Laserfiche WebLink
<br />h <br />(r. v. 3, p. 580). All three of the arguments presented in CES's <br />Opening Brief are dependent on its contention that a.n operator <br />must obtain water rights first. if CES is incorrect in its con- <br />tention, all three of its arguments necessarily fail. <br />in part i of its Opening Brief, CES argues than: the appli- <br />cation was incomplete. The argument is premised on t;he conten- <br />tion that Rule 2.1.2.(B)(d) requires an applicant to obtain water <br />rights first in order to file a complete application. CES admits <br />that Battle Mountain's application indicated an intent to secure <br />water rights through an augmentation plan but, CES ccontends, such <br />evidence was merely an "empty promise" (Opening Brief, pp. 6-7.). <br />CES argues that the rule requires that the augmentation plan be <br />filed with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Opening brief, <br />pp. 6-7).1/ CES further asserts that Rule 2.1.2(8)(d) "clearly <br />implies a sequencing of permits" in which water rights are <br />obtained first (Opening Brief, p. 9.) <br />Part III of the CES brief depends entirely on the argument <br />made in part I. Part III simply argues that it was a violation <br />of due process for the Board to approve of an incomplete applica- <br />tion (Opening Brief, p. 16). If CES fails to show that the <br />application was incomplete, both arguments fail. <br />The argument in part II of the Opening Brief also depends <br />on the notion that an applicant must already have his or her <br />water rights before coming to the Hoard.2/ CES arguers that <br />"[I]n the absence of specific water rights granting s~~urces for <br />-5- <br />