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:

Jennings

 

DATE TYPED:

03/8/03

 

HB

 

 

SHORT TITLE:

Game & Fish Liability for Property Damage

 

SB

709

 

 

ANALYST:

Valenzuela

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

NFI

 

$100.0 to $500.0

Recurring

Big Game

Depredation Fund

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

Department of Game and Fish

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis of Bill

 

Senate Bill 709 proposes a new section to the statutes governing wildlife depredation complaints that requires the Department of Game and Fish to propose a solution within 90 days after a wildlife depredation complaint is received.  It also holds the Department liable for any damage “described in the complaint” and all other property damage caused by the game animal within the 90-day timeframe.

 

     Significant Issues

 

The Legislature created the Big Game Depredation Fund to fund efforts to mitigate wildlife depredation on private property. With this funding, DGF enters into forage leases or fencing projects with private landowners as prevention efforts. Annual revenues into the fund approximate at $500.0. However, DGF’s Wildlife Depredation and Nuisance Abatement program has annual expenditures of more than $930.0, where the Game Protection Fund absorbs the added cost of the program.

 

DGF reports its concern that the bill does not prohibit the number of times a landowner may claim damage, so they may continue to claim damage at every ninety-day intervals. 

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Senate Bill 709 does not contain an appropriation. However, it could have a tremendous fiscal impact.

 

Based on DGF data, it received 743 depredation complaints last year, which reflects a 16% decrease.  Based on 200 elk complaints received last year with average cost between $500.00 to $2,500.00 worth of damages, the revenue impact could range from $100.0 to $500.0 in addition to the current cost of the depredation program.

 

TECHNICAL ISSUES

 

DGF reports the following concern:

 

The [Attorney General] has advised that payment cannot be made for past compensation and the Department cannot assume liability.  This is contrary to the State Constitution’s Anti-donation Clause (Article IX, Section 14) and the immunities the State has from tort claims. 

 

MFV/sb