Laserfiche WebLink
shall be minimized. Nothing in this para- <br />gra h (g) shall be construed to allow the_ <br />operator to avoid compliance with other <br />statutory provisions governing well permit <br />a~ augmentation requirements and replace- <br />ment plans when applicable. <br />(Emphasis added.) <br />Since a reclamation permit does not relieve the applicant <br />of the duty to comply with state water law, it follows that the <br />General Assembly did not contemplate a scheme that required an <br />applicant to secure adjudicated water rights before going to the <br />Board. If the General Assembly had contemplated such a scheme it <br />would have been meaningless for the General Assembly to go on to <br />state that the operator was not relieved of the duty to comply <br />with the laws governing the acquisition of such rights. Accord- <br />ingly, CES's argument that the phrase "hydrologic balance" <br />requires proof of adjudicated water rights is contrary to the <br />plain language of the statue and is without merit. <br />There are other fundamental errors in the argument set <br />forth in part II or CES's Opening Brief. First, CES misstates <br />the Hoard's findings. The Board made a finding that .any disturb- <br />ance to the hydrologic balance will be minimized (r. ~~. 3, p. <br />578). This is in accord with § 34-32-116(7)(9). However, in <br />discussing this matter, CES urges the court to examine the record <br />for evidence that "the prevailing hydrologic balance of the area <br />will not be disturbed" (Opening Brief, p. 13) (emphasis added). <br />-13- <br />