Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />leads to an ab 3urd result, one surely not intended by the legislature. Under this argumf;nt, every new <br />recreational in-channel diversion in the Colorado River basin would cause an impairment of <br />Colorado's ability to develop its Colorado River compact entitlement. See Seaholm Tr. at 22 and <br />128-129.) NVhile the water court is not required to deny a recreational in-charinel diversion <br />application simply because it finds impaument, surely the legislature did not intend that every impact <br />of every RICD would meet the defmition of "impaument" under SB 216. Since this standard leads <br />to an absurd :result, the court should reject the State's attempt to define impairment as "wealcen, to <br />malce worse. " <br />The only other evidence offered by the State in support of its argument tha.t the proposed <br />recreational in-channel diversion causes compact impaument is the deposition testimoizy of the <br />District's expert, Jim Slattery. (Answer at 18.) This deposition was not introduced as evidence at <br />the trial. De;position testimony may be used at trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an <br />interlocutory proceeding only under the circumstances set forth in C.R.C.P. 32. The State has not <br />showed that those circumstances exist here. Indeed, Mr. Slattery testified at trial, an(i the State is not <br />tryulg to im:.)each him or otherwise contradict his trial testimony. Since the State :has not met the <br />requirements of C.R.C.P. 32, the court should ignore the references to Mr. Slatte:ry's deposition <br />transcript and rely instead on Mr. Slattery's trial testimony. <br />-26-