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
mine pool and a violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34- 32- 116(7)(c). To support its conclusion that <br />Cotter violated section 34- 32- 116(7)(c), the Board relies on a finding that "As the mine pool <br />attains hydrostatic equilibrium, it poses a serious threat to downgradient water resources." Order <br />IT 43, AR:00852. This "serious threat" is undocumented in Defendants' Answer Brief and the <br />record. <br />In their brief, the Defendants fail to identify the data, modeling, and scientific analysis <br />that support the alleged threat. See Answer Brief at 37 -44. This critical omission is consistent <br />with the statement of the Board's chairwoman, after testimony closed, that "we don't have data <br />that specifically says there is a problem ...." See AR:01034:23 -24. As Cotter explained in its <br />Opening Brief, the lack of data does not substantiate that the mine pool poses a "serious threat." <br />Opening Brief at 31. <br />The alleged "serious threat" is not supported by the Defendants' repeated claim in their <br />Answer Brief that "expecting water in the mine pool to migrate in the direction of the hydraulic <br />gradient toward Ralston Creek is an application of basic ground water hydrology and scientific <br />common sense." Answer Brief at 18, 43, 47. As explained previously, this claim fails to <br />acknowledge that the mine pool was created with the express approval of the Division. See <br />Section II.D.2 of this Reply, above, regarding bulkheading and the reclamation plan. If such <br />"basic" groundwater hydrology and "scientific common sense" dictated that the mine pool would <br />9 In their brief, Defendants misstate the obligations arising from Colo. Rev. Stat. <br />§ 34- 32- 116(7)(c), by asserting "each operator must handle acid and toxic forming material so as <br />to ensure the protection of surface and ground water." Answer Brief at 10 (emphasis added). <br />No such language appears in section 34- 32- 116(7)(c). Instead, that section provides "Acid - <br />forming or toxic - producing material that has been mined shall be handled in a manner that will <br />protect the drainage system from pollution." <br />10 The Defendants do not dispute that the mine pool was created with the express <br />approval of the Division. See Answering Brief at 44 n.13. <br />24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.