Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Booker v. :tined Land Reclamation, et al. <br />Case No. <br />Paye G <br />affected land and of the surrounding area and <br />to the quantity of water .n surface and <br />ground water systems both during and after <br />the mining operation and durir.q reclamation <br />shall be minimized by measures such as: <br />(1) Compliance with applicable Colorado <br />water laws and regulations governing in;uL'y <br />to existing water rights; . <br />20. As of November 25, 1985, the date of the Board's <br />approval of the Goss Application, Gcss had rct presented ar,y <br />evidence to the Board that the effect of his proposed mining ar.d <br />reclar,~ation activities on the prevailing h•_-drologic balance of <br />the surrounding area and on the quality ar.d quantitl• of caater in <br />the surface and around water systems o:ould be minimized or that <br />he had r_cmplied with applicable Colorado water laws governing <br />injury to existing outer rights. <br />21. The Board failed ar.d refused to consider the <br />affect of the prcposed mining operation ar.d reclamation program <br />or. the prevailing hydrologic balance cf the surrounding area and <br />or. the uuality ar.c quantity of caater in,t!-e surface ar_d ground <br />water systems, including whether Goss had complied with applica- <br />ble Colorado outer laws governing injury to existing water <br />rights, prior to approval of the Goss Application. <br />22. The Board's failure and refusal to consider these <br />matters prior to approving the Goss Application. is contrar~~ tc <br />statute and to the Board's own rules and regulations, and consti- <br />tutes an abuse of discretion.. <br />23. Approval of the Goss Application by the Board <br />without investigating or taking any e~~ic7ence as to whether <br />disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the sur- <br />rounding area and tc the quality and quantity c= water in surface <br />ar.d ground :pater systems would in fact be minimized in the <br />proposed mining operation and reclamation program, including <br />whether Goss had conplied with applicable Colorado water laws <br />governing injury to existing water rights, is clearly erroneous <br />and unsupported by substantial evidence when the record is <br />considered as a whole. <br />24. The Bookers are adversely affected and aggrieved <br />by these acts of the Board inasmuch as they have been exposed to <br />potential loss or injury to their business and economic interests <br />