Laserfiche WebLink
_21_ <br />• important issue that we would certainly like to pursue with the Board and we <br />think that there is a substantial question concerning jurisdiction. And we <br />have a different opinion than Mr. Banta does, but we certainly like to present <br />that to the Board at same point, whether we do it after our evidence or before <br />our evidence, it's up to you. We don't care, but we just want you to know <br />that we have that issue. <br />MR. BARRY: Give me a preview. <br />MR. COHEN: We11, the application.. <br />MR. BARRY: I'm intrigued. <br />MR. COHEN: I was hoping you'd say that. <br />MR. COHEN: The rules of the MLRD require that an application must <br />contain quite a bit of information. And what that information must be--what <br />the application must contain is very carefully set forth in the rules, as I am <br />sure you are aware. The rules as well as the statutes, the act, says that if <br />an application is incomplete or inadequate the application must be denied. <br />And, in one, at least one very important area, Battle Mountain's application <br />is deficient. And that is the area concerning water rights and the source of <br />water necessary for the project. And--which I think all of this is <br />encompassed in Exhibit G, to their application. That's basically what our <br />argument is and -- <br />MR. BARRY: It's not a jurisdictional argument. <br />MR. COHEN: We11, it's jurisdictional in this--it's not jurisdictional <br />with respect to who has the right to grant those water rights. We have <br />absolutely no disagreement with Mr. Banta or anyone else, that this Board is <br />not empowered to rule on water rights. Our argument is that based on your <br /> <br />