Laserfiche WebLink
<br />G. To what extent should the 1ud1c1al process be extended to the <br />allocat1on of groundwater? <br /> <br />The Comm1ttee urges close scrut1ny of thls 1ssue. A <br />pract1ce of conf1rm1ng r1ghts 1n nontr1butary groundwater <br />developed 'n 01v1s'on 1 was found 1napp11cable by the Supreme <br />Court 1n Huston. Last year S.B. 439 recogn1zed the practlce. <br />The Leg1slature should clearly 1nst1tute or end the practlce. <br />In so d01ng they should cons1der the costs and delays of uslng <br />the jud1c1al process and the alternat1ves. <br /> <br />The Comm1ttee strongly recommends that to the extent <br />jud1c1al processes are used for nontr1butary groundwater <br />matters, the water court (rather than the d1str1ct courts) be <br />used. The Comm1ttee opposes courts performlng admlnlstrat1ve <br />funct'ons such as 1ssuance of well perm1ts. It favors us1ng <br />courts for appeals or conf1rmatlon of admln1strat1ve dec1s1ons <br />by the state Eng1neer.' Host of the Commlttee recommends that <br />rules and regulat10ns of the state Eng1neer and Groundwater <br />Comm1ss10n be rev1ewable on appeal to the water court. The <br />Comm1ttee 1s sp11t on whether Adm1n1strat1ve Procedure Act <br />rules should apply or whether a tr1al de novo should be held on <br />sett1ng rules and regulat10ns. <br /> <br />H. What procedure should be followed 1n the perm1tt1ng process? <br /> <br />1. Not1ce? <br />2. Hear1ng? <br />3. fees? <br /> <br />The Comm1ttee feels that the procedures for granting a well <br />perm1t 1n all types of groundwater (whether tr1butary or <br />nontr1butary) should be un1form so far as poss1ble. <br /> <br />-23- <br />