Laserfiche WebLink
Division of Water Resources of this permit application, and received no response. Vol. 2, p. <br />751. Plaintiffs azgument that Four States' does not have the water rights it needs could not have <br />been addressed by the Board and should not be addressed by this Court. <br />Plaintiffs azgue that Four States has not consistently represented its plans to establish an <br />asphalt batch plant at the pit. Four States' application includes a Process Water and Stormwater <br />Dischazge Permit.10 Vol. 1, p. 235. In that permit, Four States identifies industrial activities that <br />could occur at the mine in question sometime in the future, including a mobile asphalUconcrete <br />batch plant. Vol. 1, p. 236. However, Four States does not intend to use this plant as part of its <br />mining operation at this time. Therefore, the Board did not consider it. <br />If Four States decides to add this facility to the mine at a later date, it may apply to <br />modify its permit for that purpose. The Division will evaluate the merits of that application, <br />including potential adverse impacts, at that time. <br />Plaintiffs' contention that Four States cannot apply to modify its pemut after the permit is <br />approved is contrary to the plain language in the Reclamation Act. "An operator may, within the <br />term of a reclamation permit, apply to the Board or the office for a reclamation permit <br />amendment to increase the acreage to be affected or otherwise revise the reclamation plan." § <br />34-32.5-112(7), C.R.S. Four States could apply to amend its permit, if it satisfies the amendment <br />requirements in Construction Materials Rule 1.10. <br />Plaintiffs next azgue that Four States failed to submit the necessary information in its <br />stormwater discharge permit application. That application is not tIre subject of this proceeding. <br />to The WQCD approved Four States' discharge permit on March 26, 2001. Vol. 2, p. 651. <br />21 <br />