Laserfiche WebLink
9. The Operator did not, in either the Permanent Plan proposed in TR -05 <br />or at the hearing, demonstrate that permanently diverting groundwater and surface <br />water into the reservoir, as proposed in TR -05, complied with all applicable water <br />laws and regulations governing injury to existing water rights. <br />10. TR -05 as submitted, was not in approvable form as it did not propose a <br />Permanent Plan that complied with all applicable water laws and regulations. The <br />Permanent Plan proposed is more accurately postured for an amendment process, <br />not a technical revision. <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />11. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Colorado <br />Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials, Article 32.5 of <br />Title 34, C.R.S. (2015) ("Act"). <br />12. Under Rule 2.8.1 of the Mineral rules and Regulations of the Colorado <br />Mined Land Reclamation Board for the Extraction of Construction Materials and <br />section 24-4-105(7), C.R.S., "the proponent of an order shall have the burden of <br />proof." As the party initiating this matter for a Board hearing, the Operator was the <br />"proponent of an order" and, therefore, had the burden at the hearing to prove that <br />the Division's determination was inconsistent with applicable laws and regulations. <br />The Operator failed to meet its burden of proof. <br />13. Under Rule 1.1(6), an "amendment" means a change in the permit <br />"which increases the acreage of the affected land, or which has a significant effect <br />upon the approved ... Reclamation Plan." Rule 1.1(49) defines "technical revision" to <br />mean a change in the permit "which does not have more than a minor effect upon the <br />approved ... Reclamation Plan." The Permanent Plan proposed in TR -05, which <br />includes diverting ground water and surface water into a reservoir designated as <br />isolated in the Reclamation Plan, will have a significant effect upon the approved <br />Reclamation Plan for the Hazeltine Mine. <br />14. Under section 34-32.5-112(7)(a), C.R.S., the Division or the Board are <br />required to review permit amendment applications "in the same manner as an <br />application for a new reclamation permit," including statutory notice and comment <br />periods to adjacent landowners, owners of structures within two hundred feet (200') <br />of the affected area boundary, and governmental agencies with jurisdictional <br />concerns. C.R.S. §§ 34-32.5-112(9)(c); Rule 1.1(21). <br />15. Reclamation plans are required to, among other things, "minimize <br />disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected land and of the <br />surrounding area and to the quality and quantity of water in surface and <br />Aggregate Industries — WCR, Inc. <br />M-2004-031 3 <br />