Laserfiche WebLink
Application for Water Rights of the Eagle River Water & Sanitation Ted Kowalski <br />March 12, 2002 <br />24 (Pages 90 to 93) <br />Esquire Deposition Services (303) 316 -0330 ' <br />6—__ <br />Page 90 <br />Page 92 <br />1 <br />stated in Breckenridge and Vail's or the Eagle <br />1 <br />it talked about flows and usage. I don't recall <br />2 <br />River's applications were for boating, <br />2 <br />the authors or the exact statements that were <br />3 <br />piscatorial, and other recreational purposes. <br />3 <br />made, but ... <br />4 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) What is your <br />4 <br />Q. And did they have any expertise to <br />5 <br />understanding of the intent behind the <br />5 <br />determine whether or not there's a correlation <br />6 <br />Breckenridge and Vail white -water courses? <br />6 <br />between course flows and course usage? <br />7 <br />A. My understanding is that the intent <br />7 <br />A. I -- <br />8 <br />is reflected in the applications and the other <br />8 <br />MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation. <br />9 <br />documents provided by the applicants to the <br />9 <br />A. I don't know. <br />10 <br />water court. <br />10 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) Do you have any <br />11 <br />Q. Do you disagree that the greater the <br />11 <br />expertise to know whether or not there's a <br />12 <br />flows in a white -water course, the greater the <br />12 <br />correlation between course flows and course <br />13 <br />use and the greater the economic benefits? <br />13 <br />usage? <br />14 <br />MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation. <br />14 <br />A. I don't believe I have an expertise <br />15 <br />A. I can't agree absolutely with that <br />15 <br />in that regard, no. <br />16 <br />statement. <br />16 <br />Q. Does the CWCB or do you have any <br />17 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) What -- why not? <br />17 <br />factual evidence to dispute the fact that the <br />18 <br />A. Because I think recreational uses <br />18 <br />greater the course flows, the greater the course <br />19 <br />tend to more reflect a curve, in that there may <br />19 <br />usage? <br />20 <br />be more use as the flows increase to a certain <br />20 <br />A. Factual evidence? <br />21 <br />level, and then those uses with that -- as the <br />21 <br />Q. Yes. <br />22 <br />flow level increases, tapers off, and then <br />22 <br />A. We don't have any factual evidence <br />23 <br />actually I believe the use tends to decline at <br />23 <br />at this time to -- <br />24 <br />certain higher flows. <br />24 <br />Q. To dispute that? <br />25 <br />Q. And what's the factual basis for <br />25 <br />A. -- to dispute that statement. <br />Page 91 <br />Page 93 <br />1 <br />that statement? <br />1 <br />Q. Does the CWCB believe that the <br />2 <br />A. Review of the documents and <br />2 <br />potential for a claimed water right to impact <br />3 <br />publications that exist about recreational uses <br />3 <br />future exchange potential is a basis to deny a <br />4 <br />as they relate to kayak use, kayak and boating <br />4 <br />water right? <br />5 <br />generally. <br />5 <br />A. Only to the extent that that's <br />6 <br />Q. What documents and publications are <br />6 <br />related to the doctrine of maximum utilization <br />7 <br />you referring to? <br />7 <br />that is inherent in all water rights <br />8 <br />A. I've read a number of law review <br />8 <br />applications and the requirements under <br />9 <br />articles. There's a document by Dr. Bo Shelby <br />9 <br />beneficial use that the amounts must be in a <br />10 <br />about recreational uses. <br />10 <br />reasonable and appropriate amount to accomplish <br />11 <br />Q. Do you intend to -- does the CWCB <br />11 <br />the purpose without waste under reasonably <br />12 <br />intend to call Dr. Bo Shelby at this trial? <br />12 <br />efficient practice. <br />13 <br />A. No. <br />13 <br />Q. Is the CWCB claiming any <br />14 <br />Q. Why not? <br />14 <br />administration issues as the basis for its <br />15 <br />A. It's ultimately a decision of <br />15 <br />opposition? <br />16 <br />counsel on who to call. <br />16 <br />A. I don't believe the CWCB is claiming <br />17 <br />Q. Is it because he offers no useful <br />17 <br />any administration issues. <br />18 <br />testimony? <br />18 <br />Q. Does the CWCB contend that <br />19 <br />A. That's not a reason I would state, <br />19 <br />Breckenridge does not have the requisite intent <br />20 <br />no. <br />20 <br />to appropriate the water they have claimed in <br />21 <br />Q. What law review article opines that <br />21 <br />connection with its white -water course? <br />22 <br />there is no correlation between the amount of <br />22 <br />A. I don't believe we're disputing <br />23 <br />flows and the amount of course usage? <br />23 <br />that. <br />24 <br />A. There is this law review article, I <br />24 <br />Q. Does the CWCB contend that the Eagle <br />25 <br />think it appeared in Denver Water, and I think <br />25 <br />River Water & Sanitation District does not have <br />24 (Pages 90 to 93) <br />Esquire Deposition Services (303) 316 -0330 ' <br />6—__ <br />