Laserfiche WebLink
Clearly, CES is urging this Court to require the Board to apply a <br />more stringent standard than that set forth by the general assem- <br />bly. <br />Second, the argument set forth in part II of CES's Opening <br />Brief is really nothing more than an undeveloped contention that <br />CES disagrees with the Board's finding of fact. No where does <br />CES discuss the standards to be applied by a court reviewing <br />agency fact finding. Rather, CES depends upon its contention <br />that the only acceptable evidence of the likely impaot on the <br />hydrologic balance in the future is evidence that water rights <br />have been adjudicated in the past. <br />It is clear that a reviewing court must give tremendous <br />deference to an agency's findings of fact. In order to overturn <br />fact finding, the reviewing court must find that there is no com- <br />petent evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency's <br />decision. Mertshing v. Webb, 757 P.2d 1102 (Colo. App. 1988). <br />The record in this case reveals ample competent evidence to sup- <br />port the Board's finding. The record shows that Battle Mountain <br />had concrete plans for obtaining water rights. Battle Mountain's <br />plans were detailed with respect to both the physical sources of <br />water and the type of water right Battle Mountain intended to <br />seek (r. v. 6A, pp. 1096-1099). Furthermore, the Board observed <br />that a reclamation permit does not relieve Battle Mountain of <br />liability under state water law (r. v. 3, p. 565). C:ES over- <br />states the matter in characterizing this type of evidence as <br />-14- <br />