Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation v Canning Potash Pty Ltd - [2016] NNTTA 55

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation v Canning Potash Pty Ltd and Another [2016] NNTTA 55 (30 November 2016)

Application No:

WO2015/0757 & WO2015/0758

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application

Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation (WCD2007/005)

(native title party)

- and -

Canning Potash Pty Ltd

(grantee party)

- and -

State of Western Australia

(Government party)

DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTS ARE ACTS ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE

Tribunal:	Helen Shurven, Member
Place:	Perth
Date:	30 November 2016

Catchwords:

Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licences – expedited procedure objection application – whether community or social activities are carried on by the native title holders – whether the licences are likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of the community or social activities – whether there are areas or sites of particular significance to the native title holders – expedited procedure applies

Legislation:

Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 237

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)

Mining Act 1978 (WA) s 66

Cases:

Cheinmora v Striker Resources NL & Ors; Dann v Western Australia (1996) ALR 21; [1997] FCA 1147 (‘Cheinmora v Striker Resources’)

McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 534; [1984] FCA 57

Silver v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 1; [2002] NNNTA 18 (‘Silver v Northern Territory’)

Smith v Western Australia (2001) 108 FCR 442; [2001] FCA 19 (‘Smith v Western Australia’)

Walley and Others v Western Australia and Another (2002) 169 FLR 437; [2002] NNTTA 24 ('Walley v Western Australia')

Ward and Others v Western Australia and Another (1996) 69 FCR 208; [1996] FCA 1452 (‘Ward v Western Australia’)

Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd [2014] NNTTA 8 (‘Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation v FMG Pilbara’)

Representatives of the native title party:

Ms Megan Highfold, KRED Legal Pty Ltd

Representative of the grantee party:

Mr Ryan de Franck, Canning Potash Pty Ltd

Representatives of the Government party:

Mr Michael McMahon, Department of Mines & Petroleum

Ms Sarah Power, State Solicitors Office

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION

On 29 May 2015, the State Government of Western Australia gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act) of its intention to grant exploration licences E04/2402 and E04/2403 (the licences) to Canning Potash Pty Ltd (Canning Potash).
E04/2402 covers an area of approximately 497.33 square kilometres, and is located about 213 kilometres south west of Fitzroy Crossing in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. E04/2403 covers an area of approximately 193.76 square kilometres, about 188 kilometres south-west of Fitzroy Crossing in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. Both licences are situated entirely within the boundaries of the Ngurrara Part A native title determination, which encompasses an area of approximately 75,847.33 square kilometres. The licences are located in the northern portion of the determination.
The State included an expedited procedure statement in their notice, which means the licences can be granted without going through the normal negotiation procedure required under the Act unless: a) persons who hold or claim native title to the area, and whose names are entered on the Register of Native Title Claims or the National Native Title Register, object; and b) if the objection is not withdrawn or dismissed, I determine the licences are not acts attracting the expedited procedure.
The Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation holds the native title rights and interests on behalf of the persons who are part of the Ngurrara Part A native title determination. The Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation has objected to the application of the expedited procedure to the grant of the licences.
To answer the question of whether the licence can be granted in such an expedited way, I was appointed by the President of the Tribunal, Raelene Webb QC, to be the Member conducting the inquiry in this matter.
A decision that the expedited procedure should apply to the grants means Canning Potash can proceed to explore on the licences without negotiating with the Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation. A decision that the expedited procedure does not apply means Canning Potash and the State must negotiate in good faith with the Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation prior to the grants. Those negotiations may be done with or without the assistance of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal must determine whether the grant of the licences are acts attracting the expedited procedure by reference to the following criteria (see s 237 of the Act):
(a)Are the grants likely to interfere directly with the community or social activities of the Ngurrara people?
(b)Are the grants likely to interfere with areas or sites of particular significance according to the traditions of the Ngurrara people?
(c)Are the grants likely to involve, or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve, major disturbance to the land or waters concerned?
All references to sections of legislation in this determination are to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) unless otherwise stated.
I must answer these questions by making a predictive assessment of whether the grant of the licences is likely to have those effects. In performing this assessment, I must look at what is likely to occur as a result of the grants and decide whether there is a real chance or risk of interference or major disturbance, having regard to the rights conferred by the grant of the licences, the nature of the proposal and the applicable regulatory regime (see YAC v FMG Pilbara at [15]–[21]; Walley v Western Australia at [8]–[9]).
All parties submitted contentions in this matter. The Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation also provided affidavits from Ms Bugurra Woia and Mr Peter Murray. Ms Woia deposes she is a Walmajarri and Juwaliny traditional owner through both of her parents and states her family walked out of the desert in 1967. Ms Woia states she has walked all over the country and learned its stories from her elders, and she has indicated familiarity with the areas of the licences after being shown a map which identified them. Mr Murray deposes his bush/skin name is Waluwai and that he was born in Derby. Mr Murray states he is a traditional owner for the Ngurrara people through his mother’s family, and has indicated he is familiar with areas of the licences after being shown a map which identified them. Mr Murray states his ancestors were raised on the country where the licences are located and he is learning all the stories about the area. Neither the State nor Canning Potash raised any objection to Ms Woia’s or Mr Murray’s evidence, and I accept they both have the requisite authority to speak for country on behalf of the Ngurrara people.
The Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation does not contend the grant of the licences is likely to involve, or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve, major disturbance to land or waters. The State submits there is nothing in the nature of the licences that would likely result in any major disturbance to land or waters. Based on the evidence before me, I find the licences are not likely to involve, or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve, major disturbance to the land or waters concerned.
The Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation does argue there is a high probability the grant of the licences will interfere directly with the social or community activities carried on in the area by members of the claim group. They also assert the grant of the licences is likely to interfere with sites of particular significance to members of the Ngurrara people.
On the basis of the submissions provided by parties, I address the following issues in this decision to determine whether or not the expedited procedure should apply to the grant of the licence:
(a)Is the grant likely to interfere directly with the community or social activities of the Ngurrara people?
i)What are the Ngurrara people’s community or social activities that may be affected by the grant of the licences?
ii)What activities does Canning Potash intend to carry out on the licences?
iii)Conclusion.
(b)Is there a real risk of interference with areas or sites of particular significance to the Ngurrara people?
i)What areas or sites are identified by the Ngurrara people on the licence?
ii)Are these identified areas or sites of particular significance for the purposes of s 237(b)?
iii)Conclusion.

(a)Is the grant likely to interfere directly with the community or social activities of the Ngurrara people?

What are the Ngurrara people’s community or social activities that may be affected by the grant of the licences?

The first thing I must determine is what relevant community or social activities take place on the licences. The Ngurrara people contend they hunt, gather bush tucker and bush medicines, look after sites or areas of particular significance and pass on intergenerational teaching knowledge to Ngurrara children within the licence areas. The affidavits of Mr Murray and Ms Woia are provided in support of those contentions.
Mr Murray states Ngurrara families live in the communities of Yari Yari and Djilumbardi, which are close to the licence areas, and access the licence areas to go hunting and collect bush foods and medicines. I note that, based on the map attached to Mr Murray’s affidavit and the Tribunal’s own databases, it would appear Yari Yari is approximately 53 kilometres north of E04/2403 and Djilumbardi is approximately 55 kilometres north east of E04/2403.
Mr Murray states there are stories related to the licence areas which he and other Ngurrara people know, and provides instructions about who can access country and how. In particular, Mr Murray states he cannot go to the licence areas without the appropriate elder to point out areas he is not allowed to go. Mr Murray says these stories are passed onto Ngurrara children in order to keep the country and their sites strong, and that Ngurrara people wish for companies to talk to them before accessing Ngurrara country, to show respect and to be educated about what areas require caution. He says it is his job to ensure his country is protected.
Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation’s contentions outline that the Ngurrara people rely on food and medicines collected in the licence areas, which increase the likelihood of direct, and more than a trivial, interference by Canning Potash. However, the supporting affidavits only briefly note that Ngurrara people access the licence areas to hunt, gather food and collect bush medicines.
Each inquiry must be considered on its own facts and, where facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the party to an issue, and where no evidence is adduced, that may lead to an unfavourable inference being drawn (Silver v Northern Territory at [23]; see also [23]–[24] of this decision).

What activities does Canning Potash intend to carry out on the licences?

The licence, if granted, will authorise Canning Potash to:
·enter and re-enter the licence with such agents, employees, vehicles, machinery and equipment as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of exploring for minerals;
·explore for minerals, and carry on such operations and works in the licence area as are necessary for that purpose including digging pits, trenches and holes, and sinking bores and tunnels;
·excavate, extract or remove earth, soil, rock, stone, fluid or mineral bearing substances from the land within the prescribed amount or in such greater amount as the relevant Minister may approve in writing. The prescribed amount is 1,000 tonnes over the life of the licence; and
·take and divert, subject to the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA), water from any natural spring, lake, pool or stream situate in or flowing through the licence area and to sink wells or bores and take water so obtained for domestic purposes and for any purpose in connection with exploring for minerals on the land: see s 66 of the Mining Act 1978 (WA).
Canning Potash’s contentions outline negotiations that occurred, and are still occurring, between Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation and Canning Potash in relation to the terms of a heritage protection agreement over the licence areas. Canning Potash states it welcomes the involvement of Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation to collaborate in regards to the implementation of their proposed work program, to ensure there is no interference with the Ngurrara people’s community and social activities.
Canning Potash has not provided information about the activities it proposes to undertake on the licence areas. However, upon applying for the licences, it provided its proposed works programs to the Department of Mines and Petroleum. The State provided the proposed works programs as part of its evidence. Canning Potash has set out its works program as follows:
Phase One:
·Desktop review of historical exploration and evaluation activities.
Phase Two:
·Land access agreement;
·Aboriginal heritage survey (if required);
·Drilling program (scope to be determined based on findings from Phase One).
Phase Three:
·Flora, fauna and environmental study;
·Scoping study (including further drilling and metallurgical tests work as required).
Canning Potash’s contentions outline its intention to engage with the Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation to ensure there is no interference with the Ngurrara People’s community or social activities. I also note Canning Potash will be subject to the conditions and endorsements the State intends to impose on the licences on grant (see Appendices 1 and 2 to this decision). In addition, the State intends to apply a Regional Standard Heritage Agreement condition to the grant of the licence, which would mean the Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation could request such an agreement be executed, within 90 days of the grant of the licences.

Conclusion

In answering whether the grant of the licences is likely to interfere with the Ngurrara people’s social or community activities, I am not to have regard to impacts that are trivial or which are not relevant to the carrying on of the community or social activities (see Smith v Western Australia at [26]). Rather, the evidence must disclose a real risk or chance of direct interference with community or social activities, and the interference must be substantial in its impact on community or social activities.
Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation contends the grant of the exploration licences is likely to interfere directly with the community and social activities identified. It appears from the evidence that Ngurrara people conduct the activities of hunting, gathering food and bush medicine on the licence areas. However, I agree with the State’s submission that the Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation has presented no evidence to indicate the frequency with which Ngurrara people conduct these activities or the duration of their visits. It is unclear from the evidence how frequently Ngurrara people access the licence areas to conduct their activities and whether the activities can only take place on the licence areas or whether these activities are able to take place elsewhere on Ngurrara country. This information is within the particular knowledge of the Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation. As Carr J stated in Ward v Western Australia at [26] (approving McDonald v Director-General of Social Security, Woodward J):
...where facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of a party to an issue, its failure to produce evidence as to those facts may lead to an unfavourable inference being drawn when the administrative tribunal applies its common sense approach to evidence.
I note the total size of the Ngurrara A determination area is approximately 75,847 square kilometres, and the size of the licence areas is approximately 691 square kilometres. While the Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation has provided evidence the Ngurrara people carry out specific activities on the licence areas, they have not provided evidence to indicate these activities could not be carried out in other areas of the determination area, or the extent to which people from the distant Yari Yari and Djilumbardi communities visit the licences.
In relation to the transfer of intergenerational knowledge, it is unclear whether the Ngurrara people pass on intergenerational knowledge on the licence areas, or about the licence areas. That is, there is nothing in the evidence which clearly shows the transfer of knowledge takes place on the licence areas, or whether stories related to the areas are taught to Ngurrara children elsewhere.
More detailed information, as to the frequency, duration and location of the Ngurrara people’s activities on the licence, would assist me in assessing the likelihood of Canning Potash’s activities interfering with those activities. In the absence of such information from the Yanunijarra Aboriginal Corporation, I conclude – taking into account the lack of evidence, the significant size of each licence, and the nature of Canning Potash’s proposed exploration activities – the grant of the licences is unlikely to interfere directly with the community or social activities of the Ngurrara people.

(b)Is there a real risk of interference with areas or sites of particular significance to the Ngurrara people?

I am to conduct my assessment of the s 237(b) in two stages. First, I must ascertain if there are any areas or sites of particular (that is, more than ordinary) significance to the Ngurrara people in accordance with their traditions within the licence areas. This is a threshold question to the inquiry into whether the grant of the licences is likely to cause interference with areas or sites of this kind (see YAC v FMG Pilbara at [125]). Only if I find there are such sites or areas, am I then required to consider whether there is likely to be (in the sense of a real risk of) interference with those areas or sites.

What areas or sites are identified by the Ngurrara people on the licence?

Mr Murray does not provide evidence in relation to areas or sites of particular significance on the licence areas, apart from mentioning there are very special and important places, and deferring to Ms Woia to provide evidence.
Ms Woia deposes the licences are located in an area called ‘Yarnday’, which is a wide, open, flat country extending all the way to the ocean. I note the distance between these licences and the ocean is approximately 270 kilometres. She tells of a Dreamtime story regarding snakes which created the country by travelling from a place called ‘Payarr’, which is east of the licence areas, towards Mangala country. Ms Woia says that the snakes met many things as they travelled and ate people; when the snakes ate too much their stomachs burst and this created many rock formations across the country, including within the licence areas.
Ms Woia also states the snakes travelled to an area called ‘Mulji’, and went into a waterhole there after eating all the people in that area. She says the snakes still reside in the waterhole and people cannot go there as it is dangerous. Ms Woia states this waterhole is located within E04/2402.
Ms Woia deposes that strangers to the country must go there with the right people for that country, who can perform the proper rituals to introduce the strangers to the spirits. Ms Woia states if those procedures are not followed, then those strangers will be punished through sickness or death as the spirits of that country will protect it.

Are these identified areas or sites of particular significance for the purposes of s 237(b)?

The State conducted searches of the Register of Aboriginal Sites, maintained by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (AHA), and those searches revealed no registered sites or other heritage places within the licence areas. The AHA protects ‘Aboriginal sites’, as defined in s 4 of the AHA, whether those sites are registered or not. Section 4 defines ‘Aboriginal site’ to mean a place to which the AHA applies ‘by the operation of section 5’. The existence of sites recorded on the DAA register does not necessarily mean they are of ‘particular significance’ for the purposes of s 237(b). Conversely, a site of particular significance for the purposes of s 237(b) does not need to be recorded on the DAA register. A native title party may establish that one or more sites constitute ‘areas or sites of particular significance’ to them ‘in accordance with their traditions’ (per s 237(b)) by providing sufficient evidence, whether or not they appear on the DAA register.
The question that arises under s 237(b) is whether there are any areas or sites of particular significance to the Ngurrara people in accordance with their traditions within either of the licence areas. An area or site of particular significance is one of special or more than ordinary significance to the native title holders (see Cheinmora v Striker Resources at 34–35). If an area or site is significant, it must be known and able to be located and the nature of its significance explained (see Silver v Northern Territory at [91].

Yarnday

The evidence provided about Yarnday is limited and brief, and there is little which explains why it is important to the Ngurrara people. I note Yarnday covers a vast distance, and there is no evidence which establishes that it, or the portion of it located within the licences, stands out from other sites and areas, making it of particular or more than ordinary significance to the Ngurrara people. On the basis of the material before me, I find Yarnday is not a site of particular significance for the purposes of this inquiry.

Mulji

I now turn my attention to the site identified as ‘Mulji’. The State argues the sites location has not been sufficiently identified. However, I find it is sufficiently clear that Mulji is located on E04/2402, and I accept the evidence that ‘Mulji’ is located there. The site has been linked to a Dreamtime snake story, and been identified as dangerous, but there is no further evidence to explain why it is dangerous or how it is significant to the Ngurrara people. I also note the rock formations from the Dreamtime snakes are not only within the licences related to this inquiry, but are ‘all over this Yarnday’.
It has also been asserted there are places on the licences that are ‘very special and important to the Ngurrara people’, and that are dangerous, but no further information is provided. For example, I could assume one of the special places to which Mr Murray refers is Mulji, but this would be supposition given the brevity of his evidence.
Mr Murray and Ms Woia contend people must only go to the licence areas with the right people for country and perform specific rituals or they may be punished, get sick or die. Based on Ms Woia’s evidence, I assume this applies to Mulji. While this is evidence of the beliefs of the Ngurrara people, it does not explain why Mulji stands out from other sites as being of particular or more than ordinary significance. I therefore find Mulji is not a site of particular significance for the purposes of this inquiry.

Conclusion

Taking into account the evidence and information presented in this matter, I conclude there are no sites of particular significance for the purposes of s 237(b). As such, I do not need to consider whether interference with sites of particular significance is likely.

Overall conclusions

Although the Ngurrara people carry on certain community and social activities within the licences, I am not satisfied the grant of the licences is likely to directly or substantially interfere with these activities. The evidence also does not establish the existence of areas or sites of particular significance to the Ngurrara people which may be affected by activities of Canning Potash on the grant of the licences. Finally, there is no evidence the grant of the licences is likely to involve, or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve, major disturbance to the land and waters concerned.

Determination

The determination of the Tribunal is that the acts, namely the grants of exploration licences E04/2402 and E04/2403 to Canning Potash Pty Ltd, are acts attracting the expedited procedure.

Helen Shurven
Member
30 November 2016

APPENDIX 1: CONDITIONS AND ENDORSEMENTS ON GRANT OF LICENCE – E04/2402

Conditions

All surface holes drilled for the purpose of exploration are to be capped, filled or otherwise made safe immediately after completion.

All disturbances to the surface of the land made as a result of exploration, including costeans, drill pads, grid lines and access tracks, being backfilled and rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Officer, Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP). Backfilling and rehabilitation being required no later than 6 months after excavation unless otherwise approved in writing by the Environmental Officer, DMP.
All waste materials, rubbish, plastic sample bags, abandoned equipment and temporary buildings being removed from the mining tenement prior to or at the termination of exploration program.
Unless the written approval of the Environmental Officer, DMP is first obtained, the use of drilling rigs, scrapers, graders, bulldozers, backhoes or other mechanised equipment for surface disturbance or the excavation of costeans is prohibited. Following approval, all topsoil being removed ahead of mining operations and separately stockpiled for replacement after backfilling and/or completion of operations.
No interference with Geodetic Survey Station SSM-NMF 306-307, SSM-NMF 2008, SSM-EM 127 and mining within 15 metres thereof being confined to below a depth of 15 metres from the natural surface.

Endorsements

The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and any related Regulations thereunder.

The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004, which provides for the protection of all native vegetation from damage unless prior permission is obtained.

In respect to Water Resource Management Areas (WRMA) the following endorsements apply:

The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the provisions of the:
·Water Conservation Act, 1976
·Rights in Water and Irrigation Act, 1914
·Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Act, 1909
·Country Areas Water Supply Act, 1947
·Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984
·Water Resources Legislation Amendment Act 2007

The rights of ingress to and egress from the mining tenement being at all reasonable times preserved to officers of Department of Water (DoW) for inspection and investigation purposes.
The storage and disposal of petroleum hydrocarbons, chemicals and potentially hazardous substances being in accordance with the current published version of the DoWs relevant Water Quality Protection Notes and Guidelines for mining and mineral processing.

In respect to Artesian (confined) Aquifers and Wells the following endorsement applies:

The abstraction of groundwater from an artesian well and the construction, enlargement, deepening or altering of any artesian well is prohibited unless a current licence for these activities has been issued by DoW.

In respect to Waterways the following endorsement applies:

Advice shall be sought from the DoW if proposing any exploration within a defined waterway and within a lateral distance of:
·50 metres from the outer-most water dependent vegetation of any perennial waterway; and
·30 metres from the outer-most water dependent vegetation of any seasonal waterway.

In respect to Proclaimed Ground Water Areas (Canning-Kimberley) the following endorsement applies:

The abstraction of groundwater is prohibited unless a current licence to construct/alter a well and a licence to take groundwater has been issued by the DoW.

APPENDIX 2: CONDITIONS AND ENDORSEMENTS ON GRANT OF LICENCE – E04/2403

Conditions

All surface holes drilled for the purpose of exploration are to be capped, filled or otherwise made safe immediately after completion.

All disturbances to the surface of the land made as a result of exploration, including costeans, drill pads, grid lines and access tracks, being backfilled and rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Officer, Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP). Backfilling and rehabilitation being required no later than 6 months after excavation unless otherwise approved in writing by the Environmental Officer, DMP.
All waste materials, rubbish, plastic sample bags, abandoned equipment and temporary buildings being removed from the mining tenement prior to or at the termination of exploration program.
Unless the written approval of the Environmental Officer, DMP is first obtained, the use of drilling rigs, scrapers, graders, bulldozers, backhoes or other mechanised equipment for surface disturbance or the excavation of costeans is prohibited. Following approval, all topsoil being removed ahead of mining operations and separately stockpiled for replacement after backfilling and/or completion of operations.

Endorsements

The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and any related Regulations thereunder.

The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004, which provides for the protection of all native vegetation from damage unless prior permission is obtained.

In respect to Water Resource Management Areas (WRMA) the following endorsements apply:

The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the provisions of the:
·Water Conservation Act, 1976
·Rights in Water and Irrigation Act, 1914
·Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Act, 1909
·Country Areas Water Supply Act, 1947
·Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984
·Water Resources Legislation Amendment Act 2007

The rights of ingress to and egress from the mining tenement being at all reasonable times preserved to officers of Department of Water (DoW) for inspection and investigation purposes.
The storage and disposal of petroleum hydrocarbons, chemicals and potentially hazardous substances being in accordance with the current published version of the DoWs relevant Water Quality Protection Notes and Guidelines for mining and mineral processing.

In respect to Artesian (confined) Aquifers and Wells the following endorsement applies:

The abstraction of groundwater from an artesian well and the construction, enlargement, deepening or altering of any artesian well is prohibited unless a current licence for these activities has been issued by DoW.

In respect to Waterways the following endorsement applies:

Advice shall be sought from the DoW if proposing any exploration within a defined waterway and within a lateral distance of:
·50 metres from the outer-most water dependent vegetation of any perennial waterway; and
·30 metres from the outer-most water dependent vegetation of any seasonal waterway.

In respect to Proclaimed Ground Water Areas (Canning-Kimberley) the following endorsement applies:

The abstraction of groundwater is prohibited unless a current licence to construct/alter a well and a licence to take groundwater has been issued by the DoW.