Laserfiche WebLink
Applicant/Appellee, Upper GunnisonRiver Water ConservancyDistrict (hereinafter "Upper <br />Guru7ison"), hereby respectfully requests this Court and Justice Hobbs to consider this motion and <br />the affidavit of Cynthia F. Covell, submitted herewith, which contain facts Upper Gunnison believes <br />lead unavoidably to the appearance that Justice Hobbs has a positional bias oz "bent of mind" in this <br />case. Upper Gunnison is well aware of Justice Hobbs' fine reputation as both a justice of the <br />Colorado Supreme Court and a scholar of Colorado water law, and does not intend by this motion <br />to cast any aspersions on Justice Hobbs' integrity or reputation. However, the manner in which the <br />issues have been framed in this appeal, coupled with the facts set forth herein, have led Upper <br />Guruiison to. conclude, reluctantly and after much careful consideration, that it must request <br />disqualification of Justice Hobbs in this case. <br />1. INTRODUCTION. <br />The water judge, Water Division No. 4, entered findings arid decreed the recreational in- <br />channel diversion water rights ("RICD water rights") claimed by Upper Gunnison pursuant to its <br />application filed in March of 2002. These water rights were clauned in accordance with the "Water <br />Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969," C.R.S. §§ 37-92-101 et seq., as amended by <br />legislation known as Senate Bill 216 ("SB 2,16 amendments").' <br />In granting Upper Gunnison's application, the water judge held that Colorado water law has <br />recognized recreational in-channel water rights since City of Thornton v. City ofFort Collins, 830 <br />' The SB 216 amendments were enacted in 2001 in the form of several interrelated <br />statutory sections. They are codified at C.R.S. § 37-92-102(5) and (6); § 37-92-103(4), (7) and <br />(10_3); and § 37-92-305(13), (14), (15), and (16). Covell Affidavit 16, Attachment F. <br />2