My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2019-11-15_ENFORCEMENT - M1996076
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1996076
>
2019-11-15_ENFORCEMENT - M1996076
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2024 2:14:16 PM
Creation date
11/15/2019 1:00:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1996076
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
11/15/2019
Doc Name
Response to Motion
From
Law Offices of John R. Henderson, P.C.
To
DRMS
Email Name
ACY
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.