Laserfiche WebLink
mining cannot be ensured, to provide alternative sources of water as defined in Rules <br />2.04.7(3) and 4.05.15. <br />Rule 2.04.7(3) requires an operator to identify the extent to which mining operations <br />may affect sources of water used for domestic, agricultural, industrial, fish and wildlife <br />and other legitimate uses, and identify what alternative water supplies could be <br />developed to replace those lost due to mining. The alternative supply must meet the <br />requirements for which the water has normally been used. This regulation then <br />references Article 83 and 92 of Title 37 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (Colorado <br />water law) as to the quality and quantity of the alternative water. <br />Rule 4.05.11(2) was cited in the issuance of the OSM Ten-Day Notice. Rule 4.05.11(1) <br />and (2) address min;m;~ing adverse effects upon groundwater systems outside the permit <br />azea from backfilling with toxic materials and preventing adverse impacts to groundwater <br />systems from harmful, acid or toxic mine drainage by proper location and construction of <br />mine disturbances. Because toxic material and acid mine drainage are not the subject of <br />this citizen's request for inspection, there are other Rules that are more applicable. <br />Rule 4.05.15 addresses water rights and replacement and is specific in that it requires the <br />mine operator to replace vested water rights in a manner consistent with applicable state <br />law. However, there has been no proof provided to the Division that a vested water <br />right is associated with the Tatum well. A review of the records at the State Engineer's <br />Office has not revealed that the well is permitted, or that there is any adjudication of the <br />water rights for the well. The current owner of the well has stated that he has never <br />used the well, and has not made any attempt to rehabilitate the well. There has been no <br />demonstration to the Division that there has been damage (a loss of beneficial use). It <br />should be noted that even if the owner of the well did have a vested water right for the <br />well, a possible drawdown caused by mining does not necessarily mean that the water <br />right has been injured. <br />In addition to reviewing the Colorado Rules and Regulations, this investigation also <br />included a review of certain pertinent sections of other laws. The applicable state law <br />referenced in Rule 4.05.15 is C.R.S. Article 83 and 92 of Title 37, administered by the <br />State Engineer's Office. According to the State Engineer's Office, a vested water right, <br />as it applies to the Tatum windmill well, could be either a permitted well or an <br />adjudicated water right, and the Tatum well is neither. Additionally, all wells that were <br />constructed after 1972 aze required to be permitted. Livestock wells constructed and <br />used prior to 1972 are exempt from needing a permit and may continue their historic use <br />without a permit, unless a replacement well is required. According to the State <br />Engineer's Office, post-1972 wells must be permitted to receive an adjudication. Based <br />on the 1971 USGS Quadrangle, it is obvious that the well was constructed prior to 1972. <br />A policy statement from the State Engineei s Office dated March 13, 1995 states that if <br />an unpermitted and unadjudicated well has not been used for 10 years, or if the well <br />structure has not been operational for 10 years, it is presumed to be abandoned. This <br />policy further states that applications for late registration of abandoned wells are to be <br />denied. The denial decision by the State Engineer's Office may be subject to review and <br />9 <br />