Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-117- <br />maintained. With respect to the aquifers, as I recall the discussions, we did <br />talk about that. I did express concern that, you know, the use of water -- if <br />the use of water in that aquifer is disrupted by the -- transmitting into the <br />pit, that that was something that needed to get addressed. The discussion was <br />that there were no users in that aquifer system. And that that's why it was <br />not of concern. So, we discussed water rights to that degree, in the sense <br />protecting the water supply. Not making an actual assessment of the -- of <br />whether the rights existed or not. Yeah, and I just -- I would ;lust comment, <br />based on the discussion the Board's had right now and the direction that we've <br />received this is that we, you know, we do not -- we talk about water rights <br />within that application in the permitting process and we advise operators with <br />respect to the water -- the need for them to have water rights. But we have <br />never, in ~ short term here, and even prior to my being in this position, <br />have come bads to the Board under the minerals program, that I recall, and <br />made a recommendation that they had to satisfy the State Engineer prior to <br />• permit issuance. And that's the guidance under which I have proceeded on <br />this, and that was what precipitated ~ statement this morning, with respect <br />to separate processes in all of this. And, I believe that also has been -- <br />that position has been underscored and supported by not only the Board, but by <br />also discussions within the State Legislature, itself -- so. <br />Now, it's -- this regulation -- I really -- I mean it's hard for Mme to <br />interpret exactly what it's asking you. I mean, we investigate it and then <br />it's considered in the application it doesn't really call fora determination <br />by Board with respect to that. So, I'm not sure. <br />MR. HOLDER: Chips may have the distinguishing feature there, and that is <br />disturbance to the hydrologic balance done by the mine operation might have to <br />be covered under this regulation. And that we've done, when talked about that <br />acquifer, any rights it had and so on. Use of water by the operator for <br />whatever purpose is rightfully the State Engineer's. Now, I'm speaking <br />against ~ own personal opinion. I'm speaking of the interpretat•fon that <br />• we've alwdys followed ever since I've been on the Board, with which I <br />disagree, but we can't apply it differently to different folk. <br />