My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-02-09_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2011-02-09_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:30:54 PM
Creation date
2/15/2011 7:55:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
2/9/2011
Doc Name
Opening Brief of Plaintiff Cotter Corporation
From
Cotter Corporation
To
District Court
Email Name
DB2
AJW
DAB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
to tell if the mine pool is contributing to Ralston Creek."); 00902:4-7 (Division testimony that <br />the mine pool "is not at a point yet where I, based on my judgment, feel it's making a <br />contribution anywhere ..."); 00885:23-25 (Division testimony that "it is unknown how long it <br />would take for the mine pool to reach Ralston Creek, and it is unknown what volume of water <br />would migrate"); 01015:18-25 (Division testimony that "I would say I don't believe there is any <br />direct evidence that there is contamination from the mine pool to the creek"); and 01001:2-4 <br />(Division testimony that "[w]e do not dispute" that "[t]here is no direct evidence that the mine <br />pool is contributing to Ralston Creek"). The Division specifically agreed that the mine pool was <br />not affecting Ralston Creek via the Schwartz Trend. AR:00477; 01001:23-25. The Division also <br />indicated that it was the alluvium that was causing contamination in Ralston Creek. On behalf of <br />the Division, David Bird testified that the alluvium has "indirect communication with Ralston <br />Creek and is responsible primarily for the contaminants in the creek." AR:00873:18-21; see also <br />AR:00416 ("The contaminants in the alluvium are migrating to Ralston Creek, which flows off <br />site and into Ralston Reservoir"). Moreover, the Division's presentation regarding the alleged <br />violations referred only to migration of contaminants from "the alluvium to Ralston Creek," and <br />the Division made no allegations of migration of contaminants from the mine pool to Ralston <br />Creek. See AR:00471. At the Hearing, in closing, the Division stated that "[t]he corrective <br />actions being requested by the Division are indeed expensive, but probably less than the costs <br />that will be incurred if the mine pool water begins seeping into Ralston Creek and into Ralston <br />Reservoir." AR:00472 (emphasis added). The other evidence in the record (from Whetstone) <br />provided substantial evidence that the groundwater in the mine pool is not migrating through <br />bedrock and affecting water quality below the property line, including not through the Schwartz <br />12
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.