Laserfiche WebLink
_, <br />unsupportable. (Battle Mountain at 33-34.) Neither the <br />restrictions on the permit nor reclamation assures the absence of <br />prejudice to substantial rights. A broken leg may heal <br />perfectly, but the victim has nonetheless suffered a painful <br />injury. The residents of San Luis are entitled to rely on the <br />Board to fulfill its obligations to uphold its rules and <br />statutes, and to protect their land from needless injury. <br />II. BECAUSE THE APPLICATION WAS INCOMPLETE, THE BOARD W'AS <br />REQUIRED TO DENY IT. <br />Both the rules of the MLRD and the statutes of the <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act ("Act") require the Board to <br />deny an incomplete application. § 34,32-115(4)(a), C.R.S.; MLRD <br />Rule 1.5.5(1), 2 C.C.R. 407-1. The Board's argument to the <br />contrary invites the Court once again to distort the plain <br />meaning of words. <br />A. The Application Was Not In Substantial Compliance. <br />The Hoard relies on one case, Pehr v. Coloradc. Mine Land <br />Reclamation Board, 88 CA0098 (Colo. App., April 6, 1989) (not <br />selected for publication), in support of its contention that the <br />Board need not deny an incomplete application. However, Pehr <br />does not stand for that proposition. Rather, in Pehc the court <br />found that the application at issue was "in substantial <br />compliance." (Board at 11.) Pehr concerned a substantially <br />-11- <br />