NOTE:  As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.

 

The most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website.  The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

 

SPONSOR:

Tripp

 

DATE TYPED:

 01/29/03

 

HB

263

 

SHORT TITLE:

State Engineer Decision Appeal

 

SB

 

 

 

ANALYST:

Chabot

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

NFI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Parenthesis (  ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

 

Duplicated SB 54

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

LFC Files

 

Responses Received From

Attorney General

Office of the State Engineer (OSE)

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis of Bill

 

House Bill 263 amends Section 72-2-16 pertaining to hearings before the State Engineer to allow a person aggrieved by a decision of the State Engineer’s office to appeal the decision to either the State Engineer or the district court.  If an individual elects to have a hearing before the State Engineer, no appeal may be made to the district court until the State Engineer has held a hearing and entered his decision in writing.

 

     Significant Issues

 

Existing language would allow the State Engineer to make a decision without a public hearing.  Any appeal would be to the district court.  This bill would allow an individual to request a hearing on a State Engineer decision before appealing to the district court.  The State Engineer’s analysis states that currently a hearing before the State Engineer results in a low cost resolution of complicated water rights matters and develops an administrative record of analysis and conclusions including the relevant and material documents in the water rights files.  If an aggrieved party elects to by-pass the hearing process and appeals directly to the district court, this record will not be immediately available delay proceedings.  In addition, they state that having different judges making decisions on water issues may lead to inconsistent opinions forcing appeals to the appellate courts to ensure consistency.

 

Proponents of the bill emphasize that the option to have a hearing before the State Engineer or proceeding to district court will speed the resolution process.  If an applicant determines that the case will go ultimately to district court, the administrative hearing could be by-passed to shorten the overall process.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

 

OSE states that increased costs may result in copying and reviewing files, preparing for court hearings and travel and per diem.  However, these costs are not estimated and would need to be included in future budget requests.

 

TECHNICAL ISSUES

 

OSE recommends the following changes: 

  1. Line 21, page 1: strike “A person” and insert “An applicant or a protestant”.
  2. Line 4, page 2: strike “a person” and insert “an applicant or protestant”.

 

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

 

  1. How will appealing directly to a district court instead of requesting a hearing before the State Engineer speed the process ?

 

2.  Why would there be additional costs to the State Engineer if the appeal goes directly to the district court ?

 

GAC/prr