Laserfiche WebLink
A. The Requirements Of The Rule Are Clearly Stated. <br />MLRD Rule 2.1.2(8)(d) expressly requires Battle <br />Mountain's application to "indicate the water rights and sources <br />of water to supply the project water requirements." Tk~e Board <br />urges the Court to adopt an alternative interpretation of the <br />rule, notwithstanding the Board's admission that the rule <br />"requires that an operator indicate the water rights ar.~d sources <br />of water ." (Board at 8). The Board suggests that the rule <br />might be read to merely require the applicant to indicate "the <br />extent to which the applicant anticipates a need for water rights <br />and how it will seek such rights." (Board at 8.) <br />If the Board wanted the rule 'to say that, it certainly <br />could have done so. Moreover, if the rule means what the Board <br />suggests, then the second sentence of the rule requiring the <br />Board to investigate such sources and rights would be meaningless <br />because the applicant would not be required to provide anything <br />which the Board could investigate. Colorado statutes, and by <br />analogy the MLRD's rules, must be construed so that "[t.]he entire <br />statute is intended to be effective." C.R.S. § 2-4-207.(b). The <br />Board's alternative construction strips the rule of al]. meaning <br />and effect. <br />If MLRD Rule 2.1.2(8), 2 C.C.R. 407-1 does not: say what <br />the Board means, then the Board has the authority, and indeed the <br />obligation, to change it. The Board has not done so. Instead, <br />-2- <br />