PERMFILE47333 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Tom Schreiner October 24, 2005 Page 5 6. Exposure of Groundwater. This comment by Black Hawk does not require a response from CCDWP. CCDWP has committed to backf111ing over springs or seeps. The State Engineer has received the amended application, and will make any further requirements known in the course of this proceeding. 7. Local Government Approval. As noted above, the City of Black Hawk does not have any governmental interest in the proposed project. As such, it has no grounds on which to object concerning the question of whether or not CCDWP is required to obtain local government approvals in advance of submitting a DMG permit application. Black Hawk asserts that the CMR requires CCDWP to have applied for local government approvals before an application fora § 112 permit can be considered complete. CMR §§ 1.4.5(a) and 1.4.1(5)(4). However, its reading of [he regulations is incorrect. It cites CMR § 1.4.5(1) for the proposition that a § 112 applicant must submit evidence that it has applied for all approvals from local governments. That section allegedly incorporates the requirement of CMR 1.4.1(5)(4), which requires that an applicant for an expedited permit under § 110 show that it has . applied for necessary local gavemment approval, into the § 112 permit application process. The language of CMR § 1.4.1(5)(4) is taken verbatim from C.R.S. § 34-32.5-110(1)(a)(viii). It applies to § 110 permit applications. It exists because § 110 is an expedited process, dealing with limited impact operations, and contemplates approval within thirty days. To obtain a § 110 permit, applicants must show that they have started the local government approval process, and the statute expressly requires it. Section 112, on the other hand, contemplates a longer process, and applicants do not expect to get their approvals in thirty days. There is no statutory requirement or logical need that applicants show they have applied for local governmental approvals. The statute sets forth the requirements for applications under Section 110 and 112, respectively, and the statute does not require that a § 112 application show that the applicant has applied for all necessary approvals from local governments. The legislature presumably knew what it was doing when it required such a showing for an expedited treatment of a § 110 application, but not fora § 112 application. Black Hawk's position would require DMG to interpret its regulations in a way that would amend the legislature's specific statutory language, and inject into the § 112 permit process a requirement the legislature did not authorize. DMG should reject the interpretation of CMR § 1.4.5(1) that Black Hawk urges on it. •