Laserfiche WebLink
Fred Banta, Director of the MLRD, summarized the MLRB's <br />consistent interpretation of its regulations in a manner <br />which does not require acquisition of water rights prior to <br />consideration and approval of a reclamation permit. Vol. 3, <br />page 454. Mr. Santa's summary was confirmed by Mr. Holder: <br />Well, it seems to me that the relevance of <br />this whole issue depends on whether or not it <br />our responsibility to see to it that he has <br />water rights. And where I've argued that <br />point with this Board, myself, I've been <br />overruled, not only by the Board, but by the <br />entire State Legislature. We really don't <br />have that responsibility. That's the State <br />Engineer's responsibility. .. We're supposed <br />to advise the operator that he must comply <br />with the State Engineer's rules and <br />regulations, and, that's the extent of our <br />responsibility in that direction. (Vol. 3, <br />pages 549-550.) ...[I]t seems to me that i~ <br />Accordingly, the MLRB's approval of lBattle <br />Mountain's permit application was based upon a rational, long <br />standing and consistent interpretation of its rules and <br />regulations, and as noted previously was supported by <br />substantial evidence on the record. Therefore, it is not <br />subject to reversal or modification by a reviewing court. <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 Upon JucSicial <br />Review. <br />- 32 - <br />permit we've issued for a gravel nit along th@ <br />Platte River. Vol. 3, page 558. Emphasis <br />added <br />