Laserfiche WebLink
<br />entitles it to use any water for the project. It catalogues <br />water rights in the area (Battle Mountain at 21), but Battle <br />Mountain's name does not appear in the catalogue. (Vol. 6A; <br />p. 1097.) It commits to obtain an augmentation plan, but it <br />fails to identify the sources of water for such plan or the <br />rights to such sources. <br />The list of items contained on pages 21-23 of Battle <br />Mountain's Brief concerning water rights reflects the <br />insufficiency of Battle Mountain's application. in Items 2 and <br />5, Battle Mountain admits that it had not even submitted an <br />augmentation plan to the Water Court or the State Engineer's <br />office before receiving approval of its application by the <br />Board. In Item 7, Walter Wise, Battle Mountain's attorney, <br />states that "there is a lot of water for sale in the county," but <br />does not state whether Battle Mountain has even entered into <br />negotiations to purchase such water, if any negotiations have <br />resulted in enforceable agreements, whether available water is <br />sufficient to supply the project, where such water is located and <br />whether it can be transported to the project site, or any other <br />relevant information. Likewise, Battle Mountain's expert, John <br />Halepaska, states in item 10 that two irrigation companies <br />"could" provide sources of water, but he does not states whether <br />they in fact have agreed to do so or where such sourceeu are <br />located. In Items 6 and 9 Mr. Halepaska indicates that Battle <br />-5- <br />