Laserfiche WebLink
adjudicate a change application without any certainty that <br />the project will be approved by the MLRB (or other permitting <br />agencies) in a manner which will allow the project to proceed <br />or the water rights to be utilized in the anticipated manner. <br />As a practical matter, such a result is somewhat absurd. <br />More importantly, proceeding in the manner proposed by CES is <br />inconsistent with both the principles of Colorado water law <br />described above and the intent of the CMLRA. The recent <br />amendment to the CMLRA confirms that Colorado water law must <br />be complied with at every stage of the operation. See SB120, <br />1989 Colo. Sess. Laws, Vol. 2, pg. 1422. The stated intent <br />of the CMLRA is to "encourage the orderly development of the <br />state's natural resources," and, further, that the economic <br />costs of state-imposed reclamation programs bear a <br />"reasonable relationship to the environmental benefits <br />derived ..." §34-32-102(1) b (2), C.R.S. These objectives <br />are best accomplished by rejection of CES' position ,and by <br />finding that adjudication of relevant water rights decrees <br />need not be completed prior to I+1LRB's consideration of a <br />permit application. <br />B. The MLRB Has Consisten£ly Interpreted Rule <br />2.1.2(8)(d) in a Manner that Does Not Require <br />Acquisition of Water Rights Prior to Permit <br />Approval. <br />It is the prevailing law in Colorado that "[aJn <br />administrative agency's construction of its own rule is <br />- 3A - <br />