Laserfiche WebLink
means." (Vol. 3, p. 112.) Notwithstanding its unfamiliarity and <br />lack of understanding of its own Rule, the Board elected to <br />ignore the Rule's requirements. <br />Davis Holder, another of the members of the Board, <br />offered the following explanation: <br />Well, it seems to me that the relevance of <br />this whole issue depends on whether or not it <br />is our responsibility to see to it that he <br />has water rights. We really don't have <br />that responsibility. That's the State <br />Engineer's responsibility. <br />• . . <br />We're supposed to advise the operator that <br />they must comply with the state engineer's <br />rules and regulations, and that's the extent <br />of our responsibility i,~ that direction. <br />(Vol. 3, p. 551.) Mr. Holder explained further: <br />I'm speaking against my own personal <br />opinion. I'm speaking of the interpretation <br />that we've always followed ever since i've <br />been on the Board, with which I disagree, but <br />we can't apply it differently to different <br />folk. <br />(Vol. 3, p. 565.) <br />Mr. Holder's cemarks are contradicted by MLRD rules and <br />Colorado statutes. MLRD rules expressly provide that t:he Board <br />will review an applicant's water sources and rights. 7"herefore, <br />the rule clearly implies a sequencing of permits, since the Board <br />cannot review an Applicant's water rights until it obtains <br />them. Likewise, the statutory requirement that an applicant <br />minimize disturbances to the hydrologic imbalance implies that <br />-9- <br />