My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Cases 00CW259 and 00CW281; Exhibit B-64, S-17
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Cases 00CW259 and 00CW281; Exhibit B-64, S-17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:42:03 PM
Creation date
8/10/2009 2:16:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.21A
Description
CWCB Hearing
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
6
Author
Diane K. Scholl, Susan M. Antonelli
Title
Cases 00CW259 and 00CW281; Exhibit B-64, S-17
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
, <br />? <br />I <br />2] <br />] Q My question is -- you just said a moment ago, to rlave a <br />2 diversion you feel you need to have one of two things, either a <br />3 physical removal of water from the stream, correct? <br />4 A Correct. <br />5 Q Or an impoundment. <br />6 A Yes. <br />7 Q Okay. So then, is it your opinion that the control of <br />8 water in a natural course by means of a structure or device that does <br />9 not remov e the water from the river or does not impound the river, <br />10 that does n't constitute a diversion? <br />ll A It's not a d.iversion, no. <br />12 Q Okay. It's your opinion then, in order for there to be <br />13 control, there has to be less water remaining downstream of the <br />14 structure than existed upstream. <br />15 A Yes, or more, if it's in the event of a reservoir making a <br />16 reservoir release. <br />17 Q Okay. So the only -- wel1, I think you've answered. Yet, <br />18 you agree , however, that the structures in the Breckenridge Course <br />19 affect wa ter that is a diversion from an actual physical standpoint. <br />20 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection. I didn't understand that <br />21 question. I thought it was confusing, but if could -- <br />22 MR. PORZAK: I'll ask the question again. <br />_14 C. (by i•lr. rci<.:ak; zea agrEE, do you nat, tr,at tne structures <br />24 ir. t} :: P.-r eckenridge Cc:zs-?E affect wat-?r and tr,at is a c:iversion from a <br />-5 pra'y'Slccll standpoint? <br />9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.