Laserfiche WebLink
10. The Division also provided testimony regarding discharge to Lake <br /> Christina, which is located beyond the proposed permit boundary. The Application <br /> had originally called for settlement ponds to be discharged into the Evans 2 Ditch, <br /> which runs into Lake Christina. Discharge to the Evans 2 Ditch did occur but will not <br /> happen going forward, and the Applicant will excavate sediment material from Lake <br /> Christina that was deposited and move it to the proposed permitted area to be <br /> graded, seeded, and reclaimed. The Applicant has also been in contact with CDPHE <br /> regarding the discharge into Lake Christina and has applied for a different type of <br /> discharge permit rather than just a storm water discharge permit. The Application <br /> has been updated to reflect the current plan and discharge permit. <br /> 11. Regarding Applicant's mining without a permit, the Division provided <br /> testimony stating that because the Applicant had sold sand from its dredging <br /> operation offsite, it had engaged in mining under the Act. The Applicant did not need <br /> a reclamation permit for its dredging operation if the materials taken from Milton <br /> Reservoir were left in stockpiles on the site. Following an inquiry from Weld County, <br /> the Division inspected the site and issued corrective actions that required Applicant <br /> to cease selling sand offsite and to submit the Application, which the Applicant has <br /> done. A reclamation permit, if approved, will provide Board and Division with <br /> regulatory oversight of the site, the mining operation, and reclamation. <br /> 12. The Division also presented evidence regarding ecological impacts of the <br /> Application. The dredging operation is removing sediment that has accumulated in <br /> Milton Reservoir for over a hundred years and will increase the lake's capacity. The <br /> Application calls for water trucks for dust suppression, soil binder to be applied to <br /> stockpiles, and vegetation on the slopes and tops of the stockpiles to limit dust and <br /> erosion. A reclamation permit, if granted, would also allow the stockpiles' size to be <br /> reduced as the materials are sold off. <br /> 13. The Division also presented evidence regarding notice required under <br /> the Rules and Act. Specifically, the Applicant had provided proof that it had mailed <br /> notice to all landowners of record within 200 feet of the proposed permit boundaries <br /> and that it had published notice in the Greely Tribune. Beebe Draw Farms Authority <br /> is not a metropolitan district and was not required to be separately noticed. <br /> 14. Applicant satisfied the Division's adequacy review requests, and the <br /> Application satisfied the requirements of the Act and the Rules <br /> 15. Applicant also presented testimony regarding the site, the proposed <br /> operation, and the issues identified in the prehearing order. Applicant is a water <br /> company that sells water to municipalities and agricultural operations, with Milton <br /> Reservoir storing water moved from the South Platte River and then to customers <br /> through a canal system. Water is stored at Milton Reservoir under a water decree <br /> from 1909, with a decreed capacity of over 26,000 acre-feet of water. Sediment from <br /> the canals that deliver water to Milton Reservoir has filled a portion of the lake, <br /> Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, LLC <br /> Farmers Sand/M-2024-057 3 <br />