Laserfiche WebLink
protection of water rights the Applicant states: <br />"At an informal settlement conference held today [December 7, 2005], counsel for Black <br />Hawk, counsel for Applicant, the Division's attorney and staff and others stipulated to the following <br />condition addressing this issue [protection of water rights]:" <br />DMG Stipulation 2: `The Applicant will comply with state law regarding impacts to <br />ground water. An approved substitute water supply plan from the Office of the State <br />Engineer has not been obtained at this time to provide for replacement of depletions <br />due to the exposure of ground water: therefore, the Applicant commits to backfill any <br />and all exposed ground water within 24 hours, to a depth of at least two (2) feet, <br />where quarry activities have intercepted the ground water surface. Applicant agrees <br />to maintain this commitment to backfilling until such time as the Applicant obtains <br />approval of a substitute water supply plan from the Office of the State Engineer to <br />provide for the replacement of depletions due to the exposure of ground water at the <br />quarry site. If approval of a substitute water supply plan is obtained, Applicant <br />agrees to provide a copy of the approval letter to the Division of Minerals and <br />Geology before requesting to abandon its commitment to backfilling any and all <br />exposed ground water at the quarry site. <br />Contrary to Applicant's statements, Black Hawk explicitly objected to the language set forth <br />in DMG Stipulation 2. As Black Hawk's witnesses aze prepared to testify, the backfilling proposal is <br />not practical at this proposed site, and will not protect Black Hawk's water rights. Black Hawk <br />conceptually agreed to the following proposed condition: <br />"The Applicant will comply with state law regarding impacts to ground water, <br />including the requirements in the September 15, 2005 Conditions of Approval by the <br />Office of the State Engineer. " <br />The Division's December 12, 2005, fax regarding the Division's recommended stipulations for <br />conditional approval reflects the Division's similaz understanding of the consensus reached at the <br />informal settlement conference. See page 3 of Division's December 12, 2005, fax, which is attached <br />hereto. Further, counsel for Applicant also stated, during the conference, that he agreed conceptually <br />with this proposed stipulation language; however, no stipulation has been signed by any party on this <br />