Laserfiche WebLink
Subsequently, on December 14, 2005, the MLRB conducted its formal <br />hearing in this matter at which the City of Black Hawk (the "City") and others <br />presented evidence as to why the Permit should not be granted because the <br />Application was incomplete or fell short of the requirements for a Section 112 <br />Reclamation Permit as set forth in the Reclamation Act and Rules. R. 2671. The <br />MLRB later entered its written Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Order in <br />the Matter of Clear Creek District Water Providers, LLC, File No. M-2004-067, on <br />February 1, 2006. R. 2671-2696. Despite the lengthy and thorough evidence <br />presented as to why the Application should be denied, the MLRB granted to <br />Appellee Clear Creek District Water Providers, L.L.C., the Permit. <br />On March 1, 2006, the City and others filed with the district court for the <br />City and County of Denver a complaint that sought review pursuant to C.R.S. § 24- <br />4-106(4) and reversal pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-4-106(7) of the MLRB's grant of the <br />Permit, alleging that the City was adversely affected by the issuance of the Permit <br />for a number of reasons and that the MLRB had committed several errors as a <br />matter of law in issuing the Permit. District Court Record, Volume I, pp. 1-39. <br />(Vol. I, 1-39.) <br />The matter was briefed before the trial court, Vol. I, 118-204; Vol. II, 356- <br />95, but no oral arguments were permitted by the court despite an unopposed <br />3 <br />