PERMFILE64575

• Permit No: M1988112
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 3/14/1990
• Doc Name: ANSWER BRIEF OF THE MLRB
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

III.
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION OF
MINIMAL DISTURBANCE OF THE HYDROLOGIC BAL-
ANCE.
In part II of its Opening Brief, CES appears tc present a
separate argument that an applicant must obtain water rights in
advance of the reclamation permit. Essentially CES argues that,
even if Rule 2.1.2(8)(d) does not require an operator to secure
its water rights first, such a water right is required for a
Hoard determination that disturbances to the hydrologic balance
will be minimized.
CES's argument is based entirely on its reading of the
meaning of the phrase "hydrologic balance," which appears in
$ 34-32-116(7)(9), C.R.S. (1989 Supp.). In 1989, the General
Assembly amended this statute to make clear its intent that the
reclamation permit be independent of water rights. 1389 Colo.
Sess. Laws 1426. Section 34-32-116(7)(9), C.R.S. (1989) now pro-
vides:
(7) Reclamation plans and the implementa-
tion thereof shall conform to the follow-
ing general requirements:
(g) Disturbances to the prevailing
hydrologic balance of the affected land and
of the surrounding area and to the quality
and quantity of water in surface and ground
water systems both during and after the
mining operation and during reclamation
-12-