Laserfiche WebLink
<br />III. THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT <br />THE HOARD'S FINDING OF MINIMAL DISTURBANCE TO THE HYDROLOGIC <br />BALANCE. <br />At the conclusion of the March 27, 1989 hearing, the <br />Board made a specific finding that "there will be a minimum <br />disturbance to the hydrologic balance on the basis of this mining <br />operation." (Vol. 3, P. 578.)4 The Board contends that there is <br />ample evidence to support the finding. "The record shows that <br />Battle Mountain has concrete plans for obtaining water rights." <br />(Board at 14.) As shown above, Battle Mountain's "plan" is that <br />it could acquire water in the future. However, it never <br />describes its plan, let alone a water source or water zight. <br />There is absolutely no assurance that its "plan" will ever become <br />specific or be approved. Until the Board knows the so~~rces <br />Battle Mountain will use to supply the project, the Board cannot <br />evaluate the impact of the project on the water quantity in <br />4 The Board incorrectly states that CES failed to discuss the <br />applicable standard of review. (Hoard at 14.) The Board <br />apparently overlooks page 13 of CES's Opening Brief, which <br />directly points the Court to the applicable standard of" judicial <br />review of state agencies decision. <br />-15- <br />