Laserfiche WebLink
reason Upper Gunnison questions whether Justice Hobbs should have a vote to decide this appeal <br />. is that there is at least an appearance of a positional bias based on the fact that the CWCB is <br />presenting arguments here that are virtually identical to the ones made by Justice Hobbs in Fort <br />Collins. <br />B. The Meaning of Fort Collins Was At Issue in the Golden Cases, in which Justice <br />Hobbs Recnsed Himself. <br />After Fort Collins, three applications were filed in two different water courts for xecreational <br />in-channel water rights for boating courses. The claims were made under the authority of FoYt <br />Collins, and were awarded consistently therewith. Covell aff. 18. The GWCB appealed all three <br />cases (Covell aff. ¶ 9), and the decrees were upheld by this Court by operation of law. State <br />Engineer v. Golden, 69 P.3d 1027 (Colo. 2003) ("Golden").; StateEngineeY v. Eagle River Water and <br />Sanitation District, 69 P.3d 1028 (Colo. 2003) ("Eagle River"); and State EngineeY v. Town of <br />Breckenridge, 69 P.3d 1028 (Colo. 2003) ("BYeckenYidge"). (Golden,EagleRiver; andBreckenridge <br />are collectively referred to herein as the "Golden cases"). Justice Hobbs recused hixnself in all three <br />cases. Covell aff: ¶ 12, Attachments N and O. <br />In the Golden cases, the CWCB argued that SB 212 prevented recreational in-channel water <br />rights for the boating courses and that Fort ColZins had no continuing viability in the wake of SB <br />212. Covell aff. ¶ 9, Attachment H, Opening Bri.ef at 3, 11-14, 21 and Reply at 6-8, 18-21, and 28; <br />AttacYunent I, Opening Brief at 4=6, 7-15 (particularly 14-15) and Reply at 4-5, 6, and 9-10; and <br />Attachment J, Opening Brief at 4-5, 6-14 (particularly 13-14) and Reply at 3-5, 9-10. This argument <br />was an echo of Justice Hobbs' arguznent in Fort Collins. Covell aff. 17, Attachment G at 3, 4. This <br />9