Laserfiche WebLink
exceeds, the rigorous and exacting requirements of the Act and Rules. R: 8478 -8481; Order, <br />pp. 4 -7. Specifically, the Board found that "there was no evidence presented that disputes the <br />Division's findings" and "overall, there are no grounds to modify or reverse the Division's <br />decision." Id. The same is true of Plaintiffs' current judicial appeal —they have failed to meet <br />their legal burden required to reverse an agency decision. Therefore, this Court must reject <br />Plaintiffs' unsupported request to vacate or set aside PR -6. Opening Brief, p. 30. <br />The extensive administrative record supports the Board's decision to affirm approval of <br />PR -6. The Board heard and considered substantial factual and technical expert testimony <br />concerning plans under PR -6. In addition, the application materials themselves, including the <br />Division's five comprehensive technical adequacy letters and WFC's substantial technical <br />responses, evidence the Division's careful and exacting review of PR -6. The written record <br />amply demonstrates that the Division and Board carefully reviewed the PR -6 application <br />materials, related technical documentation, expert reports, and exhibits for compliance with the <br />Act and Rules before rendering a decision to approve. <br />The Board rejected Plaintiffs' perceived deficiencies regarding soil management, <br />irrigation design, suitability of replacement soils, and reclamation productivity standards. The <br />Board acknowledged the conflicting opinions presented by the parties. R: 7424. However, the <br />Board found Plaintiffs' arguments unsupported by evidence. R: 8475 -8482. A reviewing court <br />must defer to an agency's choice between two opposing but plausible views. Ward v. Dept of <br />Natural Res., 216 P.3d 84, 94 (Colo. App. 2008). The Board evaluated all of the evidence <br />9 At 8,972 pages this is one of the largest administrative records ever compiled by the Board, <br />evidencing strict scrutiny and an exhaustive technical review process. <br />13 <br />