Laserfiche WebLink
of stream depletions from the Rito Seco <br />primarily to assure that water rights would not <br />be affected. Vol. 3, pages 520-521. <br />9. Testimony of John Halepaska that the deep <br />aquifer (which would be dewatered during mining <br />for use in the mining process) was "an isolated <br />little aquifer" that is of a distinctly <br />different quality from the Rito Seco and other <br />aquifers in the valley. Vol. 3, page °.21. <br />10. Testimony of Sohn Halepaska identifying and <br />describing two irrigation companies the <br />"Trenchero" and "Sanchez," which could provide <br />a physical source of project water. Vol. 3, <br />pages 562-563. <br />11. Testimony of John Halepaska that the withdrawal <br />of the water required for the project fzom the <br />system would involve moving an existing use <br />from one location to another and would not <br />create unacceptable environmental consequences. <br />Vol. 3, page 564. <br />12. Testimony from Fred Banta, Director of CMLRD, <br />that one of the reasons that MLRD talked about <br />the slurry wall and the aquifer above the west <br />pit was to insure that the water supply would <br />not be disrupted. Vol. 3, page 564-565. <br />After receiving all of the preceding evidence, the Board <br />made a specific finding that disturbances to the hydrologic <br />balance would be minimized. Vol. 3, pages 578-580. The <br />administrative record clearly reveals that the Board's <br />determination that disturbances to the hydrologic balance <br />would be minimized followed intensive Board review and inquiry <br />and was based upon substantial evidence on the record of this <br />proceeding. Accordingly, this court cannot disturb the <br />- 23 - <br />