Laserfiche WebLink
minimized. CES's analysis confuses two distinct factual and legal <br />matters which are statutorily delegated to separate administrative <br />agencies. The issue of minimization of impacts to the hydrologic <br />balance is a factual and technical issue which, as CES correctly <br />states, is within the jurisdiction of the MLRB pursuant to the <br />CMLRA. Conversely, the issues related to the acquisition and <br />control of water rights are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the <br />State Engineer and the state water courts. The record establishes <br />that Battle Mountain presented substantial evidence that impacts <br />to the hydrologic balance would be minimized.z Furthermore, the <br />Permit contains an explicit condition requiring the acquisition of <br />water rights. <br />CES's third argument is that the Board violated CES's due <br />process rights by not following adequate or ascertainable standards <br />in approving the Battle Mountain Permit. This argument. rests upon <br />a misconstruction of the informational requirements of Rule <br />2.1.2(8)(d) and the explicit performance standards in Rule 6.2(1) <br />which provided adequate and ascertainable standards for the Board's <br />determination that disturbance to the hydrologic balance would be <br />minimized. Accordingly, the Board's decision was governed by and <br />in accordance with ascertainable standards. <br />2 A detailed description of this evidence is presented on <br />Pages 12-27, infra. <br />- 3 - <br />