Laserfiche WebLink
1.5 cubic feet per second. Mr. Hesemann testified that the Applicant's proposed gravity <br /> drain,consisting of two eighteen-inch pipes,will convey in excess of that flow amount. Mr. <br /> Hesemann testified that the proposed drain will lower water levels a distance from the <br /> drain. Mr.Hesemann and counsel for the Applicant testified and'presented an exhibit <br /> indicating that the property owned by Fred Orr was not dry in 2005 and that ponds near <br /> the site were drained following implementation of the Temporary Plan. <br /> 19. At the hearing, Steve O'Brian of Environment,Inc. ("Mr.O'Brian") testified on <br /> behalf of Objector Equity Funding,LLC. Mr. O'Brian testified that the proposed permanent <br /> drain will be inadequate to mitigate the groundwater level beyond the immediate vicinity <br /> of the drain,and that a pipe would need to be placed eighteen feet below the surface in <br /> order to create a sufficient cone of depression to drain the adjacent property owned by <br /> Fred Orr. Mr.O'Brian testified that the PermanentPlan is insufficient to dry up the Orr <br /> property,and that a playa that would 5dewaw the-Ora-property would also dewater nearby <br /> wetlands. Mr. O'Brian testified that the size,nature,and location of the proposed drain will <br /> not cover a broad enough area of the slurry wall to adequately drain the Orr property. <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> 20. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Colorado Land <br /> Reclamation Act for the Extractfon of Construction Materials,Article 32.5 of Title 34, C.R.S. <br /> ("Act"). <br /> 21. Under Rule 2.8.1,(1) and section 24-4-105(7), C.R.S.,"the proponent of an <br /> order shall have the burden of proof." As the party initiating this matter by filing AM-01, <br /> the Applicant was ithe`proponent of anorder"at the hearing and,therefore,has the burden <br /> to prove that AM-01 was consistent with applicable laws and rules,and should be approved <br /> by the Board. <br /> 22. Under Rule 1.4.1(10),the Applicant"has the burden of demonstrating that <br /> the application meets the minimum requirements of the Act, Rules,and Regulations." <br /> i <br /> 23. Under section 34-32.5-11.5(4),C.R.S.,"the applicant must comply with tl're <br /> requirements of this article and section 24-4-105(7),C.R.S." <br /> 24. In considering whether to grant an application,the Board"shall not deny a <br /> permit except on one or more of the following grounds," as relevant: "(g) The proposed <br /> reclamation plan does not conform to the requirements of section 34-32.5-116." C.R.S.§34- <br /> 32.5-115 f 4){g) (201,6). i <br /> 25. -Under section 34-32.5-132t7j(a),C.R.S.,the Division and the Board are 1 <br /> required to review permit amendment applications "in the same manner as an application <br /> for a new reclamation permit." <br /> Aggregate Industries-MR,Inc. <br /> M-2004-031 4 <br />