Opinion ID: 1208095
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DNR should have considered the change in the nature of the water use from a dredge operation to a wash plant.

Text: TNCC claims that the water use has changed, and therefore that the amount of water to be appropriated should reflect this change. TNCC contends that the original permits approved the operation of a bucket line dredge, which required 6 and 7 cfs to operate. In December 1986 DNR amended the appropriation per stream to 5.6 cfs; DNR retained that amended figure through the disputed extensions. However, DNR found that from 1987-90 TDL used wash plants which apparently require more water than bucket line dredges. TNCC argues that this is a substantial change in the way the water was used, and therefore that, DNR should not have extended the 5.6 cfs allocation without further analysis. TDL responds that [t]he fact that ... [it] has gone from a dredge to a wash plant operation does not change the type of beneficial use involved: placer mining. Only the type of equipment used has changed. The DNR Director responded similarly to TNCC's position on this point: While the type of operation for mining has changed from dredging to a wash plant, I find that using water for placer mining has not changed. TNCC counters that the beneficial use is not placer mining, but instead placer mining by wash plant rather than placer mining by dredge. We agree. The issue is not the general purpose of the appropriation, but the requisite amount of water for the specific project involved. DNR requires a water right applicant to describe the nature of the water use. 11 AAC 93.040(c)(9). The nature of the water use changes if a mining company employs a significantly different mining method that requires a different quantity of water. If TNCC was correct in asserting that a wash plant uses different amounts of water than a dredge, TDL should have been required to seek amended permits reflecting an adjusted limit on the amount to be appropriated. If TNCC was correct, TDL also should have been required to provide a statement of the [new] quantity of water requested, with documentation and calculations justifying the request. 11 AAC 93.040(c)(13). DNR did not decide whether TNCC was correct; it only considered that the basic use, placer mining, was unchanged. DNR should have considered whether the two different methods of mining, in fact, require different amounts of water. Not having conducted that analysis or answered TNCC's argument, DNR should not have extended the 5.6 cfs allocation. The record does not appear to contain facts that would have supported a finding the two types of operations use identical amounts of water (had DNR made such a finding) and it certainly does not contain facts that are so convincing that they render harmless DNR's failure to decide that issue.