GENERAL54873 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 VIII. Water Rights and Replacement (2.04.7(3), 2.05.6 (3),(i i), 2.07.6(2)(c),4.05.15) As requested by MLRD, the State Engineer's Office, Division of Water Resources has re viecaed the application and identified the following problems with re card to the oxrat.ors proposed •~ndar `^e ~-::ear ..e r.-t -_s.--- _.: _' D3 rtl Clllar ~..^.e !'i P..^.2~Otd Cr3B.i __,__..' .,35171 n.._... DI'C."=C~> a _ ___~.=..L amount of water to many farming and ranching operations in the °:onia aria. All problems associated with the operations proposed under the initial 5-year permit application have been satisfactorily resolved, but many of the concerns which pertain to lease areas outside of the initial permit area, such as the Minnesota Creek Drainage Basin, have not been satisfactorily resolved and must be stipulated. The items of concern which have been satisfactorily resolved will be dealt with first. The Division of plater Resouz~ces in their March 26, 1980 and January 30, 1981 memoranda to b1LRD indicated that an application for a well permit would be required of ARCO before seepage water from the overburden and water from strata below the-coal could be used in the mine, and that before the permit could be approved, ARCO must show that other water rights ~oould not be injured. ARCO responded satisfactorily by stating on revised page 3-39, section 3.2.8.2.a of the application that eaater from strata below the coal and seepage water through the overburden will be utilized only when Atlantic Richfield's rights to this water are in priority. At all other times, they will be discharged following appropriate treatment to insure maintenance of effluent limitations, to the North Fork. ARCO indicated on Figure 3.2.8.A of the original application that disturbed area runoff and excess mine :eater would either be discharged to the North Fork of the Gunnison or reused in the mine. The Division of water Resources said that if the water is to be reused, ARCO would 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 that other water rights would not be injured. ARCO responded satisfactorily by filing water rights case Nos. 80Cw455, 80CW456, and 80CW457 on the partal and sediment pond discharges, and stated on revised page 3-39, section 3.2.8.7 of the application that these waters ~oill be reused in the mine or diverted to mine use only during the time that Atlantic Richfield's water rights are in priority. At all other times, these waters will be held for e:~ater quality compliance and discharged to the North Fork. ARCO 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 Pft. Gunnison Pipeline water right for 15 cfs, No. [/-2982, to meet this need. The Division of Water Resources indicated that this was a