GENERAL41305 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-16- have to obtain a water right for the water. Since the basin is already over-appropriated, the applicant would have to provide existing water rights to augment the downstream water rights that would be directly affected by the use of the runoff water or would have to demonstrate the other water rights would not be injured. WECC responded satisfactorily by filing water rights case Nos. 80CW455, 80CW456, and BOCW457 on the portal and sediment pond discharges, and stated on revised page 3-39, Section 3.2.8.1 of the application that these waters will be reused in the mine or diverted to mine use only during the time that WECC's water rights are in priority. At all other times, these waters will beheld for water quality compliance and discharged to the North Fork. WECC stated that surface water amounting to 150 acre-feet per year would be pumped from the North Fork of the Gunnison River, and that they obtained the conditional Mt. Gunnison Pipeline water right for 15 cfs, No. W-2982, to meet this need. The Division of Water Resources indicated that this was a very junior right and could only be used during snowmelt runoff or in the non-irrigation season, and that WECC would have to provide additional storage to meet project needs during periods of administration. WECC responded satisfactorily by stating that two fresh water ponds each containing 10 AF have been proposed (Section 3.3.5 of the application), and that when conditional water right W-2982 is in priority the ponds will be filled directly from the North Fork. WDCC further stated that the water in the ponds is projected to be sufficient to meet the needs of the mine during periods of administration. One of these ponds have subsequently been built and it has been meeting their water supply needs. During the review, it was found that there was no up-to-date complete list of water rights owned by WECC. The water rights owned by WECC were shown on three different tables, each of which having different water rights shown. WECC responded satisfactorily by submitting revised Table 2.8.5.2.a which list WDCC's water rights as of 1981 for both the North Fork drainage and Minnesota Creek Drainage. The following problems were not satisfactorily resolved and required stipulation in order for a finding of compliance to be made. Several problems were identified during the review concerning the effect of 'rIECC's mining operation on the hydrologic balance and consequently water rights of the Minnesota Creek drainage basin. The Division of Water Resources and several concerned citizens raised questions with regard to the adequacy of WECC's proposed plan for augmentation, and requested that WECC provide more detailed information on the augmentation plan and that a determination be made on which water rights will be affected by the operation, and to what extent. In addition, it was requested that WECC submit this plan for augmentation with the proposed methods of mitigating losses as soon as possible to the Water Court.