A farmer’s fight for his land rights
Taking a CSG company to court
CENTRAL Queensland grazier Steven Swan had a gas pipeline corridor constructed on his Moura property. The length was 10km. There was a 40m work area with a 30m easement to be permitted over the pipeline when it was finished.
Mr Swan sought out Lestar Manning to help him with his case after he was dissatisfied with the conduct on his land and the rehabilitation efforts made by CSG company Santos.
The original case was dismissed in 2017, but Mr Swan has appealed.
“It all starts with the farmers becoming aware that there’s going to be a pipeline coming through the area,” Mr Manning said.
“Officers from Santos come out and draw up an agreement.
“They came out and talked to our client and they agreed on an easement.”
One of the critical documents is a Line List. The Line List includes the matters farmers are concerned about and want to see happen to their land.
One of the main concerns Mr Swan had for his property was the protection of his soils. He has good quality agricultural land and didn’t want the soils inverted or mixed. He also said he wanted to keep the soil free from rock.
Before CSG companies can proceed with construction the environmental impacts must be assessed. The Line List was included as part of the EIS for Mr Swan’s property.
“The company has to comply with the Environmental Authority and its conditions which require compliance with plans in the EIS,” Mr Manning said.
“The conditions say they must comply with the rehabilitation management plan that was part of the EIS.”
Conduct referred to before the Court during the construction phase by the contractor included a number of issues such fencing and gate issues, inversion of soil, distinct differences between the remainder of the paddock and the area where work occurred, rock from explosive use and introduced rock, and use of clay.
Mr Manning said during the construction phase rock was introduced over an area about 800m long, and at least 10m wide onto the property so work could continue during wet weather.
On another occasion, the CSG company contractor bulldozed an amount of red soil from the top of a hill to the bottom it was less affected by wet weather than the soil at the bottom of the hill.
Mr Swan came to Mr Manning about his case and they took the matter to court.
“The court had ordered a process where experts met and discussed what needed to be done to fix the land up. There were different opinions of what work needed to be done,” Mr Manning said.
“The Court ordered that work described by the Santos expert was to be done, so Santos undertook those works.
“Following the re-mediation work Mr Swan and his expert said it wasn’t sufficient and that the land hadn’t been returned to its pre-construction condition.”
The major ongoing concern was long-term productivity loss of the parts of the farm affected by the pipeline corridor.
Mr Swan and his expert alleged the land had not been returned to its pre-construction condition.
Both experts agreed that the mix of grasses that were previously growing on the land had not fully re-established and that could take two seasons to establish.
The case was dismissed as the court said the CSG company had made an effort to rehabilitate the land.
Santos believes the rehabilitation efforts made were up to standard and in 2017 the court ruled in their favour.
“In February 2017, The Planning and Environment Court found that we conducted our activities in accordance with our environmental authorities,” a Santos spokeswoman said.
“In giving his ruling, the Judge noted GLNG’s good faith and reasonable efforts to address the landholder’s concerns.”
Mr Manning was disappointed with the ruling.
“You have all these documents that are part of an EIS, and included in conditions of the Environmental Authority,” Mr Manning said.
“But then the court has said basically they are just a guideline.”
Mr Manning said he and Mr Swan were waiting for the decision from the Court of Appeal.