Laserfiche WebLink
Battle Mountain argues that requiring an operator to <br />obtain its water rights first and "adjudicate a change <br />application without any certainty that the project will. be <br />approved is somewhat absurd." (Battle Mountain at 30.) It <br />is Battle Mountain's conclusion that defies logic. Battle <br />Mountain's project has only one purpose -- to generate profits <br />for Battle Mountain. Since Battle Mountain enjoys the potential <br />gain, it alone mu3t bear the risk of loss. Before submitting its <br />application, Battle Mountain already purchased 1400 acres of land <br />and leased another 800 acres for the project. (Vol. 6A, <br />pp. 963-4.) If it can risk the acquisition of land before Board <br />approval, it can at least indicate the water information required <br />by the rule so that the Hoard can make its investigation and <br />determination. Battle Mountain's suggestion that the Board and <br />the MLRD to go through the exercise of reviewing and approving <br />the project without having the opportunity to evaluate the water <br />information is a potential waste of administrative resources. <br />Battle Mountain may not be able to obtain water for the <br />project. There is no authority which permits Battle Mountain to <br />shift its risks to the people of San Luis and Colorado.3 <br />Accordingly, Battle Mountain's contention that Plaintiff <br />will suffer no "prejudice to a substantial right" is <br />3 Statutes may not be construed in a manner that elevates <br />private interests over public ones. C.R.S. 2-4-201(e). <br />-10- <br />