Hi Everyone,
Attached is a Petition filed by the State Attorney General’s Office requesting a rehearing of the court’s decision on our loss of our Independence water appeal. We had asked that the Anti-Speculation Doctrine be applied to Upper Dawson (UD) augmentation plans when a developer (here Independence) requests to increase/change the types of usage allowed. I sent you a Newsletter with attachments regarding that, letting you know that we had lost our appeal. A little later I sent you a Newsletter, with an attachment, notifying you that the State Attorney General had filed a request for time to file a Petition to ask for a rehearing of the court’s decision.
Unfortunately, in the attached Petition, the State Attorney only objected to the breadth of the court’s decision not the loss of our issue. The court made its determination on a much broader range of issues than just our asking that the Anti-Speculation Doctrine be applied. We had asked that doctrine be applied in order to prevent developers from increasing /changing usage types of the UD when that usage is only speculative. In other words, we were basically asking that the request be based on necessary usage not on something speculative in the future.
Unfortunately, as you will see in the attached Petition, the State Attorney was fine with the court’s decision that the Anti-Speculation doctrine does NOT apply to UD augmentations, the issue we lost. So, our loss stands. All the State Attorney’s Petition deals with is requesting that the court’s decision be limited to our one issue and not all of the other issues the court included.
I’d like to give a special “shout out” and “thank you” to a terrific attorney who supported us through the last part of this appeal:
Mr. David Shohet of MONSON, CUMMINS, SHOHET, & FARR, CCC
I wish I had better news. But we all came together and fought hard. That’s so much to be proud of regardless of this outcome.
ONWARD TOGETHER,
Diana Love
President
FCC II