Laserfiche WebLink
09-16-2004 11:15AM FROM-DOL NATURAt RESOURCES 3038663558 T-183 P.0041008 F-311 <br />niayreaeo,n for Justioe Hobbs' zecueal in the Galden cases was thc pre9ence afJustice Hobbs' fo=er <br />client, Naztihern Colorado Water Cansezvancy Diatrict ("Northmn°') as a pa.rty or amicus curiae and <br />(2) this case zs ultimately different from the Golden cases because this caae invalvgs SB 216. <br />(Opposition at 3-6.) This argumant fails. <br />First, Narthem, wae neiihcr a par[y nor au amicus curdae in the Breckenredge ease. Yet <br />Iusiice Hobb& Fecused himsclf frQm Breckenradge, Sccond, and more importaatly, to a,11 outwazd <br />appearances, 7u.snce Hobbs' recusal in the Go1den casoe was based at least as much on the issues aa <br />it was on 1Vorthern's presenco. Tzidccd, as he Bxplained in thG radio interview for Colorado Maraers, <br />hie lugal position was quite relevant to hia recusal: <br />I didn't vo[o because one of the attnmeys, in fact it was the attorrtay <br />for Gfllden who was banging onz of the pioneering cases to establish <br />T.hat not only could the Weter Conaervation Board get in,siream tlow <br />for fish and psatection of envirannlent to a reasanable degree, a ciry <br />could get gn in-streazn flow right for kayaking and boating. That was <br />a pioneering case. Y vvauld have loved to participate. But 11 years <br />ago, when I represented Northern Colorado Conanrvancy DisG[ict, I <br />pointed out ia a brief in a eiinilaz clairn by the Ciry of Fort Collins <br />that theTe was na statute allowing this. And a key differmce between <br />This coe that I waa arguing 11 years ago and the state in-aReam flow <br />law is the legielature passed a statute, So I disqualified myself. <br />(See Cavcll Aff., Exhibit P). <br />ThiS siatement shaws that The poaition advocated in 7ustice Hobbs' brlef in Fon Collins waa <br />ane of tha reasons why hz rtcueed him$clf frarn thC Golden cases. The Golden, cases wete deeidod <br />und.er the authariXy of Forr Colliras, and tht! intapretation of Foit Collirs wds a paramount issue in <br />chose casas. The issug was nat just whether recrearional in-channel water rights wece valid under <br />then-existing Colorado statutea, as the CWCB argues_ (See dpposition at 4-5,) Rather, an equally <br />3