Laserfiche WebLink
4. The Order Failed to Evaluate Other More Reasonable Alternatives. <br />The Defendants argue that they considered other alternatives, see Answer Brief at 33 -34, <br />but a close review of the record indicates that no serious consideration was given to other <br />practicable and cost - effective alternatives. The Answer Brief noticeably does not discuss the <br />alternative of more limited dewatering (to a level higher than 500 feet below the Steve Level). <br />See Opening Brief at 25. In fact, the Answer Brief distorts the actual order at issue in this <br />appeal. The Defendants inaccurately state that the Order requires Cotter to dewater and treat the <br />mine pool to cause the gradient of the mine pool to flow only away from Ralston Creek. See <br />Answer Brief at 8 -9, 38, 49. <br />Actually, Mine Dewatering and Treatment is a more draconian corrective action than <br />simply to cause the gradient of the mine pool to flow away from Ralston Creek. It requires mine <br />dewatering to bring the mine water table to a level at least 500 feet below the Steve Level. <br />AR:00853 (emphasis added). The level of 500 feet below the Steve Level would require <br />significantly more dewatering than dewatering simply to reestablish a hydraulic gradient away <br />from Ralston Creek. See Order, AR:00850 ( "Dewatering the mine pool to a level below the level <br />of Ralston Reservoir [the 500 foot level] will ensure that the hydraulic gradient is again reversed <br />away from Ralston Creek and Reservoir — by recreating a cone of depression. ") (emphasis <br />added); Joint Answer of Mined Land Reclamation Board and the Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining and Safety ¶ 34 (Oct. 18, 2010) ( "The Board and Division admit that the corrective <br />action requiring Plaintiff to dewater the mine pool will create reversal of the hydrological <br />gradient from Ralston Creek down to Ralston Reservoir... ") (emphasis added). As the <br />Chairperson of the Board herself stated: <br />And one thing that I've — just from reading what Cotter has written <br />down is that it would be dangerous and difficult and expensive. <br />Would it help at least partly just to dewater to the point that it <br />17 <br />