DWR_3555995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Due Process. Certain parties argued that these rulemaking proceedings did not provide the parties with due process. The State Engineer disagrees with this assertion. The essence of due process is basic fairness in procedure. Jafay v. Bd. of County Comm'rs ofBoulder County, 848 P.2d 892, 899 (Colo. 1993). The procedural protections that the Colorado and federal due process clauses require are not fixed, but are contingent upon the demands of the particular situation. Id. (citing People v. Kibel, 701 P.2d 37, 43 (Colo.1985)). Whether particular procedures satisfy due process standards depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. Jafay, 848 P.2d at 899; see also Anderson v. Colorado State Dept of Personnel, 756 P.2d 969, 976-77 (Colo. 1988). Here, the Colorado General Assembly in House Bill 09-1303 specifically identified the process that should be provided with respect to the circumstances presented by this rulemaking proceeding. Specifically, the General Assembly directed the State Engineer to comply with the requirements of the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, the General Assembly directed the State Engineer to provide parties the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The State Engineer complied with the requirements imposed by the Colorado General Assembly. All parties were provided notice and opportunity to be heard, as provided for in statute. The State Engineer provided formal notice of the rulemaking proceedings consistent with the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act. All parties were provided the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The State Engineer complied with the timelines set forth in the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act. The State Engineer recognizes that the procedures provided by this rulemaking proceeding differ than those that might have been provided in a formal judicial setting. However, the State Engineer does not find there was a need or requirement to impose formal judicial-type procedures upon these rulemaking proceedings in order to ensure fairness to the parties. Courts have rejected this argument, noting that the demands and objectives of a governmental agency proceeding differ from that of a judicial proceeding. See, e.g. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348 (1975) (noting that the judicial model is neither a required, nor necessarily the most effective method of decision making in all circumstances). Rather than strictly imposing judicial requirements upon agency proceedings, Courts have required agencies provide process that is reasonable when weighed against the individual interest at stake, the governmental interest in retaining challenged procedures, and the degree to which proposed alternative procedures will lessen risk of erroneous deprivation of individual property. Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 334-35; see also Watso v. Colorado Dept. of Social Services, 841 P.2d 299, 307- 08 (Colo. 1992). The State Engineer believes the process provided complied with this requirement. First, the process provided was reasonable. As noted, the State Engineer provided all process required by the General Assembly in House Bill 09-1303. In addition, although not specifically required by House Bill 09-1303 or the Colorado Administrative Produced Nontributary Ground Water Rules 2 CCR 402-17, Statement of Basis and Purpose -6-