Laserfiche WebLink
493-553. The MLRB allowed further testimony from CES regarding <br />hydrologic concerns. <br />At the conclusion of the March 22, 1989 hearing the MLRB <br />approved the Permit. The Board made specific findings of fact at <br />that time including a specific finding that any disturbance to the <br />hydrologic balance would be minimized and conditioned the permit <br />to require receipt of documentation that Battle Mountain had <br />acquired water rights prior to leaching and processing of ore. <br />Vol. 3, pages 578-586. <br />ARGUMENT <br />I. THE DECIBION OF THE MLRH TO ISSUE THE PERMIT CANNOT BE <br />REVERSED IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE <br />RECORD. <br />Judicial review of decisions by administrative agencies is <br />governed by $24-4-106 of the Colorado APA. The standard for <br />judicial review under $24-4-106 C.R.S. is as follows: <br />(7) If the court finds no error, it shall affirm the agency <br />action. If it finds that the agency action i.s arbitrary <br />or capricious, a denial of statutory right, contrary to <br />constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, in <br />excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, <br />or limitations, not in accord with the procedures or <br />procedural limitations of this article or as otherwise <br />required by law, an abuse or clearly unwarranted exercise <br />of discretion, based upon findings of fact that are <br />clearly erroneous on the whole record, unsupported by <br />substantial evidence when the record is considered as a <br />whole, or otherwise contrary to law, then the court shall <br />hold unlawful and set aside the agency action and shall <br />restrain the enforcement of the order or rule under <br />review, compel any agency action to be taken which has <br />been unlawfully withheld or unduly delayed, remand the <br />case for further proceedings, and afford such other <br />relief as may be appropriate. $24-4-106(7), C.R.S. <br />(1988 Repl. Vol.). <br />- 8 - <br />