Laserfiche WebLink
required by Rule 2.1.2(8)(d). CES offered no factual evidence <br />whatsoever contradicting the extensive factual basis Eor the <br />MLRB's findings of fact and decision to approve the <br />reclamation permit. <br />CES acknowledges that neither the CMLRA nor the MLRB <br />Rules and Regulations specifically require the acquisition of <br />water rights prior to Board consideration and approval when <br />it attempts to assert that Rule 2.1.2(8)(d) "implies a <br />sequencing of permits" (CES Opening Brief, p. 9). As <br />indicated above, such a reading of the rule is inconsistent <br />with the flexible approach to the issue embodied in the plain <br />language of the rule. Further, CES' position i:s made <br />unnecessary by the condition attached to the permit which <br />requires acquisition of water rights. The fact that an <br />operator's compliance with Colorado water law is a separate <br />and distinct matter and not within the proper scope of inquiry <br />by the MLRB was confirmed in legislation, Senate Sill 120, <br />1989 Colo. Sess. Laws, Vol. 2 at 1426, enacted in 1989 which <br />amended the pertinent provision of the CMLRA to add a <br />disclaimer to the hydrologic balance provision as follows: <br />34-32-116. Duties of operators _ <br />reclamation plans. (7) (q) Disturbances <br />to the prevailing hydrologic balance of <br />the affected land and of the surrounding <br />area and to the quality and quantity of <br />water in surface and ground water systems <br />both during and after the mining operation <br />and during reclamation shall be minimizedi. <br />Nothing in this Paraaraoh fgl shall tLe <br />construed to allow the operator to avoid <br />- 2.7 - <br />