Laserfiche WebLink
<br />II <br />_I <br />II <br />II <br />, I <br /> <br />monitoring of gravel pit effluent be undertaken independently by the <br />WQCD. <br /> <br /> <br />, Conclusions <br /> <br />.~ <br />.11 <br />I <br /> <br />,~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />- <br />~ <br />- <br />- <br />- <br />- <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />The opponents to the line Camp gravel pit were not given a fair and <br />equitable opportunity to present their arguments in opposition to the <br />operator's application because of agency bias, time constraints precip- <br />itated by attorney's use of opponents' alloted time to argue legal . <br />issues, failure to subpoena critical witnesses and acceptance by theMLRB <br />board of data challenged by opponents as false and invalid. <br /> <br />The MLRB without reviewing in detail the substantial amount of material <br />presented by opponents and without investigating the credibility of <br />certain data challenged by opponents made an undeliberated decision <br />within minutes of the closing of the hearing. <br /> <br />While there are ample "due process oflaw" issues on which to launch an <br />appeal the sad truth is the opponents do not have the financial resources <br />to so. <br /> <br />The unfortunate net result is that another gravel pit will begin operation <br />along the Dolores River with no knowledge of the health risks to the citizens <br />of this state. <br /> <br />As a closing comment I would strongly recommend that any review action <br />taken by any group of this matter include first a review of the transcript <br />of the hearing record. In this way emotions which run strong and which <br />unintentionally may have been expressed here-in will not be a factor. <br /> <br />David B. Wuchert <br />970-88Z-8081 <br />