Laserfiche WebLink
85 <br /> 1 rebuttal option. 1 instead of April 6. <br /> 2 MR. STUTZ: Yeah. We retain the option, 2 Nonetheless, they didn't do that. They <br /> 3 but I really don't think we'll -- 3 had the opportunity. Had they done it, we would have <br /> 4 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. So this is me 4 then been able to determine the presence of hydrologic <br /> 5 making a check mark on E; we're closing that up. 5 camunications on lands owned by Mr. Fontanari. <br /> 6 MS. VAN NOORD: Wait. No. I don't want 6 But instead of doing that, they came in <br /> 7 to close it yet. 7 with a preconceived notion, before they even contacted <br /> 8 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. We're not closing 8 Fugro to do the ERT, that all the connection was at the <br /> 9 it up. 9 air ventilation shaft, a manmade structure. <br /> 10 MS. VAN NOORD: But you can keep going 10 That is the basis of our challenge; that <br /> 11 with your -- 11 the ERT testing was not cone in a pruner manner. Yet <br /> 12 MR. ROBERTS: I'm done. 12 they had the opportunity to do it; they had the people <br /> 13 MS. VAN NOORD: Okay. I think the Board 13 to do it. All they had to do was ask. <br /> 14 would really appreciate if the objectors could take 14 MS. VAN NOORD: And your argument on the <br /> 15 sane of their time here that they have in their two and 15 proposed plan? <br /> 16 a half hours to summarize their arguments regarding the 16 MR. BECRWITH: Proposed plan, it should <br /> 17 adequacy of testing procedure and the adequacy of the 17 be much broader. Secondly, that plan, if you put in a <br /> 18 proposed plan, three minutes each. Just really break 18 plug, is not going to correct the problem with this <br /> 19 it dim for us. 19 soil. What's going to correct the problem with this <br /> 20 I feel like we're getting off on all 20 soil is water management. Because the problem is too <br /> 21 these tangents. I need you to focus back in on the two 21 big, in our opinion, for Snowcap to feasibly and <br /> 22 things that we're looking at today. 22 economically try to plug in every hole that is on that <br /> 23 MR. BECKWITH: May I proceed? 23 property. No. <br /> 24 MS. VAN NOORD: Please. 24 MS. VAN NOORD: Okay. <br /> 25 MR. BECMTH: Again, John, according to 25 MR. BECEWITH: And that is why we had an <br /> 258 260 <br /> i the prehearing order, responding to a question is not a 1 alternative plan. I'm not trying to argue the <br /> 2 matter of time. 2 alternative plan, John. I understand your ruling. <br /> 3 MR. ROBERTS: Clock's not running. 3 Zen you asked me about the plan and the testing, now <br /> 4 MR. BECKWITH: The basis of our 4 you understand where we're caning from, and that is <br /> 5 objection is this: In order for ERT testing to be 5 what Mr. Carey is talking about. <br /> 6 successful, there must be water applied to the soil. 6 Thank you. <br /> 7 Whether it cones from rain, snow, or anything else, 7 W. VAN NOORD: Thank you. <br /> 8 there must be water and there must be clay, because 8 MR. STUTZ: On behalf of Mr. Carey, I <br /> 9 water is a conductor, and air is a resistor. 9 don't think I need to convent any more on the adequacy <br /> 10 All that happened in this situation was to of testing which I think is faulty. I will comment on <br /> 11 to dump water dorm a sinkhole, one sinkhole out of the 11 the remedy. <br /> 12 entire size of Tract Number 71. That's all that was 12 We're objecting to it because -- I don't <br /> 13 done. 13 know if everybody's familiar with that kids' game <br /> 14 Our contention is that to have done it 14 called Whack-A-Mole where you pound on one and one pops <br /> 15 correctly -- and they had the opportunity -- they 15 up sarewhere else. That's the approach that we think <br /> 16 should have had Mr. Fontanari do flood irrigation from 16 is being taken here. We're correcting one source of <br /> 17 the eastern edge of Tract 71 allowing for a three to a 17 hydrologic communication, and not all the water is <br /> 18 three-and-a-half week period for water to absorb into 18 going down there. The pond is another source that <br /> 19 the soil and then conduct your ERT testing to determine 19 should have been dealt with under their plan. <br /> 20 where there are, in fact, subsurface anomalies. 20 So it's not that there's anything wrong <br /> 21 Instead of doing that -- and they had 121 with TR-69 standing in and of itself, but it doesn't <br /> 22 the opportunity — the ideal opportunity in 2016 that 22 solve the problem. We don't want to be coning before <br /> 23 they never requested. They never gave us notice at all 23 the Board every time one of these depressions or <br /> 24 of when they were going to do this ERT testing. 24 sinkholes appear, and there are sinkholes all over this <br /> 25 Ironically we were out there the day before, April 5, 25 property. <br /> 259 261 <br />