Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Lorraine Stepenske <br />Division of Minerals and Geolagy <br />September 24, 1992 <br />Page 3 <br />8. Over the years the question of hydrologic balance has <br />been discussed in the permitting process and its <br />relationship to Exhibit G. This has lead us to expand <br />the information provided to the Division in Exhibit G. <br />Specifically, we note the effects to both groundwater and <br />surface water from the proposed operation. We note the <br />wells and water right diversions which are in the area <br />and discuss how they may be affected by the operation. <br />Also we commit to reasonably minimize any affects to the <br />hydrologic balance. <br />Our Exhibit G-1 locates wells within a 4,000 foot radius <br />of the operation in order to get an overview of the area. <br />In addition, we now note the availability of water rights <br />held by the operator to replace consumptive use of water <br />in the operation and also to show how any impacts to <br />water rights in the immediate area may be mitigated. Our <br />plans to replace water to wells in the immediate area <br />which may be affected is provided for information only. <br />water rights are a jurisdiction of the Division of water <br />Resources. The Division of Water Resources is given the <br />statutory authority to both administer and protect water <br />rights in the State. The information and measures you <br />are requesting in Paragraph 8 greatly expand any <br />interpretation of Exhibit G and hydrologic balance and <br />request new information which we have never been asked <br />for before in an adequacy review. It seems as though the <br />Division of Minerals and Geology, by your letter, is <br />presuming they have statutory authority to protect the <br />water rights of well owners and require written <br />agreements between the applicant and the well owners. <br />The requirements you have asked for in this question have <br />ramifications to applicants of dewatered operations as <br />expensive and burdensome as Senate Bill 181. If it is <br />indeed now standard policy to ask for written agreements <br />from well owners within 4,000 feet of an operation, it <br />seems to us there should have been some discussions and <br />hearings on this matter. <br />