Laserfiche WebLink
B. Battle Mountain Failed To Comply With The Requirements <br />Of The Rule. <br />Battle Mountain contends that its application "contained <br />a substantial amount of information responsive to the information <br />requirements of Rule 2.1.2(8) including information specifically <br />responsive to subparagraph d." (Battle Mountain at 26, referring <br />to pp. 20-23.) However, the information only circles the <br />requirements, it :foes not meet it. Battle Mountain states that <br />project requirements will be supplied from inflows to the west <br />pit, ground water wells, and dewatering of the pits. (Battle <br />Mountain at 20.) Battle Mountain fails to indicate the sources <br />of inflows to the west pit, whether it is entitled to use such <br />inflows, what wells it intends to use or drill, whether it has <br />obtained the necessary well permits, and where the water comes <br />from that will be dewatered from the pits. Is the ground water <br />tributary? What is its relationship with other ground and <br />surface water systems? Battle Mountain does not say. Ann <br />Bandridge testified that Battle Mouhtain "intended to use water <br />from pit dewatering and other underground sources" (id.), but she <br />never identifies the other underground sources. <br />The information about water rights is even more <br />uncertain that that about water sources. Battle Mountain talks <br />around the issue, offering a tangle of commitments and <br />catalogues, but it does not indicate a single water right which <br />-a- <br />