Laserfiche WebLink
application mcty not be denied where the Applicant haler an, .`...agreement between the operator <br />and the persons having an interest in the structure that damage to the structure is to be <br />compensated fvr by the operator err, where such an agreement cannot be reached, the applicant <br />provides an appropriate engineering evaluation that demonstrates that such structures shall not <br />be damaged... " by mining and reclamation activities. <br />Therefore, Q.R.S. 34-32.5-115(3)(e} does not require damage agreements or the applicant to <br />protect structures that are beyond 200 feet of the affected area. <br />It is our understanding that locating wells within 600 feet of the affected areer and not the ep rtnit <br />area are Division policy, and not regulation. It is also our understanding that the 6U0 foot limit <br />is a State Engineer "area of influence "criterion. r4s such, any ground water dewatering cone of <br />depression that intersects an existing well m a ecr the water right of the existing well owner. <br />Therefore, airy existing wells occurring within 6110 feet a proposed dewatering well 's cone of <br />depression (For example, a gravel pit that it proposed to be dewaterec~) should be directed to <br />the SEO for comment. It also our understanding that as long as the existing well owner has the <br />ability to acquire it's lawfully adjudicated water right; the adjoining dewatering operati©rzs (ln <br />the Applicant :s Case, plt dewatering.) would not violate SEQ regulations. <br />The Applicant proposes to install a slurry wa11 to isolate the mining area and its dewatering <br />operations from the surrounding ground water regime. Therefore, since the slurry wall will be <br />installed prior to pit dewatering, the water rights of existing well owners within 6Q4 feet of the <br />a fJected urea will not be itnpacied by pit dewatering. <br />B) "The applicant states a dewatering NPDES permit will be obtained from the ColQrada <br />Department of Health gc Environment, in addition to the slurry wall construction sa the pit will <br />be mined dry. In the reclamation plan, the applicant states, pit floors will be under water. Is the <br />pit going to be mined dry or is it going to be dredged?" <br />Response: Both statements are true. The ~4pplicarrt will need to obtain and NPDESpermit tv <br />dewater the pits once the slurry walls are in place. Since the mined out areas have a post mining <br />land use as developed water resource, the pit floors wi11 be under water during periods of water <br />storage. Plus there should always be some degree of permanent pool left even if the structures <br />are emptied with the sale and discharge of stored water each year or .ro. <br />C) "The applicant states, `the water rights from South West Farms and Excelsior Ditch will <br />be used for this mining'. According to the State Engineer the water rights decreed far irrigation <br />use and may "NDT" be used in this mining operation unless a change of water rights is approved <br />by Division 2 water court. Please provide proof that the use far the decreed water has been <br />changed from Irrigation use to Mining." <br />Response.• ft is unnecessary for the Operator to demonstrate that he bus water rights for water <br />storage and evaporative loss. 7'he post mining land use is water storage facility. Roy stored <br />water and water loss due to evaporation is the facility owner's own loss since it will be <br />