Laserfiche WebLink
<br />mining operation on the affected land," (MLRD Rule 2.1.2(14), 2 <br />C.C.R. 407-1) (Exhibit 0), and a complete list of all owners of <br />record of the affected land and of the substance to be mined. <br />(MLRD Rule 2.1.2(15), 2 C.C.R. 407-1) (Exhibit P). If Battle <br />Mountain must provide property right information about the <br />affected land and substance, it cannot complain about tieing <br />required to provide property right information concerning water <br />rights. <br />In light of the fact that "[m]ost, if not all, river <br />basins in Colorado aze over appropriated" (Battle Mountain <br />at 29), water rights in the San Luis Valley ara extremely <br />valuable. There has been substantial litigation over water <br />rights in the San Luis Valley and the use of water there is <br />complicated and controversial. See Matter of Rules and Reg. Gov. <br />Use, Control & Protection, 674 P.2d 914 (Colo. 1983). Thus, <br />water rights information is critical. That is why the Board must <br />fulfill its statutory obligations to regulate the impacts of <br />mining on water sources and rights. Yet it cannot, because <br />Battle Mountain has not even submitted a plan of diversion or <br />appropriation, let alone obtained any adjudication granting it <br />the right to use water for the project. <br />Finally, Battle Mountain relies upon the Board's policy <br />of disregarding its rules by leaving water tights questions to <br />others. (Battle Mountain at 32.) However, where the literal <br />-13- <br />