Laserfiche WebLink
', compliance with other statutory provisions <br />governing well Dermits and augmentation <br />requirements when aoolicable. $34-32- <br />116(7)(q) (1989 Cum.SUpp.) Emphasis added. <br />The Board's inquiry is properly focused on the hydrologic <br />environmental consequences of an operation which may or may <br />not relate to issues regarding water rights. CES' <br />interpretation, on the other hand unduly focuses the scope of <br />the Board's inquiry on matters of Colorado water law, an area <br />in which it has no jurisdiction and no technical expertise. <br />CES' positiun that water rights must be obtained prior <br />to the MLRB's consideration of a permit application is <br />impractical and, if implemented, would be contrary to the <br />purposes of the CMLRA. CES' opening brief is premised on the <br />misconception that the acquisition of water rights is <br />analogous to obtaining a government-issued permit for a <br />mining operation. This position reflects a fundamental <br />misunderstanding of Colorado water law. <br />A water right in Colorado is not issued or permitted in <br />any sense by the state government, but rather results from <br />the independent acts of the appropriator in diverting and <br />applying water to beneficial use. City and County of enve <br />v. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, 130 Colo. <br />375, 276 P.2d 992 (1954). A water rights decree issued by <br />the district court is merely judicial confirmation that an <br />appropriation has been completed. Weibert v. Rothe Bros., <br />- 28 - <br />