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 102
Page 104
1
in-channel diversion?
I
necessary to float a boat.
2
A. Yes, the CWCB believes that all
2
Q. Do you believe that the minimum
3
water rights have some duty of water associated
3
amount of water to float a boat would provide
4
with it.
4
the same recreational experience as a much
5
Q. And what is the duty of water for a
5
larger amount
6
recreational in-channel diversion?
6
MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation.
7
MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation.
7
Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) -- that could float
8
A. Ultimately, that's the water court's
8
a boat?
9
decision --
9
MR. CYRAN: Excuse me. Objection to
10
Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) And what
10
foundation.
it
A. -- but I would say that it's the
11
A. I would state that to the extent
12
amount that's reasonable and appropriate to
12
that the water rights applications seek a water
13
accomplish without waste the purposes for which
13
right for boating purposes, the minimum amount
14
the appropriation is sought under reasonably
14
necessary to float a boat would accomplish that
15
efficient practice.
15
purpose at a lower amount, and while it may
16
Q. And what does the CWCB believe the
16
still accomplish that purpose at the 400 cfs,
17
duty of water is with respect to the
17
that's not an amount that's reasonable and
18
Breckenridge and Vail courses?
18
appropriate to accomplish the purposes without
19
A. Again, I would refer to that answer
19
waste under reasonably efficient practices for
20
to that question after we came back into the
20
which the appropriation was sought.
21
room, in that the CWCB is not conceding that
21
Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) The application to
22
these structures divert or control the water,
22
which -- applications to which you refer specify
23
but if it were to -- found that they did,
23
a use plus a flow amount, do they not?
24
this -- the board may argue that the amount
24
A. The applications include uses, as
25
that's reasonable and appropriate would be the
25
well as flow amounts, that's correct.
Page 103
Page 105
1
amount to float a boat, and potentially the
1
Q. So the intent of the appropriator as
2
board may argue that it would be the amount that
2
expressed in the applications are for a given
3
appears when white-water features -- excuse
3
use at a given flow rate, correct?
4
me -- the amount that exists on white-water
4
MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation.
5
features appear. The board could argue those.
5
A. They requested given uses at given
6
Q. And what amounts are those with
6
flow rates, that's correct.
7
respect to the Breckenridge and Vail courses?
7
Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) In the case of the
8
A. I don't --
8
Vail course, for example, they have requested
9
MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation.
9
boating and general recreational uses at a flow
10
A. I don't know specifically, but 1
10
rate of up to 400 cubic feet, correct?
11
believe that Mr. Lacy has given testimony with
11
A. That's correct, that's what they're
12
regard to those, and -- issues, and
12
requesting.
13
Mr. Martellaro and Mr. Ken Knox may have given
13
Q. How can a flow rate of 50 second
14
testimony with regard to those issues, as well.
14
feet, for example, accomplish the intended
15
Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) But you -- but
15
purpose to create a recreational experience at
16
neither you nor the CWCB have any independent
16
400 second feet?
17
evidence as to an amount; is that correct?
17
MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation.
18
A. That's correct, other than the
18
A. The intent of the appropriator to
19
evidence that I've just in -- stated.
19
divert a certain flow amount for a given use is
20
Q. Now, you say an amount to float a
20
not the ultimate decision or -- with regard to
21
boat. Now, you could float a boat at 400 second
21
whether or not that applicant gets that flow
22
feet or you could float a boat at other flows,
22
amount. The water court determines whether the
23
could you not? What do you mean by an amount to
23
flow amount sought is an amount that's
24
float a boat?
24
reasonable and appropriate to accomplish the
25
A. I would mean the minimum amount
25
purposes without waste under reasonably
..... . ... .............
27 (Pages 102 to 105)
Esquire
Deposition Services
[phone]