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.
|
SPONSOR: |
Lundstrom |
DATE TYPED: |
01/30/03 |
HB |
204 |
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
Water Rights Adjudications |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Chabot |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$.01 (See Narrative) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
Office
of the State Engineer (OSE)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House Bill 204 amends
Section 72-4-15 NMSA 1978 to add B that would allow for alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) for water rights determinations. This would be pursuant to the Governmental Alternative Dispute
Resolution Act. Technical experts and
witnesses would be allowed to participate.
Significant
Issues
OSE states that this bill would mandate alternative dispute resolution in water rights adjudications. The language does not appear to be mandatory, but opens up alternative dispute resolution as an option to the water rights claimant.
OSE also states that this bill could impose a
considerable additional burden to mediate or facilitate a large number of
subfiles within the adjudications. OSE
does feel that adjudication is appropriate in the larger adjudication involving
Native American claims and acequias.
OSE reports that to initiate an adjudication,
the case must be filed with the district court and the judge will have
jurisdiction and decide how the case will be handled. The courts already have the authority to determine whether
alternative dispute resolution is important.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
If all individuals
involved in a water rights adjudication elect to pursue alternative dispute
resolution, there could be a significant savings. However, since a legal decision is required to finalize an
adjudication, if any individuals elects not to participate, the ADR efforts may
not be recognized by the district court judge.
In addition, the bill does not specify who or what agency is responsible
for funding the ADR effort.
OSE states there will
be significant costs (not quantified) in using alternative dispute resolution.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP,
RELATIONSHIP
OSE reports the bill
conflicts with the provisions of the Governmental Dispute Resolution Act,
Section 128A-3(A) that states “An agency may use an alternative dispute
resolution procedure to resolve and dispute, issue or controversy….Alternative
dispute resolution procedures are voluntary and may be used at the discretion
of the agency.”
TECHNICAL ISSUES
OSE recommends amending page 2, line 16-17 by
striking “the attorney general or the office of the state engineer” and
inserting “the attorneys for the State of New Mexico”.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS