Laserfiche WebLink
system. To be sure, the Division asserts that "future contribution is inevitable because of the <br />direction of the hydraulic gradient," and "[e]xpecting water in the mine pool to migrate in the <br />direction of the hydraulic gradient is an application of basic ground water hydrology and <br />scientific common sense." Order IT 27, 29. But if the problem were this simple, the Division <br />could have produced data and analysis to support its position, which it did not do. Moreover, if <br />the Division's contention were true that we have not seen the threatened pollution because "the <br />cone of depression has not fully recovered," Order ¶ 27, then why did the Division authorize the <br />creation of the mine pool in the first place? At the time it granted such approval, the Division <br />certainly knew that the cone of depression would eventually recover. See Letter dated <br />December 18, 2007 from the Division to Cotter, approving the Technical Revision for sealing the <br />Steve Level adits (Attachment 1 to Cotter's June 21, 2010 letter to the Division). Yet, with that <br />knowledge, the Division explicitly approved the bulkheading and sealing of the adits and the <br />inevitable creation of the mine pool, which it now contends violates the Act. These facts <br />undermine the Division's current contentions that the mine pool will cause pollution of Ralston <br />Creek or Ralston Reservoir and show that the alleged "serious threat" is undocumented <br />speculation. Tr. of Hearing at 25:6-9 ("We don't have any solid data to know exactly what the <br />mine pool is doing right now other than the level below the Steve Level."). Moreover, the Order <br />does not address Whetstone's scientific conclusion that "[o]n the ridge between the mine and <br />Ralston Creek, water levels are expected to be higher than water levels in the mine pool, thus <br />indicating a hydraulic divide between the mine and Ralston Creek along the Schwartz Trend." <br />Rationale at 4. Speculation provides no basis to find that Cotter violated the law and must pay <br />civil penalties. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-4-106(7) (court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency <br />7