Laserfiche WebLink
Application for Water Rights of the Eagle River Water & Sanitation <br />March 12, 2002 <br />Ted Kowalski <br />Page 86 <br />Page 88 <br />1 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) Okay. Should the <br />1 <br />avoid another deposition, can I discuss with <br />2 <br />amount that is determined to be reasonable be <br />2 <br />Ted, you know, what numbers we're going to <br />3 <br />based on the intent of the appropriator? <br />3 <br />MR. PORZAK: Yeah, you bet. <br />4 <br />MR. CYRAN: Objection to foundation. <br />4 <br />MR. CYRAN: Give me <br />5 <br />A. I think the intent of the <br />5 <br />THE DEPONENT: Oh, you want to do <br />6 <br />appropriator is relevant. Like I indicated <br />6 <br />that? <br />7 <br />before, if the intent of the appropriator is for <br />7 <br />MR. CYRAN: Yeah, I think we should. <br />8 <br />irrigation use, to the extent that a duty of <br />8 <br />THE DEPONENT: Excuse me. <br />9 <br />water for irrigation is relevant and not a duty <br />9 <br />(A break was taken.) <br />10 <br />of water for domestic purposes is relevant is -- <br />10 <br />MR. CYRAN: On the record, in the <br />11 <br />is how that would be relevant. <br />11 <br />interest of avoiding further depositions and <br />12 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) How do you define <br />12 <br />attempting to provide a clear statement to <br />13 <br />reasonableness in the context of a recreational <br />13 <br />Mr. Porzak about what the CWCBs position likely <br />14 <br />in-channel diversion? <br />14 <br />is to be at trial, I did in a break discuss with <br />15 <br />MR. CYRAN: Objection to foundation. <br />15 <br />Mr. Kowalski possible arguments that the CWCB <br />16 <br />A. Ultimately, I think the water court <br />16 <br />may present regarding what's a reasonable amount <br />17 <br />will determine reasonableness as it relates to <br />17 <br />of water in the Vail Creek -- in these two -- in <br />18 <br />recreational in-channel diversion. <br />18 <br />these two matters, and without waiving any <br />19 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) Do you have any <br />19 <br />claims to attorney-client privilege, I think Ted <br />20 <br />expertise with respect to what amount is <br />20 <br />is prepared to perhaps provide more detail on <br />21 <br />reasonable for a recreational in-channel <br />21 <br />that -- those issues if you are interested in <br />22 <br />diversion? <br />22 <br />inquiring. <br />23 <br />A. I don't believe I have an expertise <br />23 <br />MR. PORZAK: Yeah. <br />24 <br />as to what amount is reasonable for recreational <br />24 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) What detail do you <br />25 <br />experience. <br />25 <br />have to add? <br />Page 87 <br />Page 89 <br />I <br />Q. Do you have any facts or other <br />1 <br />A. Sure. I believe the question you <br />2 <br />evidence that would bear on what amount is <br />2 <br />asked was what is an amount that the board would <br />3 <br />reasonable for the Breckenridge and Vail <br />3 <br />argue is reasonable and appropriate to <br />4 <br />white-water courses? <br />4 <br />accomplish the purposes for which Breckenridge <br />5 <br />THE DEPONENT: I'm sorry. Could you <br />5 <br />and Vail are seeking water rights, and I believe <br />6 <br />read that back. <br />6 <br />my statement was that that's ultimately a <br />7 <br />(The last question was read back.) <br />7 <br />decision to be made by the water court. <br />8 <br />MR. CYRAN: And objection, form, <br />8 <br />However, if the Court were to find <br />9 <br />just whether it's Ted or CWCB. <br />9 <br />that these water rights did, in fact, control <br />10 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) I'd ask first of <br />10 <br />the water, which we're not conceding, the board <br />11 <br />all with respect to the CWCB. <br />11 <br />may argue at trial that an amount that's <br />12 <br />A. Sure. There may be some facts or <br />12 <br />reasonable and appropriate would be the amount <br />13 <br />evidence with regard to the pictures that I've <br />13 <br />that's necessary to float a boat, and <br />14 <br />taken, the -- my physical observations at both <br />14 <br />potentially the board could argue that an amount <br />15 <br />courses. I think those pictures and my physical <br />15 <br />that's reasonable and appropriate exists where <br />16 <br />observations at certain flows may bear on the <br />16 <br />white-water features appear, but in no event <br />17 <br />reasonableness of the amounts that they're <br />17 <br />would that amount that's reasonable and <br />18 <br />seeking in the two cases. <br />18 <br />appropriate exceed the amount to accomplish the <br />19 <br />Q. Same question with respect to your <br />19 <br />purposes for which the appropriation was sought <br />20 <br />personal knowledge. <br />20 <br />under reasonably efficient practices. <br />21 <br />A. I think the same answer. <br />21 <br />Q. Is it the intended purpose of the <br />22 <br />Q. Okay. Other -- <br />22 <br />Breckenridge and Vail white-water courses to <br />23 <br />MR. CYRAN: And just -- <br />23 <br />merely float a boat? i! <br />24 <br />MR. PORZAK: Yeah. <br />24 <br />MR. CYRAN: Objection to foundation. <br />25 <br />MR. CYRAN: Just that so we can <br />25 <br />A. I believe the intended purposes <br />23 (Pages 86 to 89) <br />Esquire <br />Deposition Services <br />(303) 316-0330 <br />