Laserfiche WebLink
9. At the August 19, 2020 hearing, the Division presented testimony and <br />materials regarding the conditions at the permitted site, including the installation <br />of the water conveyance system within the permitted area, and the application of <br />water within the permitted area. <br />10. The Division presented testimony that Operator had built the water <br />conveyance line at issue here within the permit boundaries at some point after the <br />Board's August 2019 hearing. Based on the Division of Water Resources' <br />inspection, the water conveyance line was in place and in use as early as May 1, <br />2020. Fontanari told the Division of Water Resources that he had been irrigating <br />the middle field for about three weeks when it conducted its inspection on May 27, <br />2020. According to Operator's own markers, a significant portion of the middle <br />field, which was being irrigated during the Division's June inspections, is located <br />within the permit boundaries. 8 irrigation risers are within the permitted boundary, <br />along with approximately 1,200 linear feet of irrigation piping. <br />11. The Division also presented evidence regarding materials submitted by <br />Operator when the permit was converted from a 110c to a 112c permit in 2003. In <br />the permit materials, Operator stated three times that no water would be used for <br />reclamation. The Division also pointed to Operator's representations in those <br />materials that irrigation water will be used to irrigate the existing pasture until <br />mining begins, which meant that only water conveyances and irrigation in existence <br />prior to the application's submission were allowed. There were no water <br />conveyance lines within the permitted area at the time the conversion application <br />was submitted and no evidence in the permit history that irrigation occurred in the <br />permitted area. None of the Division personnel who conducted inspections in 2001, <br />2003, 2010, and 2018 had seen irrigation or water conveyances within the permitted <br />area at those times. <br />12. The Division also presented testimony that had irrigation been <br />contemplated within the mine site by the Operator during the permitting process, it <br />would have materially impacted the Division's reclamation bond calculation. Site <br />conditions in existence at the time a permit is issued or amended, including water <br />conveyance lines, would have been noted in permit materials but not required to be <br />reclaimed. Accordingly, any new disturbances made by the Operator within the <br />permit boundary, including water conveyances and structures, would have to be <br />reclaimed by him. Here, the approved mine and reclamation, plans do not include <br />any permanent water conveyances or structures. <br />13. Operator presented testimony at the hearing regarding the historical <br />use and irrigation of the middle field. Operator claimed that he has irrigated the <br />middle field for three of the last five years. Operator also stated that he had <br />irrigated the parcel in the 1980's and then again in 2017. He also testified that he <br />Rudolph Fontanari <br />M-1996-076 <br />MV-2020-023 <br />3 <br />