Laserfiche WebLink
97 <br /> i area. 1 1 decision, and I understand where you're caning from. <br /> 2 Rule 1.04(110) defines "renewal resource 2 MR. BFa KVM: And recognize, <br /> 3 lands" as "aquifers and areas for the recharge of 3 Mr. Chairman, and that is very important, which is why <br /> 4 aquifers, areas for agricultural or silviculture 4 I appreciated Ms. Van Noord — Ms. Van Noord asking me <br /> 5 production of food and fiber, and pasturelands." 15 the question. <br /> 6 And, again, Tract 71, and specifically 6 But I don't have — what am I going to <br /> 7 the TR-69 disturbance area, it's not cropland. It's 7 do on testimony that has never been presented to you on <br /> 8 not a renewable resource. 8 the district water camiissioner on water caadssioners <br /> 9 So we go back to the -- to the rules and 9 making findings that there is no evidence of any such <br /> 10 the act. Renewable resources moist be protected; io findings being made? The water commissioner locked out <br /> 11 croplands must be protected; prime farmland must be 11 the headgate, but he's never testified to as to why. <br /> 12 protected. This is none of those things that we're 12 Therefore, this is improper. I am <br /> 13 talking about here. 13 now -- <br /> 14 We can further go into this argument. 14 MR. SINGLETARY: Let me hear from him. <br /> 15 In an exhibit that Mr. Fontanari provided -- it's a 15 MR. SCHULTZ: I disagree. This is not <br /> 16 report, Exhibit 24, the Walter report -- really it 16 improper. I mean, there's talk fran the presentation <br /> 17 shows the geology of the area. There were 15 drill 17 by Mr. Carey about this being used in X, Y, and Z <br /> 18 logs that were taken -- I n manner. I think this shows it wasn't used in the <br /> 19 MR. BECKWITH: I'm going to object. The 19 proper manner. <br /> 20 Walter report is not in evidence, and Mr. Walter was i20 It's direct evidence. This is a picture <br /> 21 never called to testify. I told you that yesterday. 21 taken by the Division. This is part of their decision <br /> 22 MR. SCHULTZ: It is part of the record, 22 to approve Snowcap's application. <br /> 23 but we can move on. It's no problem. 23 So the objectors have, you know, the <br /> 24 MR. SINGLETARY: Yeah. Let's do that. 24 reports that they haven't submitted-- they submitted <br /> 25 MR. STARK: All right. I'm going to I25 to DBMS that they're not sdmitting to the hearing, but <br /> 270 272 <br /> 1 blaze through six or eight slides here. So bear with 1 the Division still made its — its proposed decision, <br /> 2 me for a second, please. 2 and that goes to the proposed decision. <br /> 3 Okay. Irrigation of Tract 71. 3 There's been numerous objections and <br /> 4 Basically there's no irrigation on the site. Mr. Carey 4 camients made by the objectors. These are simply <br /> 5 testified that the water flowed in the ditch and into 5 responding to those. <br /> 6 the Carey Pond. There was no water applied to the 6 MR. BECKWITH: Please note the date of <br /> 7 surface. No irrigation takes place out there. 7 the proposed decision. <br /> 8 Why the water was run at 4 cfs or 8 MR. ROBERTS: One moment, please. <br /> 9 whatever that number was for 30 days is -- it remains a 9 Mr. Schultz, is this PowerPoint <br /> to question. Again, it's not -- it's not relevant in the 10 presentation in hard copy in evidence, do you know? <br /> 11 overall picture of things, but it's something, you 11 MR. BECKWITH: No. <br /> 12 know, to consider. 12 MR. ROBERTS: Please. <br /> 13 MR. BOCKWITH: And once again I'm going 13 MR. BECKWITH: I'm sorry. <br /> 14 to object. The first paragraph of Mr. Fontanari's 14 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. <br /> 15 response is not in evidence as an exhibit. The second 15 MR. SCHULTZ: The pictures are part of <br /> 16 exhibit -- the second paragraph, "The district water 16 DRMS's file; however, the rest of the PowerPoint is not <br /> 17 commissioner found that," the district water 17 being offered as evidence or as an exhibit. <br /> 18 commissioner has never testified. This is improper 18 MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Beckwith. <br /> 19 rebuttal. 19 MR. BECKWITH: Please note the date of <br /> 20 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't believe it's 20 this document, March 6, 2017. The proposed decision <br /> 21 improper rebuttal. We have a picture, I think, as the 21 was rendered in (sic) January 30 of 2017. This <br /> 22 next slide that's a fact -- issue of fact. 22 could— document could never have been considered in <br /> 23 MR. SINGLETARY: Let me see the next 23 the proposed decision because it did not exist prior to <br /> 24 slide. I want to hear, because it's -- it's our job to 24 that. <br /> 25 collect the information that we need to make a 25 MR. STARK: That is correct. <br /> 271 273 <br />