Laserfiche WebLink
160 <br />1 Nothing. Okay. <br />2 MS. NEITZEL: Before there is any <br />3 attempt to introduce other witnesses, I would <br />4 respectfully object. You know, when this first <br />5 matter came up, I talked to Cheryl Linden about the <br />6 type of proceeding, and Cheryl specifically told me <br />7 that it was.open to the public but that other third <br />8 parties were not allowed to testify; that this was <br />9 between the division and the party to be enforced; <br />10 that that's the way these hearings are. <br />11 So I find it to be an end-around that <br />12 we did not come here prepared to address -- I don't <br />13 know what it would be. But I do want to voice our <br />14 objection for the record. <br />15 MS. KRAEGER-ROVEY: Yes, Mike. <br />16 MR. KING: Madam Chair, I understand <br />17 that, but where I would like to hear the testimony <br />18 is Cotter has raised the issue of the cost needing <br />19 to bear a reasonable relationship to the benefit <br />-20 ----de-r-ved, and so I'd like to know from Arvada -aid-_ ------------ <br />21 Denver what the potential cost would be to their <br />22 response in the event that Ralston was contaminated. <br />23 MS. KRAEGER-ROVEY: Okay. <br />24 MS. LINDEN: We have Jim McCarthy <br />25 from Denver and also Tom Mountfort from Arvada.