Laserfiche WebLink
09-16-2004 11:15AM FROM-DOL NATURAL RESOURCES 3038663558 T-183 P.003/008 F-311 <br />replies ae fallovvs Lo tha QgposiziQn tc DIsqualificaTion of T-Pstice Hohbs filed by the Appellant, <br />Colora.do Water Conservaiion Boazd and the State Enginccr and Diviaion Engineer for Water <br />Division 4(collectivelyxeferrcdto herein as "°CWCB") and the atniciwho eupportthe CWCB in this <br />appeal. <br />1. ,An ARpcazance of Hia.s Is C3rounds fnl <br />The CWCB wrangly asser[s thai TJpper Crunaisan failed to allege eufficimt gnuads for <br />disqualification of Jusiice Hobbs in this caso. Upper Gunnieon's motion a.nd eupponing affzdavit <br />set farth facts demonstrating Iustice Hohhs' apparenc positianal bias, an appropriaxe ba5i3 for <br />diequalification. See Goebet v. Benton, 830 P.2d 995, 999 (Colo. 1992) ("aetions and commcnts°' <br />by a,judge may require disqua.lification vWkicxn thoy have "compromised the appearance of fairness <br />and impartiality°in a casc). 7ustica klabbs Yumaelf anema to have recognized the posaibility of such <br />an appearanco whGn ha said that he would have to revisit the recusal quesrion whan the next <br />recreational in-channel water right case ca.me befare the Supreme Court, (See Cavoll A£f., Exhibit <br />P.) That case is now before the Court. <br />11. C O osTr e ct: of B'as i ' Cases an e <br />CWQ F?ls to Shu}M Otherwise. <br />V1lhile admitting that this oasi: involvea "similar (but difFerent)'° issues aa tha Cralden caae;s', <br />(Oppasition at 8), the CWCB bases its oppasition ta disqualification on thr argurrient that (1) thc <br />1 As in Uppex GUudson'e motion, rnferences herc tQ the "Goiden cases" are referenccs <br />to Seate Engineer v, Golden, 69 P3d 1027 (Co1a. 2003) ("Golden"); Saare Engineer v. Eagle <br />River Waaer arad Saniantion Disrract, 69 P.3d 1028 (Calo. 2(103) ("Eagda River"); and Srccae <br />Engtrieer v. Town af BAeckenridge, 69 P,3d 102$ (Co1a. 2003) ("BYeckenridge"). <br />2