Laserfiche WebLink
<br />tem. CES has not shown that the phrase unambiguously refers <br />instead to disputes between water users. <br />in interpreting the rule, the Board also considered its <br />rule in the context of other state laws. The Board .recognized <br />the waters of the state are regulated by the State Engineer (r. <br />v. 3, p. 564); see also $§ 37-92-501 to 504, C.R.S. X1973 & 1988 <br />Supp.). Therefore, there was good reason for the Board to defer <br />to the State Engineer with respect to water rights. <br />Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Board's inter- <br />pretation of Rule 2.1.2(8)(d) was reasonable, and must not be <br />disturbed upon review. It follows that CES has not shown a <br />violation of Rule 2.1.2(8)(d). Therefore, CES's arguments are <br />without basis. <br />II. <br />THE BOARD HAS THE DISCRETION TO APPROVE ANN <br />INCOMPLETE APPLICATION. <br />Part I of this brief demonstrates that Battle Mountain's <br />application was complete and, therefore, correctly approved by <br />the Board. However, even if the application was incomplete, the <br />Board's decision must be upheld because the Hoard has the author- <br />ity to approve of an incomplete application. <br />CES relies on § 34-32-115(4)(a), C.R.S. (1988 Supp.) for <br />authority for its argument that the Board must deny an incomplete <br />application. However, that statute simply lists the 3rounds for <br />-10- <br />