Laserfiche WebLink
which the Board mfr deny an application. Section 34-32-115(4)(a) <br />provides: <br />(4) The board shall grant a permit to an <br />operator if the application complies with <br />the requirements of this article. The <br />board shall not deny a permit, except for• <br />one or more of the following reasons: <br />(a) The application is incomplete.... <br />Nowhere does this statute require the Board to deny an incomplete <br />application. The contention that the Board must denp an incom- <br />plete application has been rejected by the Colorado Court of <br />Appeals. In Pehr v. Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Hoard, 88 CA <br />0098 (Colo. App., April 6, 1989) (not selected for publication) <br />(copy attached as Exhibit A), the plaintiffs contended that the <br />Hoard's decision was reversible because the "application was <br />incomplete and otherwise deficient" (slip op. at 2). The court <br />of appeals disagreed stating that the "permit application was in <br />substantial compliance with the requirements of the Reclamation <br />Act and the Board's regulations" (slip op. at 6) (emphasis <br />added). <br />The application in this case was in substantial compliance <br />with the Act. The record indicates that Battle Mountain will <br />obtain water rights before making a consumptive use of such water <br />(r. v. 3, p. 562). Therefore, even if the application was incom- <br />plete, the Board's decision still must be upheld upon review. <br />-11- <br />