Laserfiche WebLink
The decision of an agency is presumed to be correct <br />and the burden of showing reversible error is upon the party <br />asserting error. Anderson v. Colorado Deo't. of Personnel, <br />756 P.2d 969 (Colo. 1988). Reversible error means error <br />which prejudices a substantial right of a party. Mattingly <br />v. Charnes, 700 P.2d 927 (Colo.App. 1985). If a party fails <br />to establish that it has suffered prejudice to a substantial <br />right, regardless of whether the court finds error in the <br />~ administrative proceeding or decision, the action of the <br />administrative agency is not subject to reversal on judicial <br />review. Mattinaly v. Charnes, 700 P.2d 927 (Colo. App.. 1985) <br />Heil v. Charnes, 616 P.2d 980 (Colo.App. 1980). <br />CES has failed to show that it has suffered <br />prejudice to a substantial right as ~a result of the MLRB's <br />decision to conditionally approve Battle Mountain's <br />reclamation permit upon subsequent demonstration by Battle <br />Mountain that it had secured water rights to meet project <br />requirements. Not only were the rights asserted by CES <br />protected by the conditional approval, since Battle Mountain <br />could not conduct processing or leaching of ore pending <br />acquisition of water rights, they are also protected by <br />several provisions of the permit itself and applicable law. <br />For example, Battle Mountain's obligation to recla:~m all <br />affected land is enforceable under the civil penalty <br />provisions of the CMLRA regardless of whether Battle Mountain <br />- 3-3 <br />