Laserfiche WebLink
d. In Ft. Collins, Justice Hobbs argued that the only valid recreation <br />right is a right that is impounded. Justice Hobbs' brief at 5 -6. <br />This identical argument is made by the State at pages 21 -22 of its Opening Brief. <br />e. 'In Ft. Collins, Justice Hobbs argued that the City of Ft. Collins was <br />seeking the kind of "forbidden riparian right" rejected by the <br />Supreme Court in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. <br />Rocky Mountain Power Co., 406 P.2d 798 (Colo. 1965). Justice <br />Hobbs' brief at 7. <br />The State cites this same case and makes this exact same argument against the Golden <br />course structures at page 20 of its brief, and the CWC does the same at page 22 of its brief. <br />f. In Ft. Collins. Justice Hobbs argued that the structures at issue <br />could not be an "appropriation" of water under the law because <br />they did not adequately "capture, possess and control" the water as <br />required by statute. Justice Hobbs' brief at 7, 8. <br />The State makes this exact argument at pages 14 -20 of its Opening Brief, Northern at 6, <br />and the CWC at 11 -16. <br />In light of the foregoing, it is fair to say that Justice Hobbs has in fact expressed a "bent <br />of mind" about recreation water rights such as the one at issue. Granted, the arguments outlined <br />above were asserted by Justice Hobbs in Ft. Collins on behalf of a paying client, but it was a <br />client for whom he served as general counsel and with whom he is irrevocably identified. <br />Moreover, that very same client is before him again in this case, and that former client is <br />reiterating the exact same arguments that Justice Hobbs asserted in Ft. Collins. Golden should <br />Ph0438 10 <br />