Laserfiche WebLink
The Hoard's interpretation must be given a great deal of <br />deference. Schneider, supra. The Board must not be reversed <br />simply because CES has come up with an alternative interpreta- <br />tion. <br />The Board discussed the meaning of Rule 2.1.2(8)(d) at <br />great length (r. v. 3, pp. 555-568). The Board observed that <br />long-standing Hoard policy permits an applicant to ot~tain a <br />reclamation permit before seeking water rights (r. v. 3, p. 565). <br />Following its analysis of the rule, the Board continued this <br />policy (r. v. 3, p. 580). Rather, the Board sought indications <br />of the potential physical sources of water and observed that the <br />operator cannot make a consumptive use of water before obtaining <br />the appropriate water rights (r. v. 3, pp. 562, 567). The pri- <br />mary focus of the Hoard's inquiry, however, concerned the extent <br />to which the mine poses a threat of unacceptable environmental <br />consequences (r. v. 3, p. 564). <br />The meaning given to the rule by the Board is reasonable <br />and consistent with both the language of the rule and with the <br />overall scheme set up by the Act. The Board applied the rule in <br />a manner calculated to affect its statutory charge to ensure that <br />disturbances to the hydrologic balance are minimized pursuant to <br />§ 34-32-116(7)(8), C.R.S. (1988 Supp.) (r. v. 3, pp. 558-560). <br />As detailed in part III of this brief, the Board reads the phrase <br />"hydrologic balance" to refer to environmental consequiences and <br />physical intrusions by the mining operation into the water sys- <br />-9- <br />