C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures of The CWCB, Case No. 02CW38

Home Browse Search

• I other capacities, I have served on the Credit Committee of the Colorado State Employees Credit Union from 1986 to 1998 and served as it chairman on two different occasions. This was an elected position. A resume is attached hereto as Exhibit A. • III. Data and Other Sources of Information Considered • This opinion is based on my experience as Chief of the Water Supply Protection • Section of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Engineering Advisor to Colorado's Commissioner to t t Urger Colorado River Basin Compact Commission and my familiarity with the use and allocation of water in Colorado. In developing my opinions, I have reviewed materials submitted by the Applicant, materials submitted by other parties, and materials we submitted during the hearing before the Colorado Water Conservation Board and materials submitted to the Water Court. I have also reviewed the compacts and laws collectively known as the "Law of the Colorado River." A list of documents and data considered is attached hereto as Exhibit B. IV. Summary of Opinions, Basis and Reasons for Opinions 4.1 Uses of Water in Colorado that Will Not be Affected, by the Claimed Water Right In developing my . opinions concerning the impact of the proposed RICD water right on Colorado's compact entitlement, the maximum utilization of water in Colorado and in considering Mr. Lochhead's opinions, I believe it useful to follow a similar outline. However, at the outset I wish to state that it is my opinion that the RICD statute is unique from other laws that govern the appropriation of water and the establishment of a water right.. First, the CWCB must make .findings and recommendations to the Water Court concerning any proposed RICD. Secondly; some of the factors that must be considered by law, in my opinion, require the CWCB to not only identify the current facts, but to speculate on what could happen in the future. I understand that speculation is not usually allowed when seeking to appropriate a water right, rather there must be a specific intent. Nevertheless, the first factor to be considered in seeking an RICD water right is whether Colorado's ability to fully develop its compact entitlements would be impaired. By definition in this case, "impaired" simply means to lessen or reduce the opportunities to develop Colorado's compact entitlement. Therefore, in my opinion, the CWCB and I believe the Water Court need to not only consider the facts, but speculate to some degree on various ways Colorado's compact entitlement could be developed and assure that an RICD water right would not unnecessarily impair those options. 4of17