Laserfiche WebLink
33 <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 />A I do. <br />Q And do you feel you have some type of engineer <br />knowledge with respect to hydrology or hydraulics? <br />A In my role as a legal protection specialist, I'm <br />constantly looking at water rights applications and also <br />proposed decrees and working with engineers to determine <br />whether an application or proposed decree may impact or injure <br />a CWCB's water right. To some degree, I've developed some <br />knowledge of engineering as it relates to water rights injury <br />cases and, in fact, I testified specifically with regard to <br />water rights injury in the Central City case as an expert <br />witness. <br />Q And do you feel you have some engineering knowledge <br />with respect to whitewater courses and RICD channels? <br />A I don't know if I'd characterize it as engineering <br />knowledge. I'm more knowledgeable about what Mr. Shelby did <br />in the Golden case and what he attests to in his treatise. <br />It's more a sociological concept that recreational in-channel <br />diversions determine what flows are appropriate for what <br />recreational opportunities is determined by humans, so it's <br />more a sociological -- <br />MR. FLEMING: Objection. He's testifying again to <br />what an expert who's qualified would sensibly opine. <br />THE COURT: Sustained.