Laserfiche WebLink
a. In Ft. Collins, Justice Hobbs argued that recreational boating rights <br />should not be allowed because: "The implications for further <br />development of Colorado's interstate compact and equitable <br />apportionment entitlements could be dramatic. Boat chutes and <br />fish ladders at or near State lines on the Rio Grande, Arkansas, <br />Platte, and Colorado mainstem and principal tributaries could <br />command a significant portion of the flows in perpetuity." <br />Affidavit, ¶ 6 and Justice Hobbs' brief attached thereto at 3. <br />Justice Hobbs' former client Northern makes this identical argument at page 9 of its <br />amicus brief, and the CWC at pages 7 -11 of its brief. <br />b. In Ft. Collins, Justice Hobbs expressed his concern that the federal <br />government might try to claim recreation rights: "It would be <br />extremely ironic and adverse to Colorado's best interest to confer <br />upon Bureau of Land Management boat chutes, for example, the <br />status of qualifying for appropriative water rights under Colorado <br />law." Justice Hobbs' brief at 3. <br />Northern argues in the present appeal: "One example that readily comes to mind is the <br />potential for appropriations by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Bureau of Land <br />Management for recreational, piscatorial or wildlife uses." Northern Brief at 11. The CWC <br />argues: "Under a truly frightening scenario, the federal government could construct structures <br />similar to Golden's devices across the Colorado River at or near the Colorado -Utah state line and <br />claim the entire flow of the river for recreational boating or fishery and wildlife purposes." CWC <br />Brief at 9 -10. <br />C. In Ft. Collins, Justice Hobbs argued that the City of Ft. Collins was <br />really seeking an instream flow water right that, pursuant to Senate <br />Bill 212 and other authority, should only be held by the CWCB. <br />Justice Hobbs' brief at 3 -6. <br />In this case, the State's main argument is that Senate Bill 212 not only prohibits in- <br />channel recreation rights, but that legislation is also the basis for the State's position that Ft. <br />Collins is no longer good law. Opening Brief at 11 -14. <br />Ph0438 <br />