Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r <br />of issues concerning the permit application. One issue consid- <br />ered by the Board was a contention by Costilla Count}~ Committee <br />for Environmental Soundness ("CES") that the Board does not have <br />the authority to issue a permit unless the applicant has already <br />secured its water rights (r. v. 3, p. 555). At the time of the <br />hearing, Battle Mountain did not have such rights (r. v. 6A, pp. <br />1096-1099). However, Battle Mountain's application did fully <br />describe its anticipated water needs, its plan to obtain water <br />rights to satisfy such needs, and the state of water rights in <br />the area (r. v. 6A, pp. 1096-1099). Amore thorough description <br />of Battle Mountain's evidence is contained in the statement of <br />facts in Battle Mountain's Response Brief (Response Brief, pp. <br />5-9). <br />The Board engaged in an extended discussion of its rules <br />and its long standing policy of permitting operators to obtain a <br />reclamation permit before obtaining water rights (r. v. 3, pp. <br />555-568). <br />At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board approved the <br />permit by a unanimous vote (r. v. 3, p. 587). The permit issued <br />by the Board included a stipulation that Battle Mountain may not <br />begin actual leaching or processing of ore until it o:otains <br />appropriate water rights (r. v. 3, p. 480). <br />Pursuant to § 24-4-106, C.R.S. (1988), this mat'=er now <br />comes before this court for judicial review of the Board's deci- <br />sion approving the application. <br />-3- <br />