Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />Case No. 02CW038, District Court, Water Division No. 4 <br />in government. Applicant does not object to Mr. Kowalski's testimony, as an <br />employee of the CWCB, about the CWCB's own view of the "statute, rules, policies <br />and procedures" of the CWCB, or otherwise (subject to the rules of evidence) as a <br />lay witness on behalf of the CWCB. Applicant submits, however, that legal <br />interpretations and applications of statutes, rules, policies and procedures in the <br />context of this particular case must be ascertained independently by the Court by <br />reference to the language of the statutes, rules, policies and procedures themselves, <br />and to the legislative history and opinions issued by the Colorado Supreme Court or <br />the Colorado Court of Appeals, and that Mr. Kowalski does not have at his disposal <br />any information that is not already available to the Court, or that will otherwise aid <br />the Court in this endeavor. <br />Furthermore, 1VIr. Kowalski is not an expert in the "use of whitewater parks in <br />general and the Gunnison whitewater park in particular." Mr. Kowalski's resume <br />contains nothing that demonstrates any education or training in the `.`use" of <br />whitewater parks. Mr. Kowalski testified in deposition that he had no significant role <br />with regard to recreational in- channel diversions while he was with the attorney <br />general's office. <br />His employment with the CWCB now is as a physical scientist, but he testified in <br />deposition that he has no training or experience in data collection, analyzing data, or <br />developing, administering or evaluating surveys. Mr. Kowalski should not be <br />permitted to present expert testimony on the "use" of kayak courses based on any <br />data compiled from "surveys" he claims to have conducted. <br />Mr. Kowalski has not boated the Gunnison Whitewater Park, and has not kayaked <br />at all in the last two years. He testified in depositions in 2001 and 2002 that he has <br />no expertise in whitewater or boat chute courses, no experience in what amount is <br />"reasonable" for a recreational experience, and no expertise to determine whether <br />there is a correlation between course flows and usage of a whitewater course. Since <br />that time, he has gained no such expertise by actually kayaking any whitewater <br />courses. <br />In this case, Mr. Kowalski testified in deposition that the basis for his expertise in the <br />"use of constructed whitewater parks for recreation" is based on his experience with <br />the Golden course and that litigation, the development of Senate Bill 216 and the <br />development of the CWCB's recreational in- channel diversion rules and policies, <br />and his experience with regard to the Pueblo, Vail, Breckenridge, Littleton and <br />Gunnison whitewater courses. However, he explained that the basis of his expertise <br />is not from boating, but rather is knowledge of "how determinations were made with <br />regard to recreational opportunities generally and in particular with regard to <br />12 <br />