Laserfiche WebLink
obtains water rights adequate for actual processing or <br />leaching of ore. See C.R.S. 34-42-124. Battle Mountain's <br />reclamation plan does not require supplemental water. See <br />page 19, supra. Even if Battle Mountain defaulted on its <br />obligation to reclaim the affected land, the state would <br />still be able to reclaim the land by utilizing the 53.3 <br />Million reclamation bond submitted by Battle Mountain. ee <br />$34-32-118. Finally, The State Engineer and the water courts <br />retain jurisdiction over all matters relevant to <br />appropriation of water and injury to water rights. :6hould <br />any party allege injury to its water rights, that party has <br />an adequate remedy through the water courts. C.R.S. $37-92- <br />203 (1989 Cum.Supp.). <br />Because of the foregoing protections afforded CES, it <br />cannot show that it suffered any injury or prejudice to a <br />substantial right. Accordingly, under Colorado law, the MLRB's <br />findings of fact and decision approving the permit are not subject <br />to reversal by this court. Mattinoly v. Charnes, 700 P.2d 929 <br />(Colo. App. 1985). <br />IV. THE MLRB DID NOT VIOLATE CES' PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS <br />RIGHTS BY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING BATTLE MOUNTAIN'S <br />RECLAMATION PERMIT. <br />Colorado courts have consistently held that the <br />requirements of procedural due process are met thr~uugh basic <br />fairness in procedure. deKoevend v. Board of Education, 688 P.2d <br />219 (Colo. 1984). Basic fairness in procedure has been defined in <br />- 34 - <br />