Laserfiche WebLink
s <br />~. <br />discretion, and acted in a manner that was unsupported by the <br />admissible evidence on the record when considered as a whole. <br />7. The board's practice of disseminating prejudicial information to boazd <br />members prior to the hearing, without timely notice to the objecting <br />parties, the board denied the objecting parties the opportunity to prepare <br />rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, <br />denied the objecting parties their statutory rights, acted contrary to the <br />constitutional rights of the objecting parties, acted in excess of its <br />statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, and limitations, acted with <br />abuse and clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, and acted in a <br />manner that was unsupported by the admissible evidence on the record <br />when considered as a whole. <br />8. Exhibit A is a letter from DMG director Long. The letter contains <br />erroneous statements of fact regarding the flow rate data during floods. <br />Exhibit B is a copy of the actual USGS flow data for the Dolores River. <br />Exhibit B is taken from the same station from which the 1978 USACE <br />report derived its estimates. The actual data gathered subsequent to the <br />1978 USACE estimated report thoroughly impeach the report and the <br />estimates. If the objecting parties had advance notice, as required by due <br />process, of the study, they could have refuted it at the hearing. In <br />addition, the 1978 USACE study Long cites in his letter is inadmissible <br />evidence and was not even part of the record at the hearing. Further, the <br />USGS actual flow data proves that the now outdated study is impertinent <br />and not a rational basis for any finding the board has made. In addition, <br />Longs letter contradicts the statements made in the findings the board <br />ostensibly made on June 22, 2001. The letter is overt evidence of agency <br />bias as well as the arbitrary and capricious nature of the board's <br />decision. We would add that Long's letter, as well as Erickson's <br />"Rationale" in support of the applicant, states a cleaz error of fact. The <br />applicant's application itself states that the proposed berms for <br />containing the water and the river on the site are permanent structures <br />not temporary structures. Therefore, the board acted azbitrarily, <br />capriciously, denied the objecting parties their statutory rights, acted <br />contrary to the constitutional rights of the objecting parties, acted in <br />excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, and limitations, <br />acted with abuse and clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, and <br />acted in a manner that was unsupported by the admissible evidence on <br />the record when considered as a whole. <br />9. The "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order the board <br />ostensibly issued on June 22, 2001 do not comply with statutory <br />mandates. C.R.S. § 24-4-105(14)(a) (2001) requires that: "Each decision <br />6 <br />