Laserfiche WebLink
II. THE BOARD'S NECESSARY FINDING THAT THERE WOULD BE MINIMAL <br />DISTURBANCE TO THE HYDROLOGIC BALANCE WAS UNSUPPORTED BY <br />SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. <br />In an action for judicial review of an agency action <br />under C.R.S. $ 24-4-106, "a reviewing court can reverse a state <br />agency's decision if 'the agency action is unsupported by <br />substantial evidence when the record is considered as a <br />whole."' Ross v. Fire 6 Police Pension Assoc., 713 P.2d 1304, <br />1308 (Colo. 1986). The Colorado Supreme Court has held that the <br />"substantial evidence" standard requires more than merely "some <br />evidence in some particulars" to support the agency decision. <br />Id. (Emphasis in original.) Judged 6y this standard, the <br />Board's decision should be reversed because there is little, if <br />any, evidence in the record to support a necessary finding that' <br />the prevailing hydrologic balance of the area will not be <br />disturbed. <br />At the March 22, 1989 hearing, the Board asked Battle <br />Mountain about its Project water sources and water rights. Luke <br />Danielson, a Board member, inquired of Battle Mountain: "Would <br />withdrawal of the kind of water we're talking about frr~m any of <br />the systems you've identified cause a disruption to the <br />hydrologic balance?" (Vol. 3, p. 563.) In response, .John <br />Halepaska, a Battle Mountain water expert, stated: <br />-13- <br />