Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Table of Contents <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION 1 <br />STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND SUMMARY OF ISSUES 1 <br />STATEMENT OF FACTS 4 <br />ARGUMENT 8 <br />I. THE DECISION OF THE MLRB TO ISSUE THE PERMIT CANNOT <br />BE REVERSED IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON <br />THE RECORD. 8 <br />II. THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT DISTURBANCE 4'O THE <br />HYDROLGGIC BALANCE WOULD BE MINIMIZED WAS SUPPORTED <br />BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 10 <br />A. Substantial Evidence Was Presented Regarding <br />Water Quality. 12 <br />B. Substantial Evidence Was Presented Regarding <br />Dredqe and Fill Requirements. 16 <br />C. Substantial Evidence Was Presented Regarding <br />Project Water Requirements, Project water <br />Sources and Project Water Rights. 17 <br />1. Project Water Requirements.Were <br />Addressed 17 <br />2. Project Water Sources Were Addressed. 19 <br />3. Water Rights Were Addressed. 20 <br />III. THE BOARD ACTED WITHIN ITS STATUTORY AUTHORI7."Y WHEN <br />IT APPROVED THE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY <br />BATTLE MOUNTAIN 23 <br />A. The CMLRA Does Not Require That Water <br />Rights Be Obtained Before A Reclamation Permit Is <br />Issued. 24 <br />B. The MLRB Has Consistently Interpreted Rule <br />2.1.2(8)(d) in a Manner that Does laot Require <br />Acquisition of Water Rights Prior to Permit <br />Approval . 2 9 <br />C. Even If The MLRB Did Not Technically Comply With <br />Rule 2.1.2(8)(d), Such Noncompliance Did Not <br />Prejudice A Substantial Right Of CES And The Permit <br />Approval Should Not Be Disturbed Upcan Judicial <br />Review . 31 <br />i <br />