Laserfiche WebLink
addition, it described how Cotter had expanded the treatment system beyond what was required <br />by Corrective Action No. 1 to treat not only all water reporting to Sump No. 1, but also water <br />reporting to Sump No. 4 and Ground Water Monitor Well No. 9. <br />45. On September 10, 2010, the Division filed a response to Cotter's Petition for <br />Reconsideration ("Response to Petition"). It acknowledged that Cotter had complied with <br />Corrective Action No. 1, the requirement to reinstate water treatment for water that reports to <br />Sump No. 1, and the requirement to submit a permit amendment to address the EPP and <br />associated financial warranty. The Response to Petition made repeated assumptions that it had <br />been Cotter's burden to disprove any hydrological connection between the mine pool and <br />Ralston Creek at the July 12 hearing, reversing the parties' respective burdens. The Response to <br />Petition also interjected new evidence into the proceeding by raising questions about possible <br />flow of water from the mine pool coming from a newly discovered two-inch pipe in the alluvial <br />fill area. <br />46. On September 13, 2010, Cotter was informed by the Board that the Board had <br />scheduled a public hearing on Cotter's Petition for Reconsideration for September 15, 2010. <br />47. Cotter objected via e-mail later on September 13, 2010 that this was inadequate <br />notice of a hearing under C.R.S. § 24-4-105(2)(a) and requesting that the hearing be moved to <br />the Board's October 2010 calendar to comply with statutory time requirements for notice. <br />48. In response, the Division took the position that because the Board's regulations <br />did not automatically confer a right to a public hearing, Cotter could not complain about the <br />inadequate notice. <br />49. The Assistant Attorney General serving as the Board's counsel confirmed that a <br />hearing had been set on the Board's calendar, but claimed that was an error because the Board <br />allegedly had not yet decided whether to conduct a hearing, and stated that she would order the <br />meeting agenda revised to delete the reference to a hearing. <br />50. On September 14, 2010, Cotter filed a reply in support of its Petition for <br />Reconsideration ("Reply in Support of Petition"). The Reply in Support of Petition addressed, <br />among other points, the Division's new allegations in the Response to Petition about the newly <br />discovered pipe. <br />51. On September 15, 2010, Cotter appeared at the Board's scheduled hearing. <br />Cotter's counsel objected to the short notice given to Cotter and stated that once a public hearing <br />was scheduled a thirty-day notice was required. Subject to this objection, Cotter's counsel stated <br />that he was prepared to present oral argument. Instead, the Board announced that it would not <br />hold a hearing on the Petition for Reconsideration and summarily denied it by an oral <br />announcement. <br />52. On September 16, 2010, the Division sent Cotter a new Notice of Reason to <br />Believe a Violation Exists at the Schwartzwalder Mine ("September 16, 2010 Notice"). (Exhibit <br />10