PERMFILE43283 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUhJ-18-19°9 12 03 ROTHGERBEP. JOHNSON4LYONS 317 638 6252 P.OS . ,. • • The first risk is associated with the drilling and completion of wells. It is said to be concerned with the potential commingling of aquifers, and concludes that such risks can be addressed by practice-based permit wnditions. Setting aside the details of the particular practice- based conditions, General Chemical has never disagreed with the underlying principle reflected in the establishment of such practice-based conditions. The terms of the permit condition will be clear before the applicant is granted the permit, and before the applicant is allowed to proceed with development of the project. The second risk is associated with the injection of production fluids into the mining interval. General Chemical broadly agrees with the DMG that this risk must be addressed witfi numeric protection levels. However, the DMG says that this risk is completely addressed ae long as the numeric protection levels are established before solution mining fuels are injected. The DMG is satisfied that the Groundwater and Surface Monitoring Program, as now incorporated in the application, will yield data that will directly translate into numeric protection levels in time to meet American Soda's schedule for the commencement of injection of solution mining fluids. The DMG further explains that since the translation of data into numeric protection standards i9 automatic, there is no basis for concern that the DMG will be vulnerable to pressure to establish less stringent standards after the permit has been granted and the project is underway. The DMG's risk-based explanation ignores the statutory arguments made by General Chemical. To the extent the DMG is assuming that the Rules can amend or alter the requirements of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act, the DMG is plainly mistaken as a matter of law. Smith v. Colorado Dgyt. Of Human Senc~es, 916 P.2d 1 ]99 (Colo. App. 1996). As General 4