My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7623
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7623
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:30 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 11:01:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7623
Author
Lamb, B. L. and D. A. Sweetman.
Title
Guidelines for Preparing Expert Testimony in Water Management Decisions Related to Instream Flow Issues.
USFW Year
1979.
USFW - Doc Type
Instream Flow Information Paper No. 1, Revised,
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
not give such information as you have. If a "yes" <br />or "no" answer to a question is demanded but you <br />think that a qualification should be made to any <br />such answer, give the "yes" or "no" and at once <br />request permission to explain your answer. Don't <br />worry about the effect an answer may have. Don't <br />worry about being bulldozed or embarrassed; <br />counsel will protect you. If you know the answer <br />to a question, state it as precisely and succinctly <br />as you can. The best protection against extensive <br />cross-examination is to be brief, absolutely <br />accurate, and entirely calm. <br />In order to present material in the most favorable light, a witness must <br />reflect possession of knowledge in a calm manner. No matter how intelligent <br />the witness may be, adoption of an argumentative stance serves only to harm <br />the credibility of the witness's testimony. A witness may become irritated by <br />the questions directed toward him or her, but this must not become apparent in <br />the testimony given, nor should the witness allow such irritation to be <br />expressed in the form of argumentative responses. This problem is illustrated <br />in the following material derived from the Yellowstone River Reservation <br />proceedings held before the Hearing Officer for the Montana Board of Natural <br />Resources and Conservation (Montana Board of Natural Resources and Conserva- <br />tion August 9, 1977:63-64). <br />Q. All right, so you do consider that answer to <br />be a reasonable one, 1282 gallons per capita per <br />day? <br />A. Including industrial uses in the manner that <br />you are using it, I would assume it's reasonable. <br />However, I did not make that statement; that was <br />the per capita usage that we were projecting for <br />our residents. <br />Q. O.K., keeping that figure in mind, on page 1 <br />of Exhibit 4, you indicate that personal water use <br />rates at 320 gallons per day as average and 896 <br />gallons per person per day as your maximum? <br />A. Yes. <br />Q. How do you reconcile the difference? <br />A. Well, that's what I've been trying to tell <br />you. Thirty percent of that 1190 is for industrial <br />purposes. <br />Q. And is it not correct that you said you did <br />not factor in certain other industrial developments <br />in that 30 percent contingency reservation? <br />A. I used that as a total amount for future <br />industry that would come to the City and need <br />water. <br />16
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.