PERMFILE123606 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Mr. Kim Headley, Director Department of Planning and Development December 22, 1997 Page 2 In 1995, the Colorado Senate passed Bill 94-156 for the extraction and reclamation of construction materials. Section 1. Title 34, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1984 Repl Vol.. As amended, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW ARTICLE to read: ARTICLE 32.5 Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials. As a part of this, CRS 34-32.5 - 109.3 reads as follows: `TIo governmental office of the State, other than the Board, nor any political subdivision of the State shall have the authority to issue a reclanration permit pursuant to this article, to require reclamation standards different than those established in this article, or to require any performance of financial warranty of any kind for mining operations. The operator shall be responsible for assuring that the mining operation and the postmining land use comply with the city, town, county or city and county land use regulations, and any master plan for extraction adopted pursuant to 34-1-304 unless a prior declaration of intent to change or waive the prohibition is obtained by the applicant from the affected political subdivisions. Any mining operator subject to this article shall also be subject to zoning and land use authority and regulation by political subdivisions as provided by law.." The State of Colorado responding to the Clean Water Act of the Feds through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment through their Waster Quality Control Division have established a Storniwater Discharge General Permit for the aggregate industry -COG-50000. The problems created by the proposed berms could also put the operator in violation of the Stonnwater Discharge Permit, due to the erosion problems cited by Mr. Oehler earlier. The operator will be posting a minimum $50,000 reclamation bond with the 1`QLRB to guarantee reclamation. If the County plan is followed, the operator will be in violation of the MLRB program and their bond will be at risk. If the MLRB plan is followed, the operator will then be in violation of the County Plan, and subject to action from the County. Tltis is not a tenable position. The operator, therefore, requests that Condition 17 be deleted from the approved SUP to correct this problem. It appears that by the Commission's actions in this matter, there is an attempt to abrogate both the State Reclamation Act and the Water Quality Control Division's Stormwater Discharge regulation program.