Here is a concise English version you can use:

---

If we want to know whether an aquifer, hot spring or underground mine gallery was damaged naturally or by human intervention (sabotage or improper drilling/blasting) in the past, the closest thing to a “definitive” method is to combine several lines of evidence into a single forensic hydrogeology protocol.

1. Reconstruct the “natural” state

1. Collect historical geological and hydrogeological data:

• Geological and fault/fracture maps, borehole logs, old mine/tunnel designs, earthquake records. [1]
• Historical groundwater data: discharge, pressure, temperature, electrical conductivity, full chemistry (Na, Cl, Ca, Mg, SO₄, HCO₃, trace elements, REE, etc.). [2][3]

1. Use these data to build a numerical groundwater‑flow model that answers:
   “How would water flow and behave if there had been no human intervention?” [4][1]

This model is your natural reference.

2. Measure the current state in detail

For the same points and springs today:

• Hydrochemistry: ion ratios (Na/Cl, Ca/Mg, SO₄/Cl), EC, pH, trace elements, REE. [2][3]
• Isotope geochemistry: $$\delta^{18}O$$, $$\delta D$$, tritium (^3H), and if needed CFC/SF₆ “age” indicators. [4][5]
• Physical parameters: continuous records of discharge and pressure, turbidity/total suspended solids, temperature. [3][4]

You are looking for sudden jumps and inconsistencies: sharp changes in chemistry, isotopes or hydraulics, not slow natural trends.

3. Run a controlled tracer test (strong forward evidence)

If the system is still flowing and accessible:

1. Select a safe tracer that does not occur naturally in the system (e.g., SF₆, a perfluorocarbon tracer, a tagged salt/dye, or a heat tracer). [6][7][4]
2. Inject the tracer at a known recharge point.
3. Sample multiple wells, springs and outlets over time and measure tracer concentrations. [6][8]
4. Compare tracer arrival times, flows and breakthrough curves with the predictions of your natural‑state model. [6][1]

If the tracer:

• Arrives much faster than the model allows,
• Moves in a geologically unexpected direction, or
• Appears at a new outlet aligned with a tunnel, gallery or borehole,

then you have strong technical evidence for a man‑made short‑circuit / fracture that does not belong to the natural system. [6][1][9]

4. How to write the scientific conclusion

When you overlay all three layers (model, hydrochemistry/isotopes, tracer test), a forensic report can state, in clear technical language:

“The observed flow path and mixing behaviour cannot be explained by the known natural geology and hydrology. The tracer test, hydrochemical and isotopic fingerprints, and hydraulic responses together indicate a newly created, highly permeable pathway consistent with human intervention. The probability of a purely natural origin is low; human‑induced disturbance is strongly supported by the data.”

Science stops here. Calling it “sabotage” and identifying who did it requires additional legal evidence (permits, unauthorized drilling/blasting logs, witnesses, video, date–time records, etc.). [10][11]

This protocol can be applied to underground mines, aquifers and geothermal/hot‑spring systems; only the tracer choice and sampling network need to be adapted to the specific site.

If you tell me whether your case is a mine site or a hot‑spring/geothermal field, I can tailor this text into a short formal request to a university or geological survey.