Laserfiche WebLink
allegation that the levels increased "significantly," as interpreted by the Water Quality Control <br />Division ("WQCD' ), Cotter is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to <br />the truth of this allegation, and on that basis denies it. <br />12. The allegations in paragraph 12 purport to characterize Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-8-103(3) <br />(2009), which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents, and therefore no response <br />is required. To the extent a response is required, Cotter denies any allegations contrary to its <br />plain language and meaning. <br />13. The allegations in paragraph 13 are legal conclusions and no response is required at this <br />time. <br />14. Cotter admits that the alluvial aquifer is in hydraulic communication with Ralston Creek. <br />Due to the vagueness of the allegation "near or beneath the Facility," Cotter is without <br />knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this allegation, and on that <br />basis denies it. The allegation that alluvial water is "state waters" as defined by Colo. Rev. Stat. <br />§ 25-8-103(19)(2009), and its implementing permit regulations, 5 Colo. Code Regs. 1002-61, <br />§ 61.2(102), is a legal conclusion and no response is required at this time. <br />15. Cotter is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of <br />this allegation, and on that basis denies it. Cotter affirmatively asserts that Ralston Creek does <br />not appear to be in strong hydraulic connection with the Schwartzwalder Mine based on: stream <br />flow. rates, mine pumping rates while the mine was being pumped, low hydraulic conductivity <br />values, and the saturated zone above the mine. <br />16. Cotter admits that technical investigations have reported that the source of uranium and <br />total dissolved solids loading to Ralston Creek is derived from the alluvium. Cotter otherwise <br />denies the allegations in paragraph 16. <br />17. Paragraph 17 contains legal conclusions and no response is required at this time. <br />18. Paragraph 18 contains legal conclusions and no response is required at this time. <br />19. Paragraph 19 contains legal conclusions and no response is required at this time. <br />20. Paragraph 20 presumes that a permit is required for the allegations in paragraphs 8-19, <br />which is a legal conclusion and no response is required at this time. CDPS Permit #CO-0001244 <br />speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents as to what it authorizes and therefore no <br />response is required. <br />Alleged Discharging Without a Permit <br />21. The allegations in paragraph 21 purport to characterize Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-8- <br />501(1)(2009), which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents, and therefore no <br />response is required. To the extent a response may be required, Cotter denies any allegations <br />contrary to its plain language and meaning. <br />22. Cotter denies the allegations in paragraph 22. <br />3 <br />#1478735 v2 den