Laserfiche WebLink
C~ <br />• <br />It is undisputed that Battle Mountain's application is <br />incomplete. The lack of water information is significant. In <br />the semi-arid climate of the San Luis Valley, water is a precious <br />commodity. Battle Mountain has so far been unable to obtain the <br />necessary water rights to fulfill its project water requirements. <br />The MLRD has taken the position, without explanation, <br />that Battle Mountain's application may ignore the requirements of <br />Exhibit G. That position, however, is contrary to law. <br />Every agency decision respecting the grant <br />. of a license [defined to include <br />permits] shall be based solely upon stated <br />criteria, terms, and purposes of the statute <br />or regulations promulgated thereunder. <br />C.R.S. § 24-4-104(2) (1988 Repl. Vol.) (emphasis added). See <br />also Wilder v. Prokop, 846 F.2d 613, 619 (10th Cir. 1988) (An <br />agency's interpretation of its own rules "must be sustained and <br />applied as controlling law unless that interpretation i.s plainly <br />erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations.") <br />The Board is not free to disregard applicable statutes <br />and its own agency rules and regulations. To do so would be a <br />violation of due process in that it would deprive part'.es to the <br />application process of standards by which applications are <br />approved. See, e•g•, Tri-State Generation, etc. v. Cii,:y of <br />Thornton, 647 P.2d 670, 678 (Colo. 1982) ("Courts have generally <br />required that standards be incorporated into a planned <br />development ordinance [or the determination of mining <br />-4- <br />