My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE57303
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE57303
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:59:40 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 5:23:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
3/22/1989
Doc Name
MINUTES
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />-104- <br />MR. BARRY: Chris, I'm perfectly happy to go into that argument now, <br />because I know his questions aren't gonna be more -- to Gary, aren't gonna <br />very relevant <br />MR. N. COHEN: Look, why don't we do this. I think I've made my point <br />about what could happen with the mine. I guess I would ask, and maybe Mr. <br />Dodson is the person to ask or maybe it'd be another witness to ask, but what <br />-- are you prepared to tell the Board that you're not going to go forward with <br />the project, other than perhaps planning a mill design, until you get your <br />water permit. I mean -- 'cause that's sort of what you just said. <br />MR. MASSEY: I don't believe that that commitment is required under the <br />rule -- rules and regulations of this Board. I believe the commitment that <br />Battle Mountain will comply with all applicable water law and obtain the <br />' necessary water rights, prior to putting aqy of that water to use in the <br />• ~ course of their operations is the commitment that we'll make. T'hat's the <br />commitment required by the statute and regulations Rule 6.2 specifically <br />requires that, and we intend to comply with that Rule. That's the approach <br />and policy this Board has implemented for years, it's been -- it's been <br />confirmed time and time again, as you mentioned, in the Legislature. I <br />believe it's been -- that that concept has also been confirmed in the case <br />law, relating to how evaporitic of losses and other questions are to be <br />resolved within the State of Colorado. I could site the case, if you want <br />to. It's three bills. <br />MR. DANIEL SON: Dean, have you, in fact -- is there in your application <br />an estimate of the projects water requirements and consumptive use? <br />MR. MASSEY: Yeah. <br />MR. DANIEL SON: And what is that? <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.