Laserfiche WebLink
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 through 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 />the context of an administrative action as notice and a reasonable <br />opportunity to present objections. Hendrickson v. State Deo't.. <br />Motor Vehicle Div., 716 P.2d 489 (Colo. App. 1986). CES was given <br />notice of Battle Mountain's permit application as required by § 34- <br />32-112(10) of the CMLRA. It was given an opportunity to present <br />objections during the adequacy review period and during two public <br />hearings. Accordingly, its due process arguments are entirely <br />without merit. ' <br />1. The Board Acted on the Basis of Ascertainable <br />Standards. <br />CES argues that its due process rights were violated <br />by the Board's failure to use "ascertainable standards" in its <br />finding that Battle Mountain had complied with the requirements of <br />Rule 2.1.2(8)(d). In developing its due process argument CES <br />relies upon its own interpretation.of Rule 2.1.2(8)(d), that the <br />MLRB cannot approve a reclamation permit until the applicant has <br />demonstrated that he has obtained all other necessary permits and <br />rights. The CMLRA and MLRB regulations do not require an applicant <br />to possess water rights and other permits before applying for an <br />- 35 - <br />