2011-02-09_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300

Home Browse Search

about the actual costs of disposal or about what dollar amount it considered "significant." Of course, without any evidence of the magnitude of costs that are "significant," the Board could not have compared those costs with the unknown costs of Corrective Action No. 2, as it claims to have done and as required by law. Third, the record contains no evidence at all about the costs of (or even the method for) treating the water in Ralston Creek itself or in Ralston Reservoir (let alone any suggestion that either would be rational or reasonable alternatives). In sum, the record does not contain substantial evidence on which the Board could base its findings about the relationship between the unspecified costs of Corrective Action No. 2 and the unknown costs of hypothetical future treatment for uranium by Denver Water or Arvada. Further, the record contains absolutely no evidence at all about the costs of treating either Ralston Creek or Ralston Reservoir to remove uranium - contrary to the Board's assertions in the Order. As a result, the findings and conclusions quoted above are not supported by substantial evidence, are arbitrary and capricious, and are contrary to law (which requires cost- benefit analysis including the reasonableness of the corrective action). The legislative declaration section of the Act states that it is the intent of the General Assembly that, as part of any mined land reclamation regulatory program, the "economic costs of reclamation measures" should "bear a reasonable relationship to the environmental benefits derived from such measures." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-32-102(2). Furthermore, the Board is directed to evaluate both "the benefits expected to result from" planned reclamation measures and "the economic reasonableness" of those same measures. Id. This type of statutory language makes clear that the Board must undertake some form of cost-benefit analysis in making 22