Notice of Apparent Positional Bias and Motion for Disqualification of Justice Hobbs, With Authorities

Home Browse Search

denied Fort Collins' application for a recreational in-channel water right for a boat chute and fish ladder. Covell aff. ¶ 7, Attachxnent G. He argued unsuccessfullythat Colorado law, and particularly Senate Bill 212,$ prohibited recreational in-channel water rights such as the one claimed by Fort Collins for its boat chute and fish ladder. Id. at 3-7. He clauned that such water rights could exist only if legislatively created, and that they should be subject to both strict scrutiny and significant administrative agency oversight in the same manner as Colorado's minimum stream flow program. Id. In this appeal, the CWCB uses the same arguments to support its interpretation of Fort Collins and the SB 216 amendments. The CWCB asserts here that the passage of Senate Bill 212 effectively prevented claims for recreational in-channel water rights after Fort Collins (Opening Brief at 9-10) and, therefore, that Fort Collins ca.nnot provide authority for interpreting the SB 216 amendments or evaluating water rights claimed thereunder. Rather, according to the CWCB, legislationrelated to Colorado's minimum stream flow program should be used to interpret the SB 216 amendments and to evaluate Upper GLUlnison's claim. Opening Brief at 16-17. CWCB claims it should have a substantial oversight role in the determination of RICD water rights, as it does with xninimum streaxn flow water rights. Opening Brief at 17-19. Just as Justice Hobbs used SB 212 and the minimum stream flow program to support his restrictive view of recreational in-channel water rights prior to the SB 216 amendments, the CWCB uses them to support its restrictive view of RICD water rights- after.the SB 216 amendments. One ' Senate Bill 212 was enacted in 1987. It is codified as parf of the legislation addressing Colorado's minimum sfream flow program at C.R.S. § 37-92-102(3). 8