Laserfiche WebLink
statement of both the factual basis for the decision of the MLRB <br />to issue the Permit and the law in Colorado governing judicial <br />review of administrative agency action. <br />CES has raised three arguments against the Permit in its <br />Complaint and its Brief. All three issues raised by CE:S focus upon <br />a single provision of Rule 2.1.2(8)(d) of the MLRB Rules and <br />Regulations. The provision which is given such undue emphasis is <br />Rule 2.1.2(8)(d). Rule 2.1.2(8) provides that an operator shall <br />"indicate" project water requirements, water sources and water <br />rights in its permit application, and the Board shall "investigate" <br />such sources and rights prior to consideration of the application. <br />The first argument of CES asks this Court to interpret the words <br />"indicate" and "investigate" to impose upon the MLRB responsibility <br />to verify that an applicant has obtained all necessary permits and <br />licenses required by other state and local agencies before a <br />reclamation permit may be issued. Not only does CES' argument <br />ignore the plain language and intent of the ~MLRA, its <br />interpretation of the MLRB's Rules and Regulations was rejected by <br />the Colorado legislature in SB120 the 1988 amendments to the CMLRA, <br />1988 Colo. Sess. Laws, Vol. II. Furthermore, notwithstanding CES' <br />arguments to the contrary Battle Mountain presented substantial <br />evidence on the record concerning project water requirements, water <br />sources and water rights and thereby satisfied Rule 2.1.2(8)(d). <br />The second argument presented by CES challenges the MLRB's <br />finding that disturbances to the hydrologic balanoe would be <br />- 2 - <br />