Laserfiche WebLink
31 <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 />nothing to do with RICD cases, but I wonder how many Pintos he <br />drove around to find out about the compacts in the area. I <br />mean, essentially, he's worked on compacts for a long time, so <br />he became an expert in the legal interpretation of compacts. <br />Mr. Kowalski himself has also become an expert in <br />RICDs. Now, this RICD statute was only passed in 2001. So, <br />since that period in time, Mr. Kowalski not only participated <br />in the legislation, drafting all -- majority of the committee <br />hearings, writing testimony for CWCB board members, advising <br />the CWCB about the bill, redrafts; there's nobody in the state <br />who would be an expert in RICD interpretation other than <br />Mr. Kowalski. <br />I would also submit that, you know, Mr. Kowalski is <br />an expert in the use of a whitewater course. I mean, he may <br />have testified at Vail that -- in Golden that he might not <br />have been an expert, but he's since that time had much more <br />experience with respect to RICD and whitewater course uses. <br />And I would cite that he's already stated that he's <br />worked on the Upper Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. <br />He's worked on the Town of Breckenridge case. He's worked <br />with respect to RICDs in the other -- only other 216 case in <br />this state, which was a Pueblo case, and currently has been <br />working on this case also. <br />So I would submit that he has substantial knowledge <br />with respect to RICD cases that's, count them, five cases. If