PERMFILE49731 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~~ ~~ ~ 3? ~, < < ,/ ~~ ~~J~i~c~ai Colorado Water Conservation Board.3 Accordingly, Battle Mountain's statements with regard to its ability to replace depletions to water systems and thereby minimize disturbances to the hydrologic balance amount to nothing more than an empty promise. The Board concluded that Battle Mountain need not fulfill the requirements of Exhibit G because such maters were beyond the concern of the MLRD. Fred R. Banta, Dicectc~r of the MLRD, explained the position of the MLRD at the beginning of the March 22, 1989 hearing: I guess that the basic point is that we have made it as clear as we possibly could to the public and to the objectors that the Mined Land Reclamation Hoard's and-the Division's responsibility under the Mined Land Reclamation Act is independent of other agencies. That it is not a process upon which we go in sequence at this point with regard to decisions made by other agencies or other governments Also, there have been questions raised about the obligation to i 3 Moreover, Battle Mountain's description of Project water requirements in the Application is incomplete. In response to questions from the Board concerning. an. estimate of the Project's water requirements and consumptive usB, Battle Mountain stated that "the mining and milling operations for this Project are expected to require a maximum water supply of approximately 200 gpm during normal operations." (Vol. 3, p. 553.) That information, contained in § D.10.3 of the Application, is the only reference to the water requirements of the Project. The estimate is incomplete, however, in that it fails to account for Project water requirements other than those involved it the mining and milling operations. For example, Battle Mountain does not estimate how much water it will need for development, reclamation, or dust control of the dirt roads during operations. -7-