Laserfiche WebLink
CWCB argues that the water judge failed to accord proper meaning to the word "minimum" in the <br />SB 216 amendments. To support its argument, CWCB asserts that the SB 216 amendments restrict <br />RICD water rights in a manner similar to minimum stream flow water rights under Colorado's <br />instream flow program,4 and that Fort Collins, to the extent it is applicable, similarly restricts the <br />amount of water that may be appropriated for an RICD water right under the SB 216 amendments. <br />Opening Brief at 9, 16-17. <br />As shown herein, Justice Hobbs activelyparticipated as an attorney in the Fort Collins case, <br />arguing for the same strict scrutiny of recreational water rights as the CWCB seelcs here; he recused <br />himself in three subsequent cases involving water rights for boating courses in which the meaning <br />of FoYt Collins was squarely at issue; and he has made extrajudicial comments during the pendency <br />of this case reflecting a positional bias consistent with his Fort Collins argutnents and in favor of the <br />CWCB's arguments. The totality of circumstances creates the appearance that Justice Hobbs has <br />apositional bias regarding recreational in-channel water rights, leaving Upper Gunnison with the <br />unmistakable impression that he wi11 not be able to hear Upper Gunnison's axguments impartially. <br />Approximately a year ago, Justice Hobbs himself candidly acknowledged that he will need <br />to examine carefully his ability to participate in future recreational in-channel diversion cases: <br />,.,[Y]ou lcnow I just have to look about whether I can part-icipate <br />fairly at the time such a case comes up.s <br />This is such a case. <br />" The insfream flow program, enacted in 1973 (described by CWCB as "Senate Bill 97") <br />is codified at C.R.S. § 37-92-102(3) and (4). <br />5 Covell aff: 113, Attachment P. <br />4