1990-11-15_REVISION - M1988112 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: M1988112
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 11/15/1990
• Doc Name: CONTINUATION OF TRANSCRIPT
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

i~
~r

LJ

98
1 be delivered to the water users who want to use it
2 downstream. A number of people have objea:ted in
3 both cases.
4 The State Engineer has appeared as an
5 objector in both cases. All of the water users in
6 the valley have appeared either by themselves or
7 through ditch companies in which they participate.
8 I won't go through all the disputes because it's up
9 to the judge to determine whether or not t.ne water
l0 right users will be hurt if Battle Mountain Gold's
11 plan is adopted, but, basically, the position of the
12 water users is that the dewatering of the Columbian
13 Ranch or the aquifers and deposits under tYie ranch
14 has not been addressed in the augmentation plan.
15 In essence, they plan to use a lot of
16 water from the mine site, replace the water they use
17 at the mine site from the Columbian Ranch, and they
18 have no plan to replace any water to the Columbian
19 Ranch.
20 In addition, I noticed in the 4~iestion
21 No. 47 that was submitted in the MLRD adequacy
22 letter response, a question was asked whether or not
23 the tailings disposal area precipitation, oz• the
24 precipitation over the tailings disposal area, which
25 is a 205-acre area, was included in their
AGREN, HLANDO & BILLINGS