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
migrate and would pose a "serious threat," the Division would never have approved the creation <br />of the mine pool in the first instance. Further, if the problem were as simple as "scientific <br />common sense," the Division could have produced data and scientific analyses to support its <br />position, which it did not do. Not surprisingly, the Defendants do not identify record evidence to <br />support their conclusory statements. <br />The Board's finding that the mine pool poses a "serious threat" is undermined by the lack <br />of evidence that the mine pool has leaked, or is leaking, uranium into Ralston Creek. The <br />Defendants admit that "[t]he Mine started filling with water in 2000." Answer Brief at 18. Yet, <br />the Defendants have not produced evidence that the mine pool is contributing uranium to Ralston <br />Creek, and admit that they do not know if such leaking has occurred, or is occurring. See <br />Section III.A., above. Defendants also do not explain the conspicuous lack of evidence to <br />support the Board's finding of a "serious threat." <br />For these additional reasons, the record is unsupported by substantial evidence that the <br />mine pool supports any violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34- 32- 116(7)(c). <br />C. No Substantial Evidence Exists That the Mine Pool Supports a Violation of <br />Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34- 32- 116(7)(h). <br />The Defendants do not, and cannot, show that the mine pool supports a violation of Colo. <br />Rev. Stat. § 34- 32- 116(7)(h), which provides "[a]reas outside of the affected land shall be <br />protected from slides or damage occurring during the mining operation and reclamation." <br />As Cotter explained in its Opening Brief, section 34- 32- 116(7)(h) does not even apply to <br />the mine pool or uranium concentrations in Ralston Creek. Opening Brief at 33 -34. In <br />section 34- 32- 116(7)(h), the word "damage" is coupled with the word "slides," which denotes an <br />intention that the two words should be understood in the same general sense. 2A Norman J. <br />Singer & J.D. Shambie Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47:16 (7` ed. 2007). <br />25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.