Laserfiche WebLink
conclusion. Answer Brief at 33. The citations, however, fail to provide that support. A <br />statement by Catherine Kraeger -Rovey that, as the mine pool rebounds, "it's going to <br />progressively raise water levels at more distant areas near the creek and near the reservoir" does <br />not support that statement. See Answer Brief at 33 (citing AR:01035 -36). Another statement by <br />Ms. Kraeger - Rovey, in connection with "some workup in Coal Creek" and a "railroad tunnel" (a <br />totally different site) that "there are fractures and there is water movement" hardly supports that <br />"the mine pool was contributing uranium to Ralston Creek." See Answer Brief at 33 (citing <br />AR:01040 -41). Indeed, Ms. Kraeger -Rovey stated that it was not inevitable that water would <br />move from the mine pool to Ralston Creek. AR:01040:24- 01041:5. She said that it "probably <br />eventually" would, but that she did not know how long it would take. AR:01041:2 -5. <br />The Answer Brief repeatedly discusses the creation of the mine pool and the "application <br />of basic ground water hydrology and scientific common sense" that the "mine pool [would be <br />expected] to migrate in the direction of the hydraulic gradient" toward Ralston Creek, and that <br />contamination of Ralston Creek is "inevitable." See Answer Brief at 18, 20, 43, 47. The <br />Defendants, however, fail to acknowledge that the mine pool was created with the express <br />approval of the Division. See Opening Brief at 6 regarding bulkheading and the reclamation <br />plan. The Defendants themselves miss the point by arguing that the Division's acceptance of <br />mine pool flooding should not get "the operator ... off the hook." Answer Brief at 44 n.13. <br />Cotter is not arguing that it gets "off the hook" for contamination. Cotter's position is that the <br />substantial evidence did not support that the mine pool caused the contamination in Ralston <br />Creek. The Division's prior approval of mine flooding as a remedial technology refutes the <br />argument it advocates now that it is "inevitable" that the mine pool will contaminate Ralston <br />15 <br />