SENATE BILL REPORT

SB 5983

BYSenator Newhouse

Authorizing the superior court to retain for hearing water rights cases involving more than one thousand named defendants that would otherwise be referred to a referee.

Senate Committee on Agriculture

Senate Hearing Date(s):February 28, 1989

Majority Report:  Do pass.

      Signed by Senators Barr, Chairman; Anderson, Vice Chairman; Bailey, Gaspard, Hansen, Madsen, Newhouse.

Senate Staff:David Monthie (786-7198)

                  March 6, 1989

AS PASSED SENATE, MARCH 6, 1989

BACKGROUND:

Water rights adjudications are statutory procedures that may be initiated by either an individual seeking a determination of rights or by the Department of Ecology when it is in the public interest.  The process entails the filing of a statement and proposed plan by the department with the superior court, which then serves a summons on all parties.  After the parties have been served with the summons and responded, the court must refer the matter to a department referee to conduct hearings and take evidence.  After this process is completed, the referee files a report with the court, and any party objecting to it must follow a specified procedure.

When there are adjudications on large rivers in the state, such as the Yakima, where there are over 40,000 parties to the proceeding, the referee's role can become very difficult.  Such large adjudications may have substantial legal issues to be resolved by the referee, as well as a large volume of fact- finding testimony, and can result in a complicated and cumbersome procedure.

SUMMARY:

The superior court is given the discretionary authority in complex adjudications where there are more than 1,000 named defendants, including the United States, to retain certain portions of the case for processing.  The portions retained must pertain to a discrete class or classes of defendants or claims.  In order to retain these portions of the adjudication, the court must determine both that (1) resolution of the claims or classes involve significant procedural or substantive legal issues, and (2) that the retention will expedite the conclusion of the case and reduce the costs of the parties and the court.

Appropriation:    none

Revenue:    none

Fiscal Note:      none requested

Senate Committee - Testified: No one