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: |
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)
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