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
P.2d 915 (Colo. 1992) ("Fort Collins"), and that the legislature restricted these water rights in the <br />SB 216 amendments. Covell .Affidavit (hereinafter "Covell aff.") 11, Attachment A at 20. The <br />meaning ofFoYt Collins and the related question ofpreciselyhow the SB 216 amendments "restrict" <br />an RICD water right have been raised as issues in this appeal by appellants, the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board and the State and Division Engineers (collectively, "CWCB"). As outlined in <br />Section lII herein, Upper Gunnison is concerned abont the appearance that 7ustice Hobbs may have <br />a positional bias or "bent of mind" preventing him from giving Upper Gunnison's axguments on <br />these issues the impartial consideration they axe due.2 <br />The water judge found that traditional concepts of Colorado water law (beneficial use, anti- <br />speculation, and maximum utilization) should be applied to determirie the appropriate amount of <br />water that could be decreed to Upper Gunnison's RICD water rights under the SB 216 amendxnents. <br />Covell af£ ¶ 1, Attachment A at 16-20, particularly 17. The judge also found no evidence that the <br />legislature "intended to deviate" from these traditional concepts by use of the word `,`minimum" in <br />the definition of "recreational in-channel diversion" found in the SB 216 amendments.3 Id. <br />The CWCB arb es that the water judge erred in granfiing the amounts of water sought by <br />Upper Gunrzison pursuant to its application. Opening Brief at 11-15. Among other things, the <br />2 By filing this motion, Upper Gunnison does not waive any arguments, responses or <br />Iegal positions with regard to the arguments made by the CWCB and the aniici in this appeal. <br />3 SB 216 defines.a recreational in-channel diversion as the "minimum stream flow as it is <br />diverted, captured, controlled, and placed to beneficial use between specific points defined by <br />physical control structures pursuant to an application filed by a[designated local government <br />enti.ty] for a reasonable recreation experien,ce in and on the water." C.R.S. § 37-92-103(10.-:)).
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.