Laserfiche WebLink
.., ' ? . <br />' 38 <br />1 : . . DR. JERI3 DANIP,LSON <br />2 was called as a rebuttal witness, and having beeri previously sworn, <br />_ . 3 •was "examined -fu'rthtrr= and -"te-sttfied ?as: foYi-ows': <br />4 THE COURT: Sir, you.are remirided that you are.under oath. <br />5. THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.. .. : <br />6 REBUTTAL 7 BY MR. PORZAK: g Q Dr. Danialson, are you aware of any situation where a water . <br />9 right has been limited to Mr. Martalero's.?definition of the averag.e <br />, ' . . . ' ' - - '..4^.. . . <br />10 -.daily flow? . -... - , <br />li. A No. . . . <br />12 Q Is that an appropr.iate standard? <br />13 A Not in my op'inion.. . , <br />lq Q Why not.? <br />15 A Because,it denies the ability to appxopriate, unappropriated <br />. 16 water that may be in the system. <br />17 Q What would such a limitation of the flow amount...do to the <br />18 intended purpose o.f the Whitewater Park? <br />19 A Well, it would, basically, destroy what I believe the <br />20 intent of the Applicant to be.. The approach utilizing an average <br />21 morithly flow means that half of the days nature isn'.t providing the <br />22 water you need and in the other half when the flows exceed the average <br />23. monthly flow, the decree if it contained that provision would be <br />24 denying the ability to operate those structures at their optimal <br />25. design. <br />26 MR. PORZAKi. Thank you, Dr. Danialson. No other.questions. <br />?'I