|
Application for Water Rights of the Eagle River Water & Sanitation
<br />March 12, 2002
<br />Ted Kowalski
<br />Page 122
<br />Page 124
<br />1
<br />compact entitlements, but I don't believe that
<br />1
<br />admissible or could be used in any way.
<br />2
<br />that's an issue that the CWCB intends to argue
<br />2
<br />MR. PORZAK: Well, that's a whole
<br />3
<br />at trial.
<br />3
<br />'nother question, and well obviously deal with
<br />4
<br />MR. PORZAK: Okay. Let me just take
<br />4
<br />that with respect to all of his testimony at
<br />5
<br />one quick second.
<br />5
<br />trial. I would tend to agree with you that I
<br />6
<br />MR. CYRAN: Sure.
<br />6
<br />don't think any of the testimony that he's
<br />7
<br />(A lunch break was taken.)
<br />7
<br />offered here today is going to be admissible at
<br />8
<br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) Mr. Kowalski,
<br />8
<br />trial, but I still have the ability to inquire
<br />9
<br />CRS 37 -92 -103, subsection 4, in defining
<br />9
<br />into how he, as the designated person for the
<br />10
<br />beneficial use, says, "Without limiting the
<br />10
<br />Colorado Water Conservation Board, interprets
<br />11
<br />generality of the foregoing, beneficial use
<br />11
<br />the words, "Without limiting the generality of
<br />12
<br />includes the impoundment of water for
<br />12
<br />the foregoing," in 37 -92 -103, subsection 4, so,
<br />13
<br />recreational purposes." Do you remember those
<br />13
<br />again, what --
<br />14
<br />words or words to that effect?
<br />14
<br />MR. CYRAN: I imagine that I could
<br />15
<br />A. They sound familiar, yes.
<br />15
<br />ask your clients the same questions on my
<br />16
<br />Q. How do you interpret the words,
<br />16
<br />30(b)(6) depositions about their legal
<br />17
<br />"Without limiting the generality of the
<br />17
<br />interpretations of all these various issues.
<br />18
<br />foregoing "?
<br />18
<br />MR. PORZAK: They're not going to
<br />19
<br />MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation.
<br />19
<br />offer legal testimony as apparently Mr. Kowalski
<br />20
<br />A. I would think that that means or
<br />20
<br />is going to.
<br />21
<br />that would be interpreted in that to the extent
<br />21
<br />MR. CYRAN: He's not going to offer
<br />22
<br />that that is general in nature, that statement
<br />22
<br />any legal testimony. But go ahead and answer
<br />23
<br />is more specific in nature, and that it doesn't
<br />23
<br />the question, Ted.
<br />24
<br />limit the generality of the previous statement.
<br />24
<br />A. Sure. Could I look at the language
<br />25
<br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) So are you saying
<br />25
<br />that you're talking about?
<br />Page 123
<br />Page 125
<br />1
<br />that the specific cancels out the reference to
<br />1
<br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) I'd be happy to get
<br />2
<br />the generality language? Is that what you're
<br />2
<br />the statute, if you want, but not from what I'm
<br />3
<br />saying?
<br />3
<br />reading.
<br />4
<br />A. No, I guess I would say that --
<br />4
<br />A. Okay. Sure.
<br />5
<br />MR. CYRAN: Objection to foundation
<br />5
<br />Q. Sure.
<br />6
<br />and to relevance. I don't understand what Ted's
<br />6
<br />(A pause occurred in the
<br />7
<br />testimony on any of these issues has to do with
<br />7
<br />proceedings.)
<br />8
<br />any issue that's -- any issue in this case.
<br />8
<br />A. Yes, I think the statement, "Without
<br />9
<br />MR. PORZAK: That the State is
<br />9
<br />limiting the generality of the foregoing,
<br />10
<br />maintaining that this application or these
<br />10
<br />includes the impoundment of water for
<br />11
<br />applications should be denied because water has
<br />11
<br />recreational purposes," means that there are
<br />12
<br />not been impounded and you can only have a
<br />12
<br />uses other than recreational purposes that, to
<br />13
<br />beneficial use of water for recreation purposes
<br />13
<br />the extent that they're reasonable and
<br />14
<br />where there's been an impoundment, I'm inquiring
<br />14
<br />appropriate under reasonably efficient practices
<br />15
<br />as to how he squares that State position with
<br />15
<br />to accomplish without waste the purposes for
<br />16
<br />the language of 37 -92 -103, subsection 4, that
<br />16
<br />which the appropriation is lawfully made, those
<br />17
<br />says, "Beneficial use consists of," various
<br />17
<br />uses are allowable.
<br />18
<br />enumerated uses, but then goes on to say,
<br />18
<br />For example, if there is a municipal
<br />19
<br />"Without limiting the generality of the
<br />19
<br />use, it says, "Without limiting the generality
<br />20
<br />foregoing."
<br />20
<br />of the foregoing, includes the impoundment for
<br />21
<br />MR. CYRAN: I just don't understand
<br />21
<br />recreational purposes," it doesn't state that
<br />22
<br />why Ted's --
<br />22
<br />there's a municipal use above, but the law
<br />23
<br />MR. PORZAK: Well --
<br />23
<br />allows for municipal use.
<br />24
<br />MR. CYRAN: -- testimony on any of
<br />24
<br />Q. It likewise also does not include
<br />25
<br />this would be ev -- would be relevant or
<br />25
<br />the recreational in- channel diversion of water,
<br />32 (Pages 122 to 125)
<br />Esquire Deposition Services
<br />(303) 316 -0330
<br />
|