Laserfiche WebLink
inseparable from the issue of his lack of representation; the reasons therefore are carefully noted <br /> in both the Motion to Re-Open and the Motion for Reconsideration and for Declaratory <br /> Judgment. <br /> As noted in its Motion to Strike at 36, DRMS is well aware that Fontanari listed over 30 <br /> separate items or categories of physical evidence, documentary evidence, lay testimony and <br /> expert testimony which Fontanari was not allowed to present, or capable of presenting. If <br /> necessary, each of these should be considered separately. If such an extensive and carefully <br /> considered listing constitutes a "failure to meet the initial threshold requirements" (Motion to <br /> Strike at 38), then, apparently nothing would meet the standard stated by DRMS. That would <br /> render Rule 2.9 virtually meaningless, and the right to representation established in the APA <br /> would be eviscerated. <br /> Likewise,DRMS dedicates Section VII of its Motion to Strike arguing that Fontanari did <br /> not meet the standard for petitioning for a Declaratory Order under Rule 2.5.1. Each of the <br /> statements in DRMS's Motion to Strike (Motion to Strike at 40-42) are conclusory, rather than <br /> illuminating. <br /> As carefully noted by Fontanari in its Motion/Petition, the Board's action on August 21 <br /> raised important questions concerning whether the Board is requiring an abandonment of decreed <br /> water rights, or a change in the administration of decreed water rights (Motion/Petition at 60-64). <br /> This issue involves, inter alia, a potential jurisdictional conflict between the Office of the State <br /> Engineer, and the administration of construction materials permits by DRMS, wherein in the <br /> Board's Order in this matter corrective actions were required involving irrigation infrastructure <br /> and its removal, and the cessation of the use of water for decreed uses on lands where its use is <br /> 11 <br />