Skip to main content

Deep groundwater - La Rocque and St. Catherine boreholes

This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.

Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.

STATES OF JERSEY

r

DEEP GROUNDWATER: LA ROCQUE AND ST. CATHERINE BOREHOLES

Lodged au Greffe on 30th January 2007 by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement

STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to re q uest the Minister for Planning and Environment to take the necessary steps for the boreholes recently

drilled at St.  Catherine and La Rocque for deep groundwater testing purposes to be re-drilled using alternative testing methods.

DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT

REPORT

The boreholes drilled at La Rocque and St. Catherine were created for research purposes – essentially to determine whether water from France reaches Jersey.

Unfortunately, the situation is now far from satisfactory –

  1. T h e sites were chosenbydiviners,but within certainparameters.Itwassuggested they shouldbeon the east coast, wherelandownerswanted boreholes, and,in the caseofSt. Catherine, moved to anotherarea in ordertosavemoney.
  2. T h e goalpostsappear to have been moved.The original exercisewas to determine source. That now appears to have changed to proving the existence of deep water whichwe all know exists in quantity anyway.
  3. H a lfwaythrough the exercise itwas admitted the isotope testchosenwas incapable of differentiating between wateroriginating in Jersey andwater originating from nearby France. In fact,itis alleged the test result gave the same reading aswater from nearbyFrance.
  4. It is alleged the borehole at St. Catherine provides very little water.Diviners are notnoted for failing to produce water, soone must assumemoving from thesite chosen to a lowerone in order to save money is responsible.
  5. T h e LaRocque bore is a disaster wrong materials and procedures have resulted in a borethat, despite being re-drilled, is still obstructed halfway down,contains debris from a shattered lining, and bits of electrical cable (presumably from a failed attempt to fit a borehole pump).Assuch,as a test site or a supply for water, itisuseless.

Clearly neither site, for reasons given above, is satisfactory for definitive testing or supply of water. In the case of the La Rocque bore, I am at a loss to understand the Minister's assertion that it was a success'. It is an engineering disaster, and no-one would accept it were it drilled for water supply. Quite how water samples can be taken from a 50 metre bore when one can't access past halfway because of collapse is beyond me. The contractor should be required to drill another free of charge.

The whole exercise has been flawed from the beginning. All parties were required to sign up that they would abide by the results. I agree that was fair, but do not agree that participants should be held to that when so much has changed since the start – not least the fact that the bores are not to original specification, in the right place, or properly drilled. For those reasons, the exercise must be done again – this time properly.

Financial and manpower implications

I believe the La Rocque bore should be re-drilled at the Contractor's expense as it was his faulty workmanship that caused it to be useless. The St.  Catherine bore was relocated at officer's request. I understand that not all the funds set aside for this experiment were utilised so I assume the Department has a balance sufficient to cover that one. Failing that, the cost will need to be met from the Department's revenue expenditure.