Laserfiche WebLink
Colorado prior appxopriation system, which now includes the SB 216 amendments, does not <br />recogn.ize such rights. Once again, 3ustice Hobbs has made a statement reflecting a viewpoint that <br />is consistent with the CWCB's narrow interpretation af Fort Collins and its restrictive view of the <br />SB 216 amendments. <br />Both the radio statement on ColoYado Matters and the journal statement in Legal AffaiYs <br />create the appearance of a positional bias in favor of the CWCB's narrow interpretation of Fort <br />Collins and its restrictive view of the SB 216 amendments. As a result, Upper Gunnison is left with <br />the unmistakable impression that Justice Hobbs has a"bent of mind" that may affect his review of <br />issues that are in controversy in this case. <br />IV. CONCLUSION. <br />Justice Hobbs determined he should recuse himself from the Golden cases where the issues <br />on appeal included the meaning and continued authority of Fort Collins and the related question of <br />what restrictions should be applied to recreational in-channel water nights. The meanuig and <br />continued authority ofFort Collins are again at issue in this appeal, and the very arguments that were <br />promoted to restrict zecreational in-channel water rights in the Golden cases are being made by the <br />CWCB here to support its restrictive interpretation of the SB 216 amendments. Further, the CWCB <br />here argues that Colorado's minimum stream flow program, rather than Colorado's statutory and <br />common law as applied in FoYt Collins, should guide the determination of the RICD water rights <br />clairned by Upper Guruiison under the SB 216 amendments. This is almost identical to th-e argurnent <br />made by Justice Hobbs in his unsuccessful challenge of the recreational in-channel water right at <br />issue in Fort Collins. <br />13