Laserfiche WebLink
Application for Water Rights of the Eagle River Water & Sanitation Ted Kowalski <br />March 12, 2002 <br />Page 30 <br />Page 32 <br />1 <br />MR. CYRAN: Objection to foundation, <br />I <br />Board intend to call Mr. Kuharich to testify in <br />2 <br />objection to form. <br />2 <br />either of these cases? <br />3 <br />A. I think ultimately that's a decision <br />3 <br />A. No. <br />4 <br />of the water court, but I think that that is a <br />4 <br />MR. PORZAK: Okay. For the record, <br />5 <br />possibility, that someone could claim -- <br />5 <br />you had indicated <br />6 <br />successfully claim that such a use would be a <br />6 <br />MR. CYRAN: Yeah. <br />7 <br />commercial or industrial use, if they charged <br />7 <br />MR. PORZAK: -- you were going to <br />8 <br />for that. <br />8 <br />actually file something. <br />9 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) Do you know whether <br />9 <br />MR. CYRAN: There was a confusion. <br />10 <br />or not there are any economic benefits that <br />10 <br />1 had thought first you just wanted a letter, <br />11 <br />accrue to the communities of Breckenridge or <br />11 <br />and then Kristin said you did want to file <br />12 <br />Vail as a result of the existence of its <br />12 <br />something, and I do apologize. I haven't filed <br />13 <br />white-water course -- of their -- <br />13 <br />that. <br />14 <br />A. I would suspect -- <br />14 <br />MR. PORZAK: Okay. <br />15 <br />Q. -- white-water courses? <br />15 <br />MR. CYRAN: And III do that in the <br />16 <br />A. I would suspect that there are some <br />16 <br />next few days. <br />17 <br />economic benefits associated with those <br />17 <br />MR. PORZAK: Okay. <br />18 <br />white-water courses, yes. <br />18 <br />MR. CYRAN: What -- not to interrupt <br />19 <br />Q. Does the Colorado Water Conservation <br />19 <br />your deposition, just a withdrawal of Rod as an <br />20 <br />Board intend to call any expert witnesses in <br />20 <br />expert witness? <br />21 <br />either of the cases that are the subject of this <br />21 <br />MR. PORZAK: Right. <br />22 <br />deposition? <br />22 <br />MR. CYRAN: Okay. <br />23 <br />A. To the extent that Alan Martellaro <br />23 <br />MR. PORZAK: And, for that matter, a <br />24 <br />or -- and Ken Knox have been identified as <br />24 <br />fact witness. <br />25 <br />expert witnesses, our attorney could call them, <br />25 <br />MR. CYRAN: And a fact witness, of <br />Page 31 <br />Page 33 <br />1 <br />as well as any rebuttal witnesses. <br />1 <br />course. Well, in it, I just say with I'll <br />2 <br />Q. Do either of those individuals speak <br />2 <br />just say we're representing to the Court we will <br />3 <br />on behalf of the Colorado Water Conservation <br />3 <br />not be calling him as a fact witness. <br />4 <br />Board in connection with these cases? <br />4 <br />MR. PORZAK: Or as an expert <br />5 <br />MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation. <br />5 <br />witness. <br />6 <br />I'm not sure -- objection, form. <br />6 <br />MR. CYRAN: Or as an expert witness. <br />7 <br />A. I don't believe either of those <br />7 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) You also indicated <br />8 <br />experts are 30(b)(6), is that right, <br />8 <br />that the structures are an instrearn flow <br />9 <br />representatives of the Colorado Water <br />9 <br />contrary to state law. What is the basis for <br />10 <br />Conservation Board, but to the extent that they <br />10 <br />that opinion? <br />11 <br />offer testimony that's relevant to the water <br />11 <br />A. Again, that's based in part on this <br />12 <br />conservation board's position, they may be <br />12 <br />Senate Bill 212 that was passed in 1987, that <br />13 <br />qualified to testify in that regard. <br />13 <br />explicitly provides that CWCB; shall be the only <br />14 <br />Q. (BY MR. PORZAK) Well, they're being <br />14 <br />entity to appropriate instrearn flows for any <br />15 <br />called on behalf of the state and division <br />15 <br />purpose whatsoever, and to the extent that these <br />16 <br />engineers, correct, Mr. Knox and Mr. Martellaro? <br />16 <br />water rights seek in-channel uses or a purpose, <br />17 <br />A. I -- <br />17 <br />we believe that violates Senate Bill 212 and the <br />18 <br />MR. CYRAN: Objection, foundation. <br />18 <br />board's exclusive authority to appropriate <br />19 <br />A. I believe that they may be called on <br />19 <br />instream flows. <br />20 <br />behalf of the state and division engineers, but <br />20 <br />Q. Is the Colorado Water Conservation <br />21 <br />they may also be qualified -- or, excuse me, <br />21 <br />Board's position that subsequent to the <br />22 <br />they may also be called to testify with regard <br />22 <br />enactment of Senate Bill 212, that a -- that the <br />23 <br />to issues related to the Colorado Water <br />23 <br />control of water in a natural course by means of <br />24 <br />Conservation Board's positions. <br />24 <br />a structure or device did not constitute a <br />25 <br />Q. Does the Colorado Water Conservation <br />25 <br />diversion? <br />9 (Pages 30 to 33) <br />Esquire <br />Deposition Services <br />(303) 316-0330 <br />