Laserfiche WebLink
109 <br /> 1 MR. BECEWITH: No, no. 1 A. Because we're not required to. <br /> 2 MR. ROBERTS: You would-- 2 Q. Understood. <br /> 3 MR. BECEWITH: Over -- 3 A. So no, we did not. <br /> 4 MR. SINGLETARY: You are allowed to ask. 4 Q. You did not make any. You complied with <br /> 5 I apologize. 5 your rules? <br /> 6 MR. BECKWITH: Okay. So in other words, 6 A. Right. <br /> 7 John's overruled? 7 Q. Okay. And so on the right does it also <br /> 8 MR. SINGLETARY: Yeah. I'm overruling. 8 show these same four sinkholes? <br /> 9 I'm sustaining your question. 9 A. It does. <br /> 10 Q. (BY MR. BECEWITH) Did -- the picture on 10 Q. And you reviewed that report too, did <br /> 11 the left, did that came from Fugro? 11 you not? <br /> 12 A. It does. 12 A. I did. <br /> 13 Q. And the picture on the right, does that 13 Q. And did you review the report and see <br /> 14 care from Fugro? 14 that they only dumped water in April of 2016 on the <br /> 15 A. It does. 15 left down one sinkhole? <br /> 16 Q. And the picture on the left, does it say 16 A. I don't recall when they did the rock <br /> 17 down in the lower left-hand corner "surface 17 pile. They did two. They daTped water down two holes. <br /> 18 subsidence" -- "surface sinkhole expressions" (sic)? I18 Q. That was in August? <br /> 19 A. "Sinkhole surface expressions," yes, it 19 A. Okay. I don't recall which one, but I <br /> 20 does. 20 know they did at one point dump it down two holes. <br /> 21 Q. And does it identify these by the round I21 Q. Okay. Now, with all of your argument -- <br /> 22 red circles? 22 excuse me -- with all of your presentation in rebuttal, <br /> 23 A. It does. 23 relative to reclamation, does that -- your discussion <br /> 24 Q. And it shows four of them, does it 24 of reclamation, would you please explain to rre how that <br /> 25 not? 25 establishes the adequacy or inadequacy of the ERT <br /> 282 284 <br /> 1 A. It does. 1 testing that was conducted in April and August of <br /> 2 Q. And they only dumQed water down one? 2 2016? <br /> 3 A. I don't ]mow. I was not out there. 3 A. I'm sorry. Would you repeat that? <br /> 4 Q. You've read their report? 4 Q. Sure. <br /> 5 A. I have read the report. 5 A. At least the last part. <br /> 6 Q. And you reviewed their report -- 6 Q. Your presentation had to do with <br /> 7 A. I did. 7 reclamation and the absence of beneficial use, the <br /> 8 Q. — for purposes of making a proposed 8 absence of crops being irrigated, et cetera. Am I <br /> 9 decision? 9 correct? <br /> 10 A. I did. 10 A. Correct. <br /> 11 Q. And did you make any factual findings in i11 Q. Correct. kid we are engaged here, are <br /> 12 your proposed decision? 12 we not, on two questions: the adequacy of the testing <br /> 13 A. We don't actually make a -- 13 and the adequacy of the plan to address hydrologic <br /> 14 Q. In other words, you didn't make -- 14 connections? In MR-82 -- are you familiar with that <br /> 15 A. -- written finding of -- 15 dxu ment, Mr. Stark? <br /> 16 THE COURT REPORTER: Wait, wait. I need 116 A. I am familiar with MR-82, yes. <br /> 17 you to let him finish his answer, please. 17 Q. What did Snowcap commit itself to do to <br /> 18 MR. BECFWITH: Thank you. 18 repair? <br /> 19 A. A finding of fact is not required for a 19 A. In a general sense -- I mean, I can read <br /> 20 technical revision. 20 it. I couldn't -- <br /> 21 Q. (BY MR. BECKWITH) For a proposed 21 Q. Please read it. <br /> 22 decision? 22 A. -- quote it verbatim. <br /> 23 A. No, it is not. 23 MR. SCHULTZ: What exhibit is it? <br /> 24 Q. Okay. So your Division did not make any 24 A. So MR-82? <br /> 25 factual findings? 25 MR. BECEWITH: MR-82 is already in <br /> 283 285 <br />