Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Mr. David C. Shelton <br />May 24, 1983 <br />Page 2 <br />case) are structures which are both intended for and <br />designed to control drainage and sediment. Page 3 of NOV <br />No. 83-7 makes this quite clear. There is no functional <br />difference between a sedimentation pond and a ditch or <br />culvert in this respect. If the Board could determine <br />that runoff which was not routed through a sedimentation <br />pond could not form the basis for a violation when the <br />_ runoff did not leave the permit area, I feel that there <br />is little doubt that the Board would hold the same in the <br />Mt. Gunnison situation (where runoff may have bypassed <br />certain ditches or culverts), provided that runoff could <br />not be shown to have left the permit area.~.The pictures <br />which Bob fiddle and Rocky Bowman showed 'us last week <br />established that no runoff had left the permit area.1 <br />The Board's holding in the Consolidation Coal case is <br />also consistent with the intent of Section 34-33-121 <br />(2)(i)(II), C.R.S., which West Elk Coal Company is al- <br />leged to have violated. This statutory section is <br />concerned with regulating the prevention of additional <br />contributions of sediment to stream flows through "run- <br />' off outside the permit area." When no such runoff can be <br />demonstrated to have occurred, there cannot be a viola- <br />. lion of this provision of the statute or of its imple- <br />menting regulations. Nor can there be a violation of <br />Section 34-33-120, C.R.S., or its implementing regula- <br />tion which the West Elk Coal Company is also alleged to <br />have violated. The provisions of this Section make it <br />clear that the State's regulatory efforts are intended to <br />be directed toward runoff which occurs "outside the <br />permit area." See, Subsection 34-33-120(2)(j)(II)(A). <br />I understand that you must close the informal portion of <br />this matter by June 4. If I obtain a copy of the decision <br />in the Consolidation Coal case before that time I will <br />ensure that you receive it. If you wish to discuss the <br />contents of this letter, the Board's decision, or any <br />other matter concerning this case with myself, Ms. <br />Beville or Mr. Bowman before the above date, we would be <br />pleased to do so. <br />urs truly, <br />~~ <br />P ter H. Haller <br />PHH:pr <br />Enc. <br />cc: P. Beville DAT 1966 <br />R. Bowman, WECC, Somerset, CO <br />