Laserfiche WebLink
09-27-2004 03:54PM <br />FROM-DOL NATURAL RESOURCES <br />3038663558 T-244 P.008/011 F-454 <br />eqLially ctivided, court] is, of course, that the principle of law <br />presenLed by rhF case is left unseLLled."). <br />The facts ?,lleged by affidaviL in this case demonstrate <br />none of the aspe-cts of partiality chat require judicial <br />disqualification. They axe within the teaching and community <br />participation xt,le permitted and encouraged by Canons 4 and 5. <br />Zn the Colorado Public Radio and 1ega1 maqazine interviews, I <br />spoke about zhe stability and adaptability of Colorado wazer law <br />in many of its .ispects, from Terrir-orlal clays up Lo Lhe <br />inclusion of re7reational water .rights as the newest of <br />beneficial uses. <br />In zesponse to questions, I explained LhaL T did not <br />participate in rhe deciding the Golden, Vail, and Breckenridqe <br />kayak course cases because the Northern Colorado WaLer <br />Conserva.ncy District, my former client in the Fort Collins case <br />before the Couzt, had filed a b.rief to the Court in [he Golden <br />case. <br />The CourL's deliperation resulted in a 3-3 vote in each of <br />those cases. :tate Enq'r v. City_of Golden, 69 P.3d 1027 (Colo. <br />2003) ; State Er,q'r v. ?aqle River Water and Sanzration Dist., 69 <br />P.3d 1028 (Col(.. 2003) (consoliaated with StaCe Enq'r v_ Town of <br />BreckenridQe). 6ecause those thrEe water caurt appeals were to <br />be hea ed and d,:cided iri Landem, I had previolisly decided nct ta <br />parti.cipar_e in ariy of_ ctizm.