Laserfiche WebLink
was able to control the static ground water level, and keep most of the water out of his <br />basement, through continually using the pumps. <br />27. The Division estimated that Mr. Kirby pumped approximately 0.5 million <br />gallons of ground water from around his residence over the course of three days. <br />28. Chris Acklam testified as a rebuttal witness to Mr. Laird's testimony. Mr. <br />Acklam is Mr. Kirby's neighbor to the south. Mr. Acklam's property is located southeast of <br />the Speer site. Mr. Acklam has lived in the same house for 32 years and has used the same <br />well for the entire time he lived there. Mr. Acklam testified that he has never seen the water <br />in his well so high. <br />29. During the Board's deliberations, the Board considered the technical expertise <br />of Board member Dr. Catherine Kraeger-Rovey. Dr. Kraeger-Rovey is an engineering <br />consultant specializing in water resources, hydrology, and ground water modeling. Among <br />other things, Dr. Kraeger-Rovey spoke about the general permeability of backfill materials <br />and other ground water hydrology basics. <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />30. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to §§ 34-32.5-104 through <br />107, and 124 of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction <br />Materials, §§ 34-32.5-101 through 125, C.R.S. (2008) ("Act"). <br />31. Pursuant to § 34-32.5-116(4)(h), C.R.S., the Operator is responsible for <br />minimizing disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected land and of the <br />surrounding area and to the quality and quantity of water in surface and ground water <br />systems, both during and after the mining operation and during reclamation. Here, the <br />evidence shows that the Operator's backfilling activities at the Speer Mining site disturbed <br />the prevailing hydrologic balance of the surrounding area and the quantity of water in the <br />ground water system. The backfilling with less permeable materials than the native materials <br />caused the ground water to mound. The backfill materials formed a barrier to ground water <br />flow and caused elevated water levels east of the backfilled pit. The hydrologic balance is <br />subject to change over time, and the Board recognizes that the prevailing hydrologic <br />conditions can be significantly different than the historic hydrologic balance. The Operator <br />did not minimize its disturbance of the prevailing hydrologic balance and ground water <br />levels in the area and therefore violated § 34-32.5-116(4)(h), C.R.S. <br />32. Section 34-32.5-116(4)(1), C.R.S., states that "areas outside of the affected <br />land shall be protected from slides or damage occurring during the mining operation and <br />reclamation." Here, the Operator did not protect areas outside of the affected area from <br />damage. Mr. Kirby's basement sustained flood damage. Mr. Acklam's leach field backed <br />up and his crawl space flooded. Mr. Gurley's water vault flooded, his pressure system tanks <br />were damaged, and his shop floor heaved. Mr. Matthews had water in his leach field, his <br />toilet and shower backed up, and he had standing water in his sewage cleanout. The <br />Operator's backfilling activities caused the ground water to rise and caused damage to its <br />neighbors' property. The Operator failed to protect the areas outside of the affected land <br />from damage and therefore violated § 34-32.5-116(i), C.R.S. <br />Asphalt Specialties <br />Speer Mining Resource Pit <br />M-1983-176