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: |
Cervantes |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
739 |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Establish Water Courts |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Hayes |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
$2,400.0 |
|
|
Recurring |
General
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Relates to SB 145
Conflicts with HB 127, HB 204, SB
39, SB 78, SB 143
No
Responses Received From
Administrative
Office of the Courts (
State
Engineer
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House
Bill 739 appropriates $2.4 million from the general fund to the 1st,
3rd, 5th and 11th Judicial District Courts at
$600,000 each in order to create and fund water court divisions within those
courts to adjudicate water rights disputes.
Within
60 days, the special master must file a report containing recommended findings
of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence presented during the
case hearing.
A
case management clerk and a law clerk must be provided to the water judge by
the district court for stream adjudications.
In addition, the district courts must provide courtrooms and other
necessary facilities for the water judges and special masters hearing cases.
Significant
Issues
a)
If a Special
Master will be hearing most of the cases and making recommendations after
review of the evidence, why is there a need for separate “water judges” too?
b)
Because many
courts are requesting new judgeships (see SB 143), the request for separate
water court judgeships is viewed by some in the judiciary as a conflict. In addition, such specialty positions may
cause an inequity in workload and caseload among judges.
c)
Three out of
four of the district courts named in this bill do not have enough space or
offices for their current needs. How are
these courts going to “provide courtrooms and other necessary facilities for
the waters judges and special masters…” as outlined in the bill?
d)
Section 3 of HB
739 requires district courts to provide law clerks and case management clerks
to the water judge. Are these current
staff positions which will be diverted from their current court assignments to
water court? Or is part of the $600,000 funded to each district court to be
used to hire such staff?
e)
Apart from the
judgeship positions, what else does the $600,000 fund? How many staff FTEs? Is a portion of this funding for capital
items such as furniture, computers and equipment? If so, a portion of the funding should be
designated as non-recurring according to DFA regulations.
f)
Since the
funding is divided evenly among the 1st, 3rd, 5th
and 11th districts, is the caseload anticipated to be the same in
each district?
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of
$2,400.0 contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general
fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered
balance remaining at the end of FY04 shall revert to the general fund.
RELATIONSHIP/CONFLICT
SB 145 proposes
funding a court facilities improvement study for district courts to identify
renovations needed, space needs, safety and security factors, etc.
Conflicts with:
HB
127 and SB 78 propose creating a 14th Judicial District Court which
would split the 11th district, thereby affecting the water court
proposed for the 11th district by this bill.
HB
204 proposes using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes for water
rights adjudications.
SB
39 creates and funds a new judgeship for the 3rd Judicial District
Court in
SB143
is referred to as the “judgeship bill.”
It requests judgeships statewide based on the Weighted Caseload
Study. It does not contain judgeships
for the 1st or 5th Judicial District Courts since their
current caseload does not warrant additional judges.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
The courts are
implementing performance-based budgeting (PPB) in FY04. The Supreme Court directed the judiciary to
create a single program for each court in order to exercise “flexibility.” As a result, all FTE and funding sources for
regular court functions, drug court, teen court, domestic violence, mediation,
federal grants, HSD transfers for child support hearing officers, etc., are
combined into a single program. It is a
concern to both DFA and LFC how the courts will maintain separate, proper accounting
records for all of these activities which formerly functioned as separate
divisions. In regards to water courts,
the “water court division” proposed in this legislation will not exist as such under the PPB model; its funding
and employees will be combined with all other court activity into a single
program.
CMH/yr