
cumulative impacts of mining in the Murray-Darling Basin; and
- Recommends that the Commonwealth Government works to ensure the prevention
of new mines or extractive industries in the Murray Darling Basin if their
impacts on water resources are inconsistent with the Basin Plan.
Senator Simon Birmingham
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page