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
SPONSOR: |
Garcia |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
State Engineer Decision Appeal |
SB |
54 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Chabot |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
NFI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
Office
of the State Engineer (OSE)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
Senate Bill 54 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:
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
2. Why would there be
additional costs to the
State Engineer if the appeal
goes directly to the
district court ?