Laserfiche WebLink
Application for Water Rights of the Eagle River Water & Sanitation <br />March 12, 2002 <br />Ted Kowalski <br />Page 118 <br />Page 120 <br />1 <br />A. I mean, I would characterize the <br />1 <br />reasonably efficient practices to accomplish the <br />2 <br />duty of water as the minimum amount to <br />2 <br />use, and that could be an amount to float a boat <br />3 <br />accomplish the purposes for which the water <br />3 <br />and it could also be an amount where white -water <br />4 <br />right is sought. <br />4 <br />features appear. <br />5 <br />Q. What if the purpose for which the <br />5 <br />Q. And if the intent was to provide the <br />6 <br />water right is sought is to provide the maximum <br />6 <br />maximum recreation experience, it could be the <br />7 <br />recreation experience? <br />7 <br />amount of water necessary to provide that <br />8 <br />A. I don't know that that's a <br />8 <br />maximum recreation experience, correct? <br />9 <br />recognized beneficial use to provide for the <br />9 <br />A. I don't know that it could. I don't <br />10 <br />maximum recreational experience. I think <br />10 <br />know that the law provides for that. <br />11 <br />beneficial uses that have been recognized <br />11 <br />Q. But you have no expertise as to <br />12 <br />include certain uses, but it doesn't allow the <br />12 <br />whether or not the duty of water would allow for <br />13 <br />appropriator to state with that specificity what <br />13 <br />an appropriation of water that would create the <br />14 <br />their intent is. For example, the law doesn't <br />14 <br />maximum recreation experience; is that correct? <br />15 <br />allow an appropriator to say, "I seek to <br />15 <br />A. I don't know that I have any <br />16 <br />appropriate all the flow of the stream for a <br />16 <br />expertise in that regard, no. <br />17 <br />given use" -- <br />17 <br />Q. Would you agree that the amount of <br />18 <br />Q. Does the law allow -- <br />18 <br />water that might be reasonable for a <br />19 <br />A. -- because -- <br />19 <br />recreational in- channel diversion depends on the <br />20 <br />Q. -- an irrigator to grow the maximum <br />20 <br />hydrology and physical characteristics of the <br />21 <br />number of crops on his land? <br />21 <br />given site? <br />22 <br />MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation. <br />22 <br />A. I believe those are relevant <br />23 <br />A. As long as the irrigator's diversion <br />23 <br />factors. <br />24 <br />amount does not exceed the duty of water, then <br />24 <br />Q. And neither you nor anybody with the <br />25 <br />that would be okay. <br />25 <br />CWCB has any evidence to dispute that <br />Page 119 <br />Page 121 <br />1 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) Then how is that <br />1 <br />white - water courses receive greater use the <br />2 <br />any different from a town that wants to <br />2 <br />greater the flow, correct? <br />3 <br />appropriate an amount of water to create the <br />3 <br />A. I have the information that I've <br />4 <br />maximum recreation experience so as to draw the <br />4 <br />discussed earlier in this deposition. <br />5 <br />maximum number of users so as to create the <br />5 <br />Q. But you have no independent <br />6 <br />maximum economic benefit to the town? <br />6 <br />knowledge one way or another? <br />7 <br />MR. CYRAN: Objection to form and <br />7 <br />A. I have no independent knowledge, <br />8 <br />objection to foundation. <br />8 <br />that's correct. <br />9 <br />A. It's different in that a duty of <br />9 <br />Q. And you have no factual evidence <br />10 <br />water for recreational uses has been explicitly <br />10 <br />that any waste will occur; is that correct? <br />11 <br />stated and quantified over years and years of <br />11 <br />MR. CYRAN: Objection to, once <br />12 <br />case law. <br />12 <br />again, is this Ted or the CWCB. <br />13 <br />With regard to recreational uses, <br />13 <br />MR. PORZAK: Ted. I said Ted, you. <br />14 <br />certainly recreational in- channel uses, that <br />14 <br />A. Just the evidence that I've <br />15 <br />body of law is fairly new, and is developing, <br />15 <br />indicated before. <br />16 <br />and a duty of water is still being developed, <br />16 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) But that's not <br />17 <br />or -- or what would be the duty of water for a <br />17 <br />based on any knowledge that you personally <br />18 <br />recreational use is still being developed. <br />18 <br />possess? <br />19 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) So you don't know <br />19 <br />A. That's correct. <br />20 <br />what the duty of water is with respect to <br />20 <br />Q. Does the Colorado Water Conservation <br />21 <br />recreational in- channel diversion? <br />21 <br />Board intend to argue that the requested <br />22 <br />A. I believe the duty of water for <br />22 <br />appropriations should be denied on the basis <br />23 <br />recreational in- channel diversion is the amount <br />23 <br />that it will adversely impact Colorado's compact <br />24 <br />that's reasonable and appropriate to <br />24 <br />entitlement? <br />25 <br />accomplish the purposes without waste under <br />25 <br />A. It may adversely affect its Colorado <br />31 (Pages 118 to 121) <br />Esquire Deposition Services <br />(303) 316 -0330 <br />