Laserfiche WebLink
ARGUMENT <br />I. <br />ALL OF CES'S ARGUMENTS FAIL BECAUSE RULE <br />2.1.2(8)(d) DOES NOT REQUIRE AN APPLICANT <br />TO OBTAIN WATER RIGHTS BEFORE APPLYING FOR <br />A RECLAMATION PERMIT. <br />Plaintiff CES has divided its Opening Brief into three sec- <br />tions that purport to set out three separate issues for this <br />court's consideration. However, an examination of the briefs <br />reveals that this case boils down to the single question of <br />whether or not Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Board") Rule <br />2.1.2(8)(d), 2 CCR 407-1 (2-89) requires an applicant to secure <br />adjudicated water rights before applying for a reclamation permit <br />from the Board. <br />A. All of the arguments presented in CES's <br />brief depend on the proposition that Rule <br />2.1.2(8)(d) requires an applicant to obta:..n <br />water rights before applying for a recla- <br />mation permit. <br />The central issue in this case is whether Rule :!.1.2(8)(d) <br />requires an applicant to secure its water rights before coming to <br />the Board for a reclamation permit, as urged by CES. The ques- <br />tion of the proper interpretation of the rule was the subject of <br />a great deal of discussion by the Board (r. v. 3, pp. 555-568). <br />The Board determined that the rule permits an applicant to obtain <br />a reclamation permit before obtaining adjudicated water rights <br />--4 - <br />