Laserfiche WebLink
141 <br /> 1 Thank you. 1 MS. VAN NOORD: If that works with you. <br /> 2 MR. JUSTUS: Would the court reporter -- 2 As far as the adequacy of testing procedures, we heard <br /> 3 would those have been captured in the transcript as 3 quite a bit of testimony about the ERT testing that had <br /> 4 well when I have offered or submitted exhibits into 14 been done. I found that the material that was <br /> 5 evidence? 15 submitted and the testimony that we heard from the <br /> 6 THE COURT REPORTER: Only what you 16 applicant -- I found it to be credible, and overall I <br /> 7 said. 7 felt that the adequacy of testing procedures were <br /> 8 MR. JUSTUS: Okay. I'll give you a 8 adequate and complied with the act and the rules. <br /> 9 summary, a list as well. 9 I don't have much more to say than that, <br /> 10 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. So at this to because that's what I've cane away with after this day <br /> 11 point if there are no questions for the applicant, we 11 and a half. <br /> 12 have gotten through all of the lettered steps for the 12 MS. UTTERBACK-NORMANN: I have a <br /> 13 procedural order -- or in the prehearing order. So if I13 question. Did you want us to deal with the adequacy of <br /> 14 it's your -- if you wish, Mr. Chair, you can close 14 testing first, and then we'll talk about -- <br /> 15 testimony and entertain deliberation by the Board. 15 MS. VAN NOORD: Yup. Yup. Not all at <br /> 16 MR. SINGLETARY: I'll close testimony, 16 once. Keep than seperate. It's easier for John to <br /> 17 then. Any discussion -- discussion fram the Board? 17 write things when we talk about things separately. <br /> 18 Thoughts? 18 MS. UTTERBACK-NORMANN: Okay. You know, <br /> 19 MR. RANDALL: I have a question for 19 I thought -- I had trouble with the adequacy of <br /> 20 John. 20 testing. I think it was pointed out several times that <br /> 21 MR. ROBERTS: Yes. 21 there were enough variables in there that seamed to be <br /> 22 MR. RANDALL: In this kind of a posture 22 very, very loose. There was not a controlled testing <br /> 23 where the Division is staff to the Board, to what 23 to a scientific standard. <br /> 24 degree is the Board-- to what degree is the staff's 24 I thought there also could have been <br /> 25 position entitled to deference? 25 other kinds of tests that could have been done. I <br /> 314 316 <br /> 1 I'm just trying to — I'm trying to 1 still think that it needs to be disproved or proven, <br /> 2 figure out the -- I wanted to hear all of the evidence 2 one way or the other, that the river, with the rising <br /> 3 first, but now I want to think through the weight we 3 and lowering of the water table, can affect the amount <br /> 4 should maybe consider giving to staff presentations. 4 of water in the different holes. I've seen it on other <br /> 5 MR. ROBERTS: That's an excellent 5 pieces of property that that has happened. <br /> 6 question, as I'm sure you knew it was before you asked 6 I would certainly want that to have been <br /> 7 it. You're entitled to give it as much deference as 7 looked at. I was surprised it was only one type of <br /> 8 you deem it to be appropriate and informative. I don't 8 test that was used. And I just did not feel that the <br /> 9 believe that it's due to any heightened deference, if 9 testing was -- was sufficient in -- in the number and <br /> 10 that answers your question. 10 in the types of tests that were used. <br /> 11 MR. RANDALL: Sure. 11 MS. VAN NOORD: I guess when I think <br /> 12 MR. SINGLETARY: That's it? 12 about the types of tests, I don't -- I deal with, you <br /> 13 MR. RANDALL: For starters. 13 know, subsurface investigation quite a bit in the work <br /> 14 MS. VAN NOORD: That's what you wanted 14 that I do, and we don't go out and do, you know, all <br /> 15 to talk about? i5 the tests that are out there. You go out and do -- <br /> 16 MR. RANDALL: Yeah. 16 MS. MERBACK-NORMANN: Right. <br /> 17 MS. VAN NOORD: I think -- I think we 17 MS. VAN NOORD: -- ones that you think <br /> 18 really need to just focus on what the issue is before 18 are going to be helpful, and there always is an <br /> 19 the Board, and the issue is whether TR-69 cacplies with 19 econanic factor. <br /> 20 the act and the rules. 20 MS. UTTERBACK-NORMANN: Absolutely. <br /> 21 And then under that we have the two 21 MS. VAN NOORD: So you pick which one's <br /> 22 issues of adequacy of testing procedures and adequacy 22 the best. And we heard testimony from Mr. Berry that <br /> 23 of proposed plan. And I think it makes sense for us to 23 determined, based on his experience, that this was <br /> 24 take each in turn, talk about it, if that's -- 24 appropriate testing to get the information that they <br /> 25 MR. SINGLETARY: I think we should. 25 were looking for. <br /> 315 317 <br />