Laserfiche WebLink
MLRB permit. These regulations were duly promulgated in May, 1977 <br />and have been consistently applied by the MLRB for over 12 years. <br />Due process does not require that the MLRB accept <br />CES' interpretation of Rule 2.1.2(8)(d). The Board provided CES <br />a full and fair opportunity to present its evidence and arguments. <br />Further, CES was allowed to cross-examine Gary Dodson, Battle <br />Mountain's witnesses and the MLRB's witness on the relevant issues. <br />Simply because the MLRB did not accept CES's interpretation of the <br />rule does not mean that the Board's approval of the permit <br />application was based upon unascertainable standards, or that CES <br />was denied due process. <br />2. CES's Due Process Rights Were Not Infringed. <br />It is the law in Colorado that a party's due process <br />rights are not infringed unless he 'has been prejud:~ced by the <br />administrative procedures to which he objects. Ricci v, Davis, 627 <br />P.2d 1111 (Colo. 1981). CES has not shown that it suffered any <br />prejudice to a substantial right as a result of the MLRB's approval <br />of the Permit. The Permit requires Battle Mountain to obtain water <br />rights and any required changes in points of diversion or <br />augmentation plans prior to leaching or processing of ore. To the <br />extent its interest may be affected, CES will have an opportunity <br />to object to such water matter in the state water court. The <br />Board's determination that impacts to the hydrologic balance would <br />be minimized was based on substantial evidence in the record, and <br />- 36 - <br />