Laserfiche WebLink
Maser:.:, n.*-Daaso~:. Krxc & Hw,~ars. t,LC <br />.4TTO 4N E~'$ aT ~.aw <br />1. David Helm. Direernr <br />Colorado tVars Quality Coaani Divisicn <br />Re: }garde Mountain CicJd Company Prepamed Agreement <br />line 9, 2000 <br />Page ? <br />The Agreement summarily corclndes that "the •:io!atiotu at ssue did :tot lead to <br />impairment of the classified uses of t.'te Rico Seco," aespire the a,:k cf any daa or information <br />about the extent of contamination or levels of pollutants dowrstrza-, of the San Luis Project. <br />Available infortation indicazes t.`tat the volume of discharge by 'BMGC is substantial. <br />Duchazge vclsmes from BMGC's water treatment system have ^;,e,-~xd 4C0 gallons per <br />minute, suggesting that the volume of discharge from the supage fronts is also substantial. <br />With little information about ]oval hydrogeology, neither B?vtGC aer WQCD can conclude <br />with certaint<• how much discharge is occurring or how Jte ducl:a:ee impacts grounc water <br />and the Ruo Seto. Sampling data does indicate that ground and surface water quality <br />downstream of the West Pit continues w deteriorate in violation cf stare water quality <br />standards. Before entering inro any agreement, WQCD should :.quire 9MGC m fully <br />delineate the extent of the plume of ground water conmmination and identify Levels of <br />pollutants attributable to. the discharge. <br />III. The proposed remedies are insufficient <br />The penalty A be'imposed by the settlement-agreement is ;oo low as judged by the <br />WQCD's own penalty policy. BMGC should pay for the e~nomic benefit it has derived from <br />its failure to take the appropriate precautionary measures to prevent and monitor potential <br />ground and surface water dischages from the West Pit. The secement terms should also <br />consider BLviGC's history of non-compliance at the San Luis Project, including repeated <br />violations of the Mined Land Reclamation Act. Finally, u`te WQCD's failure to assess any <br />penalties against BMGC based on damage w the environment is Inappropriate. <br />Ground and surface water connected to the Rita Seco is used by the Shalom Ranch for <br />stock watering, crop irrigation and dri-tking water. BMGC has croduced no in-stream <br />sampling data, effluent data or biomonirorittg results to demonsuate that these unperrttitted <br />discharges will not impair these betuficia! uses of Rito Seto water lawfully :trade by the <br />Shalom Ranch and others. BMGC should be required to demonstrate that the water suppiia <br />for Shalom Ranch and others will not be impacted by the continuing ground sad surface water <br />dischazb°s. Instead. WQCD and BMGC rely exclusively on risk assessment modeling and <br />sampling performed on BTvtGC's property, without taking into account the potential risk to the <br />immediate downgradient landowners. <br />WQCD's analysis fails a~ consider the likelihood of underNound migration o' <br />conratrinanrs ;ltrough gre~tnd water and the potential imnac[ to rte Rito Seto 3t lOCat.ons O[het <br />than :hose discharge points idenci~ted in the NOV and draft permit. Available onto indicate <br />that there have beer, in-stream ~.t•atcr quality standard violaticru a[ u: Shzlot, tZanch headgaee; <br />these violations :nay well be the result of unpe-tnitted discharges `rem the San Luis Ptoject. <br />The .4gree.trent also i,-.appropriately crud:}s BMGC for "prompt correction" of the violation. <br />