Laserfiche WebLink
<br />complete application, while here the application is incomplete in <br />at least two substantial respects -- information on water sources <br />and information on water rights. Neither Pehr nor any other <br />authority states that the Board may approve an incomplete <br />application. <br />Battle Mountain's promise to "obtain water rights before <br />making a consumptive use of such water," does not constitute <br />"substantial compliance with the Act." (Id.) It is doubtful <br />that Battle Mountain's gratuitous assurance to comply with <br />applicable water law satisfies downstream users; it surely does <br />not satisfy the rule. The critical information about water <br />sources and water rights clearly required by the rule is absent; <br />without it the application cannot possibly be "substantially <br />complete." <br />The Hoard's obligation to investigate water sources and <br />rights is fundamental to its obligation to assure the reclamation <br />performance standards of MLRD Rule 6, 2 C.C.R. 407-1. In order <br />to properly investigate water sources and rights, it i=_ essential <br />for it to know at least where project water will come from, how <br />it will be used, who owns the rights to use it, and how project <br />use will affect downstream users. <br />As Battle Mountain points out, a water right is a <br />property right. MLRD rules require an applicant to state "the <br />source of the applicant's legal right to enter and initiate a <br />-13- <br />