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 98
Page 100
1
Q. Do you have any knowledge with
1
Q. What evidence do you or the CWCB
2
respect to that code?
2
have that the Breckenridge boating course does
3
A. I have some knowledge with respect
3
not provide the optimum recreation experience at
4
to that code.
4
500 cfs?
5
Q. And what knowledge do you have?
5
A. I don't know that we have any
6
A. I have some knowledge that there are
6
evidence except for the evidence that I've
7
statements in there that structures are not to
7
referred to earlier, testimony of Mr. Lacy with
8
be built within a certain feet limitations of
8
regard to that issue.
9
Gore Creek. I think there's some ordinances
9
Q. What evidence does the CWCB have
10
that provide for circumstances in which
10
that the Vail white-water course does not
11
structures can be within -- excuse me -- built
11
provide the optimum recreation experience at
12
within a certain area within the creek. I think
12
400 cfs?
13
there's some ordinances that provide or an
13
A. Again, I would answer that question
14
ordinance that provides that Vail shall not
14
the same.
15
alter the channel or change the flow of Gore
15
Q. Have you read Mr. Lacy's disclosures
16
Creek.
16
in both the Breckenridge and Vail cases?
17
Q. And do you have any knowledge what
17
A. I did, yes.
18
the definition of structures are within the
18
Q. Do you have any basis to dispute one
19
context of the Vail municipal code?
19
way or another the statements contained in
20
A. I have some knowledge, but I'd need
20
Mr. Lacy's reports?
21
to refer to the code.
21
MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation.
22
Q. Do you intend to offer any expert
22
A. I disagree with Mr. Lacy on a number
23
testimony as to the interpretation of the -- of
23
of his points. Again, I'm not going to be
24
Vail municipal code?
24
offering expert testimony with regard to matters
25
A. I don't intend to offer any expert
25
that Mr. Lacy discusses in his reports.
Page 99
Page 101
1
testimony with regard to the interpretation of
I
Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) So you're not
2
the Vail code.
2
you do not intend to rebut any of the opinions
3
Q. All right. Do any of the documents
3
or statements made in Mr. Lacy's expert
4
in Case No. 2000CV322 contain any statements
4
disclosures; is that correct?
5
made by the Eagle River Water & Sanitation
5
MR. CYRAN: Objection to form, and
6
District?
6
objection, foundation. It's unclear, again,
7
A. Not to my knowledge.
7
whether you is the CWCB or Ted Kowalski.
8
Q. What evidence does the Colorado
8
Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) I'm asking you, Ted
9
Water Conservation Board or do you have that the
9
Kowalski.
10
design of the Breckenridge boating course is not
10
A. Yeah, I may offer testimony, opinion
11
500 cubic feet of water per second?
11
testimony, lay opinion testimony, but not expert
12
MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation.
12
opinion testimony, that's correct.
13
THE DEPONENT: Can you read that
13
Q. Have you reviewed the economic
14
back.
14
impact analysis regarding either the
15
(The last question was read back.)
15
Breckenridge or Vail courses?
16
A. I don't believe that I or the CWCB
16
A. Yes, I did.
17
has any evidence at this time that the design
17
Q. Does the CWCB; or do you have any
18
of the Breckenridge white-water course is for
18
evidence to suggest that the economic impact
19
500 cubic feet per second.
19
analysis of these courses on the towns are not
20
Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) What evidence do
20
accurate?
21
you or the CWCB; have the design of the Vail
21
A. I don't believe we have any evidence
22
white-water course is not 400 cfs?
22
to show that the economic analyses are not
23
A. I don't know that I or the CWCB; have
23
accurate.
24
evidence at this time that the Vail boating
24
Q. Does the CWCB believe that there is
25
course design is for 4 -- is not for 400 cfs.
25
a duty of water with respect to a recreational
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
Esquire Deposition Services
[phone]