Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ 95 <br />~ <br />t 1 it from the other case -- 89-CW-5 was a well permit <br /> 2 case in which they asked to take water fram a well <br />' 3 it <br />t th <br />f <br />h <br />i <br /> s <br />or w <br />e <br />a <br />ey cla <br />med was a nontributary <br /> 4 aquifer. In order to do that, they had to apply to <br /> 5 the water court and, as part of the water court <br /> 6 application, append to their application tine results <br /> 7 of the State Engineer's determination. <br /> 8 On July 20th of 1989 the State Engineer <br /> 9 determined that the aquifer from which they wanted <br />' <br /> 10 to take water was, in fact, tributary and, as a <br /> 11 consequence, denied their well permit application. <br /> 12 I don't know if the Board has been <br /> 13 apprised of that or not, but at present that means <br /> 14 Battle Mountain Gold does not have any right to take <br />' 15 water from the mine site under 89-Cw-5 and, in order <br /> 16 to establish that right, they will have to 30 <br /> <br /> 17 through the court proceedings and prove, bex~ause <br />' 18 it's their burden of proof, because the water they <br /> 19 seek to use through the purportedly nontributary <br /> 20 aquifer is, in fact, from the tributary aqu:~fer. <br /> 21 That has been set for status conference <br />t 22 on March 15 <br />No trial has bee <br />t at the ver <br />et <br />b <br /> . <br />n s <br />, <br />u <br />y <br /> 23 least, they don't have any water rights under that <br /> 24 case or any means through that case of taking water <br /> 25 from the mine site. <br />AGREN, BLANDO & BILLINGS <br /> <br />