1 / 33

Water Users’ Workshop – Session 5 06-07 March 2007 Dixie Center – St. George, Utah

Water Rights Enforcement Issues. Water Users’ Workshop – Session 5 06-07 March 2007 Dixie Center – St. George, Utah. Lee H. Sim, P.E. – Assistant State Engineer Kerry E. Carpenter, P.E. – Enforcement Engineer. The 2005 Statutes. § 73-2-25 : State Engineer enforcement powers

JasminFlorian
Download Presentation

Water Users’ Workshop – Session 5 06-07 March 2007 Dixie Center – St. George, Utah

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Water Rights Enforcement Issues Water Users’ Workshop – Session 5 06-07 March 2007 Dixie Center – St. George, Utah Lee H. Sim, P.E. – Assistant State EngineerKerry E. Carpenter, P.E. – Enforcement Engineer

  2. The 2005 Statutes • § 73-2-25: State Engineer enforcement powers • § 73-2-26: Administrative penalties • § 73-2-27: Criminal penalties • § 73-2-28: Costs and fees in civil actions

  3. The 2005 Administrative Rules • Rule R655-14: Administrative Procedures for Enforcement Proceedings Before the Division of Water Rights

  4. Enforcement Authority • When an “enforcement action” is authorized: • Taking water without right or in violation of an existing right • Failure to comply with statutes, orders or notices regarding headgates, measuring devices, etc.

  5. Enforcement Authority • Failure to comply with an order or notice regarding dam safety or natural stream channel alteration

  6. Enforcement Authority • When is an enforcement action not authorized: • More than one year has passed since violation • Civil disputes between or among water users • Internal disputes in water or irrigation companies • Right-of-way, easement or trespass disputes

  7. The Enforcement Program • Administrative Penalties may include: • Monetary fines • Replacement of water • Reimbursement of Division’s enforcement expenses

  8. What’s New? • The changes are of two types: • Amendedstatutes • Amended administrative rules

  9. Amendments to Statute First Sub. HB 48 (2007) amends §73-2-25 to clarify when an enforcement action is authorized in relation to a water right violation. This section of statute will now read: “The state engineer may commence an enforcement action under this section if the state engineer finds that a person: (i) is diverting, impounding, or using water for which no water right has been established;(ii) is diverting, impounding, or using water in violation of an existing water right. . .”

  10. Amendments to Rules • Section R655-14 was amended in December of 2006. • “Housekeeping” changes • Introduction of Subsection R655-14-14:“Procedures for Determining the Amounts of Administrative Penalties, Enforcement Costs and Water Replacement.”

  11. Administrative penalties based on: Direct Economic Benefit, or Avoided Cost Multiplied by a factor based on: Knowing / Unknowing Injury to others Duration of violation Efforts to comply “Penalty Multiplier Tables” for: Water Rights Direct Benefit Avoided Cost Stream Alteration Dam Safety Penalty Reduction Subsection R655-14-14

  12. Pre-Enforcement • Water right enforcement referrals may come from: • Region Office personnel • Distribution Commissioners • Adjudication Team personnel • Other water users or affected parties using a form provided for this purpose

  13. Water Rights Enforcement Referral Form WATER RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT REFERRAL This form is available on the Division’s website or from any Division office. As a rule, anonymous referrals will not be pursued. Reasonable efforts will be made to protect a complainant’s identity as circumstances warrant.

  14. Alleged violator’s identity and contact information Date(s) and duration of alleged violation Nature of the alleged violation Water right or application numbers Details, photos, etc. Referring party’s identity and contact information Referring party’s desire to remain anonymous NOTE: Anonymity is never guaranteed! Required Referral Information

  15. Pre-Enforcement • Upon receipt of a referral: • Alleged violations are investigated. • Alleged violator is advised of findings of investigation. • The alleged violator is invited to respond with information and/or seek compliance. • An informal resolution will be considered.

  16. The Enforcement Program • If warranted, an enforcement action will be initiated: • As justified by the prior investigation and an informal resolution is not feasible, an “Initial Order” is issued. • The “Initial Order” details the alleged facts, declares the penalties, orders compliance, and describes actions to be taken by the alleged violator to participate in the process.

  17. The Enforcement Program • “Participation” by the alleged violator may take several forms: • Respond with a desire to negotiate a settlement (Consent Order) • Respond to dispute the allegations and/or request a hearing (Consent or Final Order) • No response (Default Order)

  18. Consent Order: A stipulated “Consent Order” is notsubject to reconsideration nor to a formal court appeal. Final / Default Order: A “Final Order” issued by the State Engineer issubject to informal reconsideration or appeal in district court. The Enforcement Program

  19. Case Study :: Timeline • 03 June: Referral Form received • 15 June: Investigation completed and letter sent to alleged violator • 18 July: No response received; Initial Order issued • 31 July: Response: Request for extension of time and hearing

  20. Case Study :: Timeline • 17 August: Preliminary Conference, followed by acreage reduction, submission of affidavits, change applications, etc. • 03 October: Consent Order issued

  21. “Economic Benefit” 23.5 acres alfalfa Annual 4.5 Ton/acre “Stack price” $90/Ton Benefit: $9,517.50/year 214-day period of use (Apr 1 – Oct 31) Daily benefit: $44.47 123 days of violation Base Penalty = Economic Benefit:$5,469.81 “Penalty Multiplier” Unknowing violation – 0.5 Unmeasured injury to others – 0.50 Duration of known violation < 1 yr. – 0.50 Minimal compliance effort – 0.75 Total: 2.25 Administrative Penalty = $12,307.07 Case Study :: Penalty Calculation

  22. Water replacement 123/214 days = 57.48% 57.48% of 23.5 acres = 13.50 acres 13.50 x 2.25 (multiplier) = 30.39 acres to be “idled” Statutory limit of 200% =27.0 acresto be “idled” forone full season Enforcement costs Established by affidavits of time and expenses Includes costs of travel, field work, research, conferences, etc. Base costs are multiplied by an overhead factor (currently 69%) $5,279.47 in this case Case Study :: Penalty Calculation

  23. First Year :: 2006-07 Regulation Referrals: • Dam Safety – 5 • Stream Alteration – 1 • Well Drilling – 8 • Distribution – 36 • Water Rights – 17

  24. First Year :: 2006-07 • Enforcement outcomes: • Not subject to formal enforcement – 3 • Referred to Region office / Informal resolution – 6 • Consent Order – 5 • Final/Default Order – 2 • Still under active investigation – 9 • Under active litigation – 1

  25. www.waterrights.utah.gov

  26. www.waterrights.utah.gov

  27. www.waterrights.utah.gov

  28. www.waterrights.utah.gov

  29. www.waterrights.utah.gov

  30. www.waterrights.utah.gov

  31. www.waterrights.utah.gov

  32. Enforcement Engineer Kerry Carpenter, P.E. Enforcement Engineer 88 E Fiddlers Cyn Rd – Ste F Cedar City, UT 84720 kerrycarpenter@utah.gov (435) 592-2376 Presiding Officer Lee H. Sim, P.E. Asst. State Engineer 1594 W North Temple PO Box 146300 SLC, UT 84114-6300 leesim@utah.gov (801) 538-7380 Contact Information

  33. Conclusion – Q & A

More Related