## Facts

- C.W. Mining Co., doing business as Co‑Op Mining Company (Co‑Op), operated an underground coal mine in Emery County, Utah under a permit to mine the Blind Canyon seam.
- Co‑Op applied to the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (Division) for a **significant revision** to mine an additional seam, the Tank seam, within the existing permit area, about 200 feet above the Blind Canyon seam.
- Castle Valley Special Service District, North Emery Water Users Association, and Huntington‑Cleveland Irrigation Company (collectively, Water Users) relied on water from two springs near the mine.
- Water Users opposed the revision, alleging that existing mining had reduced the quantity and quality of spring water and that additional mining would worsen those conditions.
- The Division approved the significant revision.
- Water Users appealed to the Utah Board of Oil, Gas and Mining (Board). After a hearing, the Board affirmed the Division’s approval and found, among other things, that mining the Tank seam was **hydrologically separate** from the springs and that Water Users had not shown a causal connection between the proposed Tank‑seam mining and spring impacts.
- Water Users sought an order requiring Co‑Op to **identify and provide** water resources to address alleged past and future spring harm, arguing that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and Utah’s implementing requirements imposed such duties in connection with the revision.
- After issuing its order, the Board received a **petition to amend** its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Water Users argued some findings should be revised or removed, in part due to concern that those findings might be used against them in separate permit‑renewal proceedings.
- The Board denied the petition to amend.
- Water Users sought review in the Utah Supreme Court of the Board’s denial of the petition to amend and the refusal to require Co‑Op to identify or provide replacement water.

## Issues

1. Whether SMCRA and Utah’s implementing law required the Board, in this permit‑revision dispute, to order the mine operator to identify or provide replacement water based on alleged past impacts or possible future impacts to nearby springs.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that the Tank seam mining was hydrologically separate and would not affect Water Users’ springs.
3. Whether the Board acted unlawfully or abused its discretion by denying the petition to amend its findings and conclusions, including requested changes aimed at avoiding possible issue preclusion in other proceedings.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court denied relief and left in place the Board’s denial of Water Users’ petition to amend.
- The court upheld the Board’s determination that SMCRA’s water‑replacement provisions were not triggered on this record, because the scheme does not impose a general preventive duty to provide replacement water in the absence of demonstrated, mine‑caused injury.
- The court held that the Board’s key factual determinations—including hydrologic separation and lack of a proven causal link—were supported by substantial evidence and therefore would not be reweighed on review.
- The court concluded that Water Users’ concern about possible issue preclusion in separate permit‑renewal proceedings did not require the Board to revise or strike findings that were supported by the evidence and made within the scope of the revision proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- SMCRA water‑replacement obligations arise when a protected water supply has been contaminated, diminished, or interrupted and the harm is proximately caused by the mining operation.
- SMCRA and Utah’s implementing requirements do not require purely preventive replacement‑water measures, or identification of replacement sources, where the asserted harm is speculative and a causal connection has not been shown.
- On judicial review of agency decisions, factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence; a reviewing court does not reweigh competing technical proof.
- An agency deciding a permit revision may confine the proceeding to the revision before it and need not resolve broader disputes tied to separate permits or renewal matters.
- Fear that supported findings may later be asserted for issue‑preclusion purposes does not, by itself, make the findings unlawful or require amendment.

## Conclusion

In reviewing the Board’s refusal to amend its order upholding a significant permit revision for additional underground coal mining, the Utah Supreme Court sustained the Board’s actions: the record supported the Board’s findings that Tank‑seam mining was hydrologically separate from the springs relied upon by Water Users, and SMCRA did not require the operator to identify or provide replacement water absent proof of actual, mine‑caused impairment of those water supplies; concerns about possible preclusion in separate renewal proceedings did not justify rewriting supported findings.


Castle Valley Special Service District v. Utah Board of Oil, Gas and Mining, 938 P.2d 248 (1996)