Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />l.INnA UASSI AND ALEX DA VIS <br />SIIIU.:<:T, PMOP"SW CWCS ISF PROGRAM RVLEM"KIN(; <br />1'^()~2 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />ClJ An addition which would become the last sentence of a revised Rule 5.20 slales Ihat <br />lhe Board can modiJY thc statcd schedule in its discrelioll, Is that trlle CVCII t,)r the <br />January process (the "will" items as opposed Lo the "may" items)? I W,L~ pknscd to <br />scc the relative certainty regarding an anuual January Board proc~'ss. The proposed <br />last sentence would erode that certainty. <br /> <br />@J New Rule 5.2l(B) references the date on which "tinnl Board action may occur." This <br />date would appear in Water Court resume notices which would Mtract the uUenlioll, <br />and the attendance at the noticed mecting. of intcrcstcd pcrsons. The 130ard could <br />commit that the noticed meeting date is thc date on which the lillal action will occur. <br />I understand the Board's need tor Oexibility. On lhe other hand, it would be ull",ir <br />ifpartics travel great distance to attend an action meeting and thc Board then ducs 1101 <br />take action. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />New Rule 5.6l(C), together with the findings stated in Rule 5.40, limil the scope of <br />the hearing. It is certainly appropriate to put "sideboards" on the hearing. However. <br />there is another important statutory critcria which must be addrcsscd at Icnst in some <br />cases: the effect of an ISF on compact developmcnt. Is that issue ever to be subject <br />to an administrativc dctcrmination in thc context ofthcsc Rulc:s? <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />/ <br />!/ <br /> <br />CID Conferring automatic party status on any "recommcnding agency,"115 provide" in fhe <br />new Rule 5.62(B)(iv), seems unnecessary. Certainly, parties such as Division of <br />Wildlife can apply for party status when they are truly interested. To mak.: thcm <br />automatic parties may provoke artificial contcntion. <br /> <br />CZl It is unclear to me from new Rulcs 5.63(B) and 5.63(C) whether [he exhibits which <br />partics may identify and introduce arc limitcd only to "record" mat~rials, May [hey <br />also include cxtra-reeord materials? <br /> <br />CID I expect that you will receive objections 10 new Rule 5.65(C)'s denying parties any <br />right of cross-cxamination. Theremay he a due process argument that YOll should <br />cunsider in regard to limiting examination to CWCB members. I recall that Scott <br />Baleomb wrote detailed comments to CWCB about due process concerns regarding <br />S.B. 96-64 procedures. I haven't reviewed those comments in a while. <br /> <br />Ut1I:at. <br /> <br />e <br />