Laserfiche WebLink
<br />a potential at this site to.. <br />been affected? We defended <br />the Board, and we can answer <br />give additional testimony, <br />that's appropriate. But, in <br />all I have. I don't know <br />wanted to add anything. <br />.that groundwater has <br />that in our memo to <br />questions on that or <br />if the Board feels <br />the meantime, that's <br />if Bruce or Cheryl <br />HUMPHRIES: Yeah. I do. What I'd like to do is take the <br />Board back to the Senate Bill 181, which basically <br />is the Act that's been referred to, and it was <br />sort of the implementing Act for this issue. And, <br />if you look at Section 25-8-202(7)(b)(II)(A), <br />that's capital A, and also little (d), it points <br />out two things that I think the Board needs to be <br />aware of. And, the first citation, which is II(A) <br />says that "such regulation is necessary to assure <br />compliance with the Federal Act and provisions of <br />Articles 80 and 93 of Title 37 C.R.S. or water <br />quality standards and classifications adopted for <br />State waters or to protect present and future <br />beneficial uses of waters"; (d) in that citation <br />states that "this Subsection 7 is intended to <br />restate"... okay, now I want to emphasize <br />that..."intended to restate and clarify existing <br />law and to provide procedure for coordination <br />between the state agencies". So, what I'm getting <br />at...what 'I'm driving at is that the requirement <br />16 <br />