Laserfiche WebLink
Koenig Pit to form this conclusion. That data did not address toxins or heavy metals. Vol. 3, <br />pp. 1088-1089. He reached this conclusion based on his observation of rocks at the site coupled <br />with his professional opinion and Bureau of Reclamation data that the toxins and heavy metals in <br />question do not naturally exist at the site of Four States' mine. The credible evidence supports <br />the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that the heavy metals or toxins described by Mr. Akin <br />and Ms. Stepe exist in nature at the Four States' mine site. Pol. 2-3, pp. 703, ¶ 3; 711, ¶ 2 (See <br />"RESPONSE'); pp. 1134-1135. <br />Therefore, if the Plaintiffs had successfully subpoenaed witnesses to testify that the data <br />from the Tam-Koenig Pit is not reliable, the testimony would have had no effect on the heavy <br />metals and toxins issue. Since the Tam-Koenig pit data do not include analyses of metals, the <br />data is in•elevant to the toxins and heavy metals issue. <br />Even if the Board had issued the subpoena, it would not have withstood challenge. <br />Plaintiffs Akin and Stepe wanted WQCD employees to testify that the water quality data from <br />the Tam-Koenig Pit was unreliable. Their contention was that it is statistically impossible to get <br />the same results from seven quarters of sampling data. This azgument calls for expert testimony. <br />The WQCD was prepared to move to quash any such subpoena. Pol. 3, pp. 1077-1078. <br />The Plaintiffs are not entitled to subpoena expert witnesses from a state agency to testify <br />on their behalf. State personnel rules prohibit State employees from accepting outside <br />employment without obtaining prior approval from their appointing authority. 4 CCR 801-1, §§ <br />8-1-1 and 8-1-4. <br />The Tam-Koenig Pit data reflects the quality of water being discharged into the river, but <br />the data does not address the heavy metals or toxins in question. Pol. 2, p. 706. <br />12 <br />