Laserfiche WebLink
15 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />Q Did you participate -- well, first of all, Your <br />Honor -- well, let me keep going here. Did you participate in <br />the legislation that was subject of Senate Bill 216? <br />A Yes, I did. <br />Q And could you describe your participation, please. <br />A Yes, that legislation was enacted during the time of <br />the City of Golden's water rights application. It was brought <br />on in part by the City of Golden's application. It came -- <br />our board was aware of this issue of recreational in-channel <br />diversions since the Fort Collins case. There was one other <br />case since that time for -- I'll mention the Littleton case <br />where someone had applied for recreational in-channel <br />diversion but, again, for relatively low amounts. <br />MS. COVELL: I'm going to object. I think <br />Mr. Kowalski's testifying again -- <br />MS. COULTER: This goes to his experience as under <br />his duties with the CWCB, and also goes to what I intend to <br />qualify him for as an expert. <br />THE COURT: Objection's overruled. <br />A And so, during the City of Golden case, which was for <br />a maximum stream flow amount of a thousand cfs. And it was <br />the State's position that it was for virtually all the flow of <br />the river. We took this matter to the board, and also the <br />board then supported our taking this to the general assembly <br />as a matter that should be the matter of legislation. In