Laserfiche WebLink
4) SCT and Bar Association CLE should work together to provide better <br />education for judges, referees, water lawyers and any other involved parties in <br />water court, this comes from surveys that come from this process: concern was <br />expressed that evervone involved should be better educated on both procedure <br />and substance, thus this proposal is underway... better education program. <br />5) SCT should establish standing water court committee, Chief justice already <br />done this: members have been appointed: members on interim committee have <br />been invited on this: this is on heals of last fall's committee <br />6) State Cts administrator's office should work to help members of community <br />who go forth without attorneys: adopted from 1969... assist people who do not <br />have attorneys.. less in Division L more in west slope water divisions: this <br />recommendation id focal point of permanent committee: intent is to complete <br />these fairly soon so those who want to file water without atty can do <br />7) Water judges working with water committee need to review all standing <br />forms: already being carried out by committee: <br />8) SCT and AG and DNR and State Engineer and DNR should work together to <br />get more funding from General Assembly to carry out these ideas per staffing <br />and to conclude these steps: this is going forth as part of this process: SCT is <br />looking at what they need as per details to go forward to general assembly for <br />money not sure if they will make request in 09 session: Justice Hobbs says that <br />all of this in terms of rule changes has not been done, and until it is done, unsure <br />about budget. So rule changes first and then implementation in 2010: might move <br />quickly enough for budget request. <br />9) General Assembly should foster public river communication models and <br />transparency: would simplify if there was technical tools as to what would be <br />used: committee thought that this was already underway as per what tools to use <br />and CWCB is already funding this, thus this recommendation is to continue with <br />all due speed to simplify or resolve disagreements as per calculation tools. <br />10) SCT through State ct administrator reviews water court staffing and makes <br />adjustments to make sure that we have timely, fair and effective water courts. <br />Aimed primarily at referee assignments: do we have referee assignments in the <br />right places. <br />This is only an overview, but sense from Justice Hobbes that they are quite <br />serious about addressing the concerns faster, more efficiently and more <br />economically for parties that are litigating water court cases. <br />Detailed summary- re: procedural rule changes under discussion: As part of <br />committee's work, the state administrators' office did detailed analysis of all 7 <br />districts of how they are being opposed, how long to get through the process, <br />resolved by judge or referee: results are on the supreme ct ivebsite: executive <br />summary and detailed summaiv. All different surface, ground water, changes, <br />aug plans, how many objectors, how long taking... detailed analysis. Summary <br />from ex summary-::" Of all cases looked at 70% unopposed: 1500 cases filed in all <br />water courts: 70° o unopposed: 26% have five or less: 4% have six or more <br />objectors...having more objectors means takes longer: median time 10.6 <br />months... 18.9 months...6 or more=40.7 months medium time, significant: one of <br />main aims: have referees is to have them resolve those that are not objected to get <br />them done in 60 days or less. Thus, it would be huge benefit if we can get rid of <br />the 70% that are unopposed, so get unopposed cases taken care of 1969 Act: <br />Provisions: suggests that all referees are to resolve all of their cases within 60