Laserfiche WebLink
Application for Water Rights of the Eagle River Water & Sanitation <br />March 12, 2002 <br />Ted Kowalski <br />Page 74 <br />Page 76 <br />1 <br />amount of water claimed by that appropriation? <br />1 <br />Board intend to assert injury to its instream <br />2 <br />A. That's not true. <br />2 <br />flow on Gore Creek as a basis for denying the <br />3 <br />Q. If the removal of an amount of flow <br />3 <br />water right in the present Case No. OOCW259? <br />4 <br />that may be over and above the amount claimed by <br />4 <br />A. I believe we've stated that in our <br />5 <br />the CWCB causes an alteration of the natural <br />5 <br />statement of opposition, and it's a possibility <br />6 <br />environment, are you saying that such an <br />6 <br />that counsel may argue. <br />7 <br />appropriation of water can constitute injury to <br />7 <br />Q. Does the CWCB intend to offer any <br />8 <br />an instream flow? <br />8 <br />evidence that its water right has been injured? <br />9 <br />A. I'm saying that it can if it <br />9 <br />A. I may testify with regard to that. <br />10 <br />destroys the natural environment for which the <br />10 <br />Q. And what will be the factual or <br />11 <br />CWCB's water right is sought. <br />11 <br />scientific basis of the destruction of a natural <br />12 <br />Q. What if it just injures the natural <br />12 <br />environment? <br />13 <br />environment? <br />13 <br />A. I don't know that I would be <br />14 <br />A. As long as the natural environment <br />14 <br />offering scientific or data observations -- or <br />15 <br />is preserved to a reasonable degree, that's not <br />15 <br />scientific observations related to that. <br />16 <br />injury to the CWCB's water right. <br />16 <br />Q. Well, what would be the factual <br />17 <br />Q. If there was an instream flow water <br />17 <br />basis of such a claim if it's not backed with <br />18 <br />right for 32 cubic feet of water per second on a <br />18 <br />any evidence of destruction of the natural <br />19 <br />stream reach -- <br />19 <br />environment? <br />20 <br />A. Um -hum. <br />20 <br />A. I think the factual basis would be <br />21 <br />Q. -- and there was 40 second feet of <br />21 <br />the CWCB's decrees and the statements by the <br />22 <br />water available on that stream reach, and <br />22 <br />Eagle River Water & Sanitation District's <br />23 <br />someone sought to appropriate 8 second feet, and <br />23 <br />experts that there is no longer a natural <br />24 <br />that appropriation of 8 second feet injured the <br />24 <br />environment based upon what the Eagle River <br />25 <br />natural environment to a reasonable degree, are <br />25 <br />Water & Sanitation District has constructed in <br />Page 75 <br />Page 77 <br />1 <br />you contending that the CWCB would have a basis <br />1 <br />the creek. <br />2 <br />to allege injury to its instream flow right? <br />2 <br />Q. In the most recent notice of the <br />3 <br />MR. CYRAN: Objection to form and <br />3 <br />CWCB's upcoming meeting, what is it, March 21st, <br />4 <br />foundation. <br />4 <br />22nd, is that correct -- or 20th and 21st -- <br />5 <br />A. No. What I'm saying is if it <br />5 <br />A. 21st and 22nd. <br />6 <br />injures the water right, in that it destroys the <br />6 <br />Q. -- there is a notation that the <br />7 <br />natural environment such that a natural <br />7 <br />board is being asked to reratify its statements <br />8 <br />environment no longer exists, that would be <br />8 <br />of opposition in the Breckenridge and Vail <br />9 <br />injury to the instream flow. <br />9 <br />white -water cases; is that correct? <br />10 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) To your knowledge, <br />10 <br />A. That's correct. ii <br />11 <br />has the Colorado Water Conservation Board ever <br />11 <br />Q. And why is there a need to reratify <br />12 <br />in its history alleged injury to its in -- to an <br />12 <br />its statements of opposition? <br />13 <br />instream flow where there was not a reduction in <br />13 <br />A. I don't know that there is a need to <br />14 <br />the amount of water available for its instream <br />14 <br />reratify the statements of opposition, but as <br />15 <br />flow? <br />15 <br />staff, I want to make absolutely certain that we <br />16 <br />A. Yes. <br />16 <br />comply with the rules of the CWCB and that Vail <br />17 <br />Q. Where? <br />17 <br />and Breckenridge absolutely receive notice <br />18 <br />A. In cases involving inundation, where <br />18 <br />before the board ratifies its statement of <br />19 <br />an applicant sought to impound water in the <br />19 <br />opposition. <br />20 <br />channel, the board has asserted injury to its <br />20 <br />Q. Are there any known defects with <br />21 <br />instream flow based upon the fact that it would <br />21 <br />respect to the current statements of opposition? <br />22 <br />violate the -- or it would injure the board's <br />22 <br />A. I don't believe so. <br />23 <br />water right, which is to preserve the natural <br />23 <br />Q. Is recreation a beneficial use of <br />24 <br />environment to a reasonable degree. <br />24 <br />water? <br />25 <br />Q. Does the Colorado Water Conservation <br />25 <br />MR. CYRAN: Objection to foundation. <br />20 (Pages 74 to 77) <br />Esquire Deposition Services <br />(303) 316 -0330 <br />