Laserfiche WebLink
<br />statutes and agencies in determining disturbance to the <br />hydrologic balance. The Board has discretion to determine <br />which factors will be considered and the weight given each <br />factor in making its determination that the plan proposed by <br />the operator will minimize disturbance to the prevailing <br />hydrologic balance. Mellow Yellow Taxi Co. v. ublic <br />~ilities Comm'n., 644 P.2d 18 (Colo. 1982). Consequently, <br />as long as the mining operation agrees to comply with such <br />other statutes as the Board deems necessary, the Board can <br />find that disturbance to the hydrologic balance is minimized. <br />CES attempts to ignore all the factors enumerated :~n Rule <br />6.2(1) except those pertaining to water rights in asserting <br />that the Board lacked substantial evidence upon which it: could <br />base its finding of minimal hydrologic disturbance. CES' <br />Opening Brief at 14, Rule 6.2(1)(a). This position is not <br />consistent with the rules of administrative law which provide <br />that an agency's determination of the weight to be accorded <br />certain evidence shall not be disturbed upon judicial review, <br />absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. wither v. B~ankina <br />Board, 510 P.2d 446 (Colo.App. 1973). CES must sho~r that <br />there was no competent evidence in the record as a whole <br />supporting the MLRH's decision to establish that the Hoard's <br />finding that disturbances to the hydrologic balance would be <br />minimized was arbitrary and capricious. Mertschina v. Webb, <br />757 P.2d 1102 (Colo. App. 1988). CES has not met its burden <br />- 12 - <br />