Deposition of Ted Kowalski

• Description: Case No. 00CW259 Vail RICD and Case No. 00CW281 Breckenridge RICD
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 3/12/2002
• Author: District Court, Water Division No. 5
• Title: Deposition of Ted Kowalski
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Court Documents

Application for Water Rights of the Eagle River Water & Sanitation
March 12, 2002
Ted Kowalski
Page 66
Page 68
I
Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) Was it the course
1
those course structures have affected the
2
structures that was causing it to flow outside
2
natural environment that existed at the time of
3
the stream channel?
3
the CWCB's decrees.
4
A. I don't know.
4
Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) When did the CWCB
5
Q. Do you have any evidence that the
5
appropriate its instream flows on Gore Creek?
6
structures of the Breckenridge course are
6
A. I believe in 1977.
7
overtopped at the maximum flows claimed?
7
Q. Have you examined Gore Creek in
8
A. The maximum flows claimed, I believe
8
1977?
9
the structures would be overtopped.
9
A. No.
10
Q. Have you ever visualized the
10
Q. Had you ever been to Gore Creek in
11
operation of the course at the maximum claimed
11
1977?
12
amounts?
12
A. No.
13
A. I have not.
13
Q. What were you doing in 1977?
14
Q. And you've never visualized any
14
A. I was
15
portion of the course extension; is that
15
MR. CYRAN: Objection, relevance.
16
correct?
16
A. -- watching cartoons.
17
A. That's correct.
17
Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) How old were you in
18
Q. So you don't know one way or another
18
1977?
19
whether or not any of the course extension
19
A. I was 9 years old.
20
structures divert or control water, correct?
20
Q. How do you know that Gore Creek was
21
MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation.
21
a natural environment in 1977?
22
A. That's correct, I don't know.
22
A. Because I've reviewed the decrees
23
Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) Do you agree that
23
and the supporting documentation.
24
the white-water course stream reach in the
24
Q. And what did that consist of?
25
Breckenridge course is no longer a natural
25
A. It consisted of a court finding that
Page 67
Page 69
1
environment?
1
in there was a natural environment that could
2
A. I don't know that I agree with that
2
be preserved to a reasonable degree with the
3
statement.
3
flows amount -- flow amounts sought by the CWCB
4
Q. What do you disagree with about that
4
at that time.
5
statement?
5
Q. Do you know whether Gore Creek was
6
A. Well, I think natural environment
6
altered as a result of the construction of the
7
can be defined in different ways.
7
Town of Vail?
8
Q. How do you define natural
8
A. I don't know.
9
environment?
9
Q. So you really don't know whether or
10
A. I believe a natural environment can
10
not Gore Creek was a natural environment based
11
exist when there are bugs or fish or plants
11
on your own knowledge?
12
that -- that there is a natural environment or
12
A. Based on my own personal knowledge,
13
that there is an environment that is water-
13
1 don't know what the environment was in 1977.
14
dependent. I believe that that can constitute a
14
Q. So then how can you make a statement
15
natural environment.
15
that the course structures have altered the
16
Q. Do you believe that Gore Creek where
16
natural environment?
17
the Vail white-water course structures are
17
MR. CYRAN: Objection, form and
18
located is a natural environment?
18
foundation. Did he make that statement? I
19
A. Do I contend that it is --
19
guess that's a
20
MR. CYRAN: I'm going to object to
20
MR. PORZAK: Yeah.
21
foundation.
21
A. I don't believe that I did make that
22
A. I contend that there certainly was a
22
statement. I said that they may have altered
23
natural environment when the CWCB appropriated
23
the natural environment.
24
its instrearn flows. I've done no physical
24
Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) Do you have any
25
measurements or data collection to determine if
25
expertise to determine whether or not a stream
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
Esquire Deposition Services [phone]