Laserfiche WebLink
11. On July 17, 2015, the Operator requested, by email, a 30 -day extension <br />of time to comply with the corrective action that required the Operator to repair the <br />breach and return the river to its original channel. The Operator's email explained <br />that it had been working diligently with Thornton's engineers and contractors <br />because, as the landowner, it was critical to Thornton to progress with repairs in a <br />manner that would facilitate the slurry walls repairs and in a manner that would <br />meet the Division of Water Resources guidelines. The Operator's email included an <br />email from Thornton verifying that the deadline for contractors to submit proposals <br />to conduct the repairs was July 17 at noon. Thornton estimated that after it <br />reviewed the submitted proposals, it would take the selected contractor twenty (20) <br />to thirty (30) days to complete the necessary repairs. The Division testified that it <br />denied the extension request by telephone on the following business day. <br />12. On July 21, 2015, the Division mailed a Reason to Believe a Violation <br />Exists and Notice of Board Hearing, identifying the failure to minimize disturbance <br />to the prevailing hydrologic balance as the violation to be considered by the Board <br />at its August 26, 2015 regularly scheduled meeting. <br />13. On July 29, 2015, Thornton noticed the Division that the South Platte <br />River had been returned to its original channel. <br />14. At the hearing, the Division argued that the breach event constituted <br />the Operator's failure to maintain the prevailing hydrologic balance in the area as <br />required by Rule 3.1.6 of the Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined <br />Land Reclamation Board for the Extraction of Construction Materials ("Rules") and <br />section 34-32.5-116(4)(h), C.R.S. The Division argued that the breach event was <br />foreseeable, and thus the Operator was responsible for maintaining the hydrologic <br />balance under the circumstances. <br />15. At the hearing, the Operator moved to admit six (6) exhibits into the <br />record. The Division objected only to the document marked as Exhibit 2, identified <br />as a letter from an engineer to the Operator, on the basis that the engineer was not <br />present at the hearing to be cross-examined. The Board sustained the objection and <br />admitted all of the Operator's exhibits except Exhibit 2. <br />16. The Operator acknowledged at the hearing that the reclamation <br />permit has not been released and that it is the responsible party for reclamation <br />issues that arise on the property, even though it is no longer the owner. The <br />Operator testified that it only has a right of access to enter the property to conduct <br />activities associated with the current reclamation plan, not to do the extensive <br />earth moving work that was required by the corrective action imposed by the <br />Division. The Operator further testified that it worked closely with Thornton, and <br />Aggregate Industries — WCR, Inc. <br />M-1999-034 3 <br />