PCHB220006400

PCHBPollution Control Hearings Board of the State of Washington

In its opening brief in support of a stay, ACC set out the law requiring that the Port obtain a water right before Ecology could claim reasonable assurance on the elements of the Port's proposal calling for appropriation of stormwater in perpetuity to address low flow impacts. In their responses, Ecology and the Port went on the attack, snidely labeling ACC's argument as "creative" (Ecy. Br. at 12) and "radical" (Port Br. at 13). At the same time, the Port further demanded that the Board give "great deference" to Ecology's expertise, in assessing Ecology's claim of reasonable assurance, l Ecology's Motion to Strike was received late on October 9, 2001. The Board issued an order granting Ecology's Motion on October 10which ACC counsel received by mail on October 11. Per WAC 371-08-450(4)(a), a response from ACC was not due until "ten days from the date the motion is received." Because the deadline for ACC's Sur-rebuttal on the stay motion as well as the deadline for submission of a list of proposed legal issues, witnesses and exhibits was October 10, ACC had just started to prepare a response when the Board's Order was received. To the extent necessary, then, ACC seeks rescission and reconsideration. ACC further requests per WAC 371-08-450 a hearing before the Board. ACC'S OPPOSITION TO ECOLOGY'S HELSELL FETTERMAN LLP Rachael Paschal Osborn MOTION TO STRIKE, MOTION TO RESCIND EX 1500PugetSoundPlaza Attorneyat Law PARTE ORDER AND FOR RECONSIDERATION 1325FourthAvenue 2421WestMissionAvemm AND REQUEST FOR HEARING - I Seattle, WA 98101-2509…
V V