My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-05-26_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2011-05-26_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:33:50 PM
Creation date
8/10/2011 2:35:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
5/26/2011
Doc Name
Reply Brief of Plaintiff Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.)
From
Cotter Corporation
To
District Court
Email Name
DB2
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.
/
52
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
itself cites to pages of the EPP stating that any potential conduits would be from the mine to the <br />valley floor alluvium. See Order If 26, AR:00849. <br />III. THE FINDINGS UPON WHICH THE BOARD RELIED TO ORDER MINE <br />DEWATERING AND TREATMENT ARE UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL <br />EVIDENCE; ACCORDINGLY THE BOARD UNLAWFULLY ORDERED <br />CORRECTIVE ACTION NO.2. <br />In section III of its Opening Brief, Cotter explains: (a) the Board's Corrective Action <br />No. 2 — Mine Dewatering and Treatment — is based on findings that Cotter violated three sections <br />of the Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 34- 32- 116(7)(c), - 116(7)(g), and - 116(7)(h); (b) the Board did not <br />establish that the mine pool supports a violation of any one of those sections; and (c) without <br />such evidence, the Board lacked statutory authority to order Mine Dewatering and Treatment. <br />Opening Brief at 26 -35. Defendants' Answer Brief fails to refute this analysis. In their brief, the <br />Defendants do not show that the mine pool supports a violation of the above statutory provisions <br />but, instead, confirm the lack of evidence to support the Board's critical findings that the mine <br />pool has contaminated, and is contaminating, Ralston Creek and Ralston Reservoir and poses a <br />"serious threat" to downgradient water resources. The Defendants do not establish that Colo. <br />Rev. Stat. § 34- 32- 116(7)(h) even applies to the alleged contamination by the mine pool. <br />Further, they provide no analysis to support the Board's authority to order Mine Dewatering and <br />Treatment where, as here, the mine pool does not support the alleged statutory violations. <br />Accordingly, the Board unlawfully ordered Corrective Action No. 2. <br />A. No Substantial Evidence Exists That the Mine Pool Supports a Violation of <br />Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34- 32- 116(7)(g). <br />To support its conclusion that Cotter violated Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34- 32- 116(7)(g), the <br />Board expressly relied on findings that "[t]he mine pool is contributing to the contamination of <br />Ralston Creek and Reservoir," "the contaminated mine pool water has contributed uranium to <br />Ralston Creek," and "mine pool water [has] increased the levels of uranium and other metals in <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.