Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />surface and ground water systems or on the hydrologic balance.5 <br />Battle Mountain does not identify any record evidence of <br />the water sources or water rights that will supply project <br />requirements. They do not even provide reliable information <br />about the amount of water required by the project. Battle <br />Mountain's Response Brief contains 14 pages describing what it <br />believes is supporting evidence. (Battle Mountain at ...0-24.) <br />Most of the "evidence" concerns issues not presented in this <br />appeal, such as water quality. The rest of it includes pious <br />promises and empty information. Battle Mountain did not provide <br />any real evidence of water sources or water rights. Ac:cocdingly, <br />the Board's finding of minimum disturbance to the hydrologic <br />balance, including a minimum disturbance to water quantity in <br />surface and ground water systems, is not supported. <br />CONCLUSION <br />For the reasons stated above, CES respectful l}+ requests <br />that the Court hold the Board and Battle Mountain to their <br />respective statutory and regulatory obligations, and set aside <br />the improper decision of the Hoard granting Battle Mountain <br />Permit No. M-88-112. <br />5 The Board suggests that CES urges the Court to "examine the <br />record for evidence that 'the prevailing hydrologic ba:.ance of <br />the area will not be disturbed."' (Board at 13.) CES makes no <br />such request. It asks the Court only to determine if there is <br />(cont'd.) <br />-lb- <br />