Laserfiche WebLink
What you're talking about is moving water <br />that's currently being used to irrigate <br />ground from one location to another through <br />the (Water] Court action and augmentation <br />plan. It will be Battle Mountain's <br />responsibility to prove, by a computer models <br />[sic] or whatever else is required by the <br />Court or by the state engineer, to show that <br />the movement of that water from one place to <br />another by either moving it up a water shed <br />or by physically piping it leaves intact the <br />other rights. <br />(Vol. 3, p. 564.) <br />In essence, Battle Mountain was unable to affirmatively <br />answer this critical question because it had not even ?filed an <br />augmentation plan. In the absence of specific water rights <br />granting sources for Project water requirements, the ability of <br />Battle Mountain to demonstrate that it would maintain ~:he <br />hydrologic balance was entirely uncertain and speculative. <br />Battle Mountain's failure to provide the essential and required <br />information rendered it impossible for the Board to investigate <br />Project water rights. Consequently, there was insufficient <br />evidence to support the Board's finding of no disturbances caused <br />by the Project to the hydrologic balance of the area. without / <br />knowing where the Project water was coming from, the Bayard could I <br />not determine what effect the Project would have on the ~ <br />hydrologic balance. fJ <br />Nevertheless, the Board made the specific findding that <br />based on the evidence presented by Battle Mountain, inc:ludinq its <br />responses to questions and to the adequacy letters, "there will <br />-14- <br />