Activists consider legal challenge, saying rules related to source aquifer have been compromised

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

The Queensland environment department may have acted “unlawfully” when it approved of Adani’s groundwater plan, in the process backing down on a longstanding requirement that the miner provide definitive proof about the source of an ancient desert spring.

Environmental groups are now considering a legal challenge to the approval, partly because the state’s Department of Environment and Science (DES) appeared to negotiate a last-minute compromise with Adani rather than applying strict conditions.

The DES insisted on Friday that it had not changed its position when granting approval for Adani’s groundwater dependent ecosystems management plan – the final hurdle that will allow the company to begin construction of the Carmichael coalmine.

Adani: It all looks dodgy as hell and none of it has been explained properly | First Dog on the Moon Read more

But documents obtained by Guardian Australia, and an email sent by a DES spokesman on 9 April, indicate that the department softened its interpretation of a key requirement in the politically charged weeks before clearing the proposal.

The email of 9 April says the department believed the CSIRO and Geoscience Australia had highlighted “uncertainties” about whether Adani had identified the source aquifer of the Doongmabulla Springs complex.

“Based on the CSIRO and Geoscience Australia report, it would appear that a number of uncertainties remain, including whether the (groundwater plan) definitively identifies the source aquifers of the Doongmabulla Springs Complex, which has always been a requirement for state approval,” the email says.

Play Video 0:23 Leeanne Enoch ‘devastated’ at Adani mine impact on Indigenous people – video

Four days after the federal election, the Queensland premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, insisted on a timeframe for DES to make a decision about the groundwater plan. When the clock ran out on 13 June, Adani’s plan was approved, and DES had subtly changed its language.

It said Adani had “sufficiently” identified the “main source aquifer”. The miner’s conditions require it to identify the “source aquifer(s)”.

DES said its decision to approve the management plan was made after it received legal advice. It also took into account additional advice from the federal science agencies, received on 7 June, which said that “some level of uncertainty” would always exist with conceptual groundwater models.

As part of the approved plan, Adani has committed to future work to “improve the understanding of source aquifers”.

But environmental groups say the condition required Adani to identify the source of the springs before any groundwater plan could be approved; and that the process was designed to safeguard the springs from potential damage caused by the drawdown of groundwater during construction or mining operations.

On 11 June, two days before the approval was announced, Lock the Gate wrote to DES saying it would be “unlawful” to approve of Adani’s groundwater plan because expert advice clearly outlined that the source aquifers had not been established.

“By pressuring [DES] into approving the water plan without doing the required research and identifying beyond doubt the source aquifer for the Doongmabulla Springs Complex, Adani and the Queensland Government have found themselves in legally questionable territory,” Lock the Gate campaign coordinator Carmel Flint said.

'We will make this international': Adani protest to go global, says Bob Brown Read more

The Australian Conservation Foundation’s Stop Adani campaigner Christian Slattery said the group was considering the decision and examining legal avenues available.

“(The process) seems to show how politics has completely trumped science and the Queensland government has sold out the long-term interests of regional communities, traditional owners, and the environment,” he said.

“The watering down of that interpretation of that environmental authority condition is a clear demonstration of how the government is afraid to stand up to big mining corporations.”

Slattery said the groundwater plan deferred critical scientific research until after mining would commence and “when irreversible impacts may already have occurred”.

A DES spokesman said the department’s assessment of Adani’s various plans had “always been rigorous and based on the best available science”.

“As the independent regulator, the department made its own decision after receiving Adani’s final version of the (groundwater plan) on 12 June, which addressed previous feedback the department had given.

“The department and Adani met regularly … to ensure the plan was robust and provided the maximum environmental protection.”