Prehearing Conference Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6. Trout Unlimited, represented by Bart Miller of Western Resource Advocates in the absence of Drew Peternell. 7. Colorado River Energy Distributors Association ("CREDA"), represented by Gabe Carter of Moses, Wittemyer, Harrison & Woodruff PC. 8. Arapahoe County, represented by Paul Zilis of Vranesh and Raisch LLP. 9. Palmer Divide Water Group, Town of Monument, Woodmoor Water and Sanitation District, Donala Water and Sanitation District, Triview Metropolitan District, and Parker Water and Sanitation District, represented by Paul Zilis in the absence of Rohert Krassa. Contested Hearing Participant: 10. Colorado Farm Bureau, Delta County Farm Bureau, and Montrose County Farm Bureau, represented by Lee Miller of Burns, Figa & Will PC. Party Gunnison County was not represented at the prehearing conference. Mr. McClow offered to try to accommodate Gunnison County within the time allotted to the Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District and Colorado River Water Conservation District (the "Districts"), or in the alternative, Gunnison County may make a statement during the Public Comment period. B. Preliminary Procedural Nfatters 1. Motions. There were no pending motions at the time of the prehearing conference, and no Party made any motion at the prehearing conference. 2. Direct testimony and cross-examination. Several Parties asked what method should be used for presenting direct witness testimony, and several Parties also inquired about the availability of cross-examination of Party witnesses by other Parties. The Hearing Officer asked whether there is any particular reason why attorney questioning of a Party's own witnesses andlor cross-examination of other Parties' witnesses would be particularly useful or appropriate to elicit clear and complete testimony in this hearing. No such reason was presented by any participant in the prehearing conference. The Hearing Officer therefore recommends to the Board that direct witness testimony, including rebuttal testimony, be presented in narrative form with limited Q&A by attorneys being allowed far purposes of assuring the clarity and completeness of the witness' testimony. The Hearing Officer also recommends that cross-examination of witnesses by Parties or their counsel not be permitted. One or more of the Parties may request that the Board reconsider these recommendations. 3. Objection to Board questions. One Party asked whether Parties would be permitted to object to questions put to witnesses by Board members. The Hearing Officer recommends that no such objections be permitted. 4. Objection to Exhihit. Pursuant to Rule 5.53(D) of the ISF Rules, an attorney for the U.S. Department of the Interiar ("DOI") noted that DOI might raise an objection at the hearing to the acceptance into the record of Exhibit C identified in the prehearing statement filed on behalf of Environmental Defense, High Country Citizens Alliance, 2