My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Notice of Apparent Positional Bias and Motion for Disqualification of Justice Hobbs, With Authorities
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Notice of Apparent Positional Bias and Motion for Disqualification of Justice Hobbs, With Authorities
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:42 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 2:50:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2F
Description
Colorado Supreme Court Appeal
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
8/23/2004
Author
Cynthia F. Covell
Title
Notice of Apparent Positional Bias and Motion for Disqualification of Justice Hobbs, With Authorities
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Matters. Covell aff. 113, Attachment P. In that intezview, Justice Hobbs described Golden as a <br />"pioneering case," brought "to establish that not only could the Water Conservation Board get in- <br />stream flow for fish and protection of environment to a reasonable degree, a city could get an in- <br />stream flow right for kayakiug and boating." Id. <br />If Justice Hobbs thinks that Golden was trying to "establish" an "instrearn flow" water right <br />for kayalci.ng and boating, he must think that Fort Collins is not precedent for a recreational in- <br />channel water right for such purposes.10 This viewpoint is consistent with the CWCB's narrow <br />interpretation of FoYt Collins and its restrictive view of the SB 216 amendments in this case. <br />In the suminer of 2004, with this very appeal pending, an article was published in the July- <br />August 2004 edition of Legal Affairs, in which Justice Hobbs made another extrajudicial public <br />comment xeflecting a"bent of mind" on the subject of reereational in-channel water rights: <br />`But the new state law [SB 2163,' he noted, `says municipalities are <br />only entitled to a`reasonable' recreation use - whatever that means. <br />The issue of whether prior appropriation allows recreational kayak <br />courses is not yet settled in this state.' <br />Covell aff. 114, Attachment Q at 52. <br />Here again, if Justice Hobbs thinks it is not yet settled whether "prior appropriation" allows <br />"recxeational kayak courses," such as the course for which Upper Gunnison obtained its RICD water <br />rights, he rnust necessarily think that Fort Collins is not precedent for water rights for such courses. <br />More troubling, this statement creates the isnpressio.n that he believes the overall fabric of the <br />'o The statement also expresses the view that recreational in-channel water rights are <br />essentially analogous to minimum stream flows under the state's minimum stream flow program, <br />just like the view espoused by Justice Hobbs in Fort Collins and by the CWCB here. <br />12
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.