PERMFILE47818

• Permit No: M1988112
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 3/14/1990
• Doc Name: CESS REPLY TO THE BOARD AND BATTLE MOUNTAIN
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ARGUMENTS .....................................................1
I. THE RULES OF THE MLRD UNEQUIVOCALLY REQUIRE AN
APPLICANT TO INDICATE THE WATER RIGHTS AND WATER
SOURCES WHICH WILL SUPPLY PROJECT WATER REQUIREMENTS......1
A. The Requirements Of The Rule Are Clearly Stated.......2
B. Battle Mountain Failed To Comply With The
Requirements Of The Rule ..............................4
C. A Reviewing Court Need Not Deter To An Agency's
Unreasonable Interpretation Of A Clear Statute
Or Rule ...............................................6
D. The Statutory And Regulatory Schemes Demonstrate
The Significance The Rule's Requiremencs ..............7
II. BECAUSE THE APPLICATION WAS INCOMPLETE, THE HOARD
WAS REQUIRED TO DENY IT...........' .......................11
A. The Application Was Not In Substantial Compliance....ll
H. The Board Does Not Have Unbridled Discretion To
Approve An Incomplete Application ....................14
III. THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S FINDING OF A MINIMAL DISTURBANCE
TO THE HYDROLOGIC BALANCE.... ........................15
.~.
CONCLUSION ...................................................16
APPENDIX ............................. .......................
i