Laserfiche WebLink
30 <br />1 Mr. Kowalski is perhaps qualified to talk about this <br />2 Colorado Water Conservation Board's own view of the statutes, <br />3 rules, policies and procedures of the CWCB subject to <br />4 appropriate rules of evidence as a lay witness. But I don't <br />5 believe that he's qualified to testify about legal <br />6 interpretations and applications of statutes, rules, policies <br />7 and procedures in this case or in the context of this case. <br />8 That's the Court's job. And the legislative history and <br />9 opinions issued by the Colorado Supreme Court or the Court of <br />10 Appeals are equally available to the Court as they are to <br />11 anyone else. <br />12 This is a little bit different than Mr. Lochhead, who <br />13 has a big storehouse of knowledge regarding the Colorado River <br />14 Compact, which is factual information relevant to his <br />15 opinions. With regard to Senate Bill 216, this is a brand new <br />16 piece of legislation. The legislative history is what it is. <br />17 What Mr. Kowalski personally thinks about the legislative <br />18 history it seems to me is irrelevant to the Court. And I <br />19 would submit that he cannot be qualified as an expert to <br />20 testify in these matters. <br />21 THE COURT: Ms. Coulter. <br />22 MS. COULTER: Your Honor, I would submit that, if <br />23 there's anybody qualified in this state to talk about the <br />24 legal interpretation, any legal interpretation of the Senate <br />25 Bill 216, it's Mr. Kowalski. First of all, Mr. Lochhead had