Laserfiche WebLink
To be sure, the Division asserted 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 ¶¶ 27, 29, AR:00849. But if the problem were this simple, the <br />Division could have produced data and analyses supporting its position, which it did not do. <br />Moreover, if the Division's contention were true that we have not seen the threatened pollution <br />because "the cone of depression has not fully recovered," Order ¶ 27, AR:00849, then why did <br />the Division authorize the creation of the mine pool in the first place? At the time it granted such <br />approval, the Division certainly knew that the cone of depression would eventually recover. See <br />AR:00259. Yet, with that knowledge, the Division explicitly approved the bulkheading and <br />sealing of the Steve Level Adits and the inevitable creation of the mine pool. Id. These facts <br />undermine the Board's position that the mine pool "poses a serious threat to downgradient water <br />resources." Moreover, the Order did not address Whetstone's scientific conclusion that "[o]n the <br />ridge between the mine and Ralston Creek, water levels are expected to be higher than water <br />levels in the mine pool, thus indicating a hydraulic divide between the mine and Ralston Creek <br />along the Schwartz Trend." AR:00264. <br />For the above reasons, the record is unsupported by substantial evidence that the mine <br />pool supports any violation of subsection 116(7)(c). The record fails to show that Cotter did <br />anything improper in its creation of the mine pool or that it failed to do something that a prudent <br />operator would have done. Indeed, Cotter merely implemented the remedial plan that the <br />Division authorized and incorporated into Cotter's reclamation permit. <br />32