Laserfiche WebLink
proposed order three days prior to the hearing. Appazently, the proposed order was mailed to the <br />parties on May 18, 2001. Vol. 3, p. 843.6 The Plaintiffs admit to having received it. <br />Even if it was not delivered on time, the argument that the parties had no time to prepare <br />to object to the order makes little sense. All Plaintiffs were present at the commencement of the <br />hearing. Not one of them informed the Boazd during their consideration of the proposed order <br />that they had not seen the proposed order until that morning. No Plaintiff offered any objection <br />to the Board's adoption of the Order. Vol. 3, p. 1018-1021. <br />Plaintiffs fiuther azgue that they had insufficient time to prepare for the hearing, since <br />they did not receive the proposed order on time. The Plaintiffs do not contest that they met with <br />the prehearing conference officer to discuss the issues eight days before the hearing. The permit <br />application had been available for public inspection for approximately five months. The <br />Division sent the Plaintiffs a copy of its recommendation on May 8, 2001. Vol. 2, p. 748. Al] <br />issues for the hearing were those raised by the Plaintiffs, presumably after having thoroughly <br />reviewed the application and researched the alleged problems. <br />IV. The Plaintiffs Were Not Prejudiced By The Absence Of The Water <br />Quality Control Division Witnesses. <br />The Board did not subpoena the WQCD employees, and they did not appear. Vol. 3, p. <br />1069. However, the Plaintiffs have the burden to demonstrate how, if at all, they were <br />prejudiced. Rice v. Department of Corrections, 950 P.2d 676, 680 (Colo. App. 1997). <br />6 The footer on the certificate of service for the proposed prehearing order is dated May 18, <br />2001. <br />10 <br />