Committee hears public testimony, staff briefing on contested-case reform for water-rights process

The House Committee on Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources, and Water opened a public hearing and received a technical briefing on House Bill 3,544 (dash-3), a bill that would standardize contested-case procedures administered by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD).

Committee members and OWRD staff described the measure as an effort to streamline contested-case schedules, clarify party-status and protest requirements, and expand settlement mechanisms. "This bill would provide and actually direct the agency to work with the Office of Administrative Hearings to develop default schedules," said Raquel (department staff), who presented the bill’s technical overview. The bill sets a 180-day default deadline for completing a hearing from referral to hearing (with enumerated exceptions), establishes a preference for oral testimony when practicable, and proposes default hearing schedules and timelines for party status and protests.

Stakeholder witnesses urged caution. Brian Posowitz, staff attorney for Water Watch of Oregon, said the bill "would make major changes to the process that governs these things called contested cases" and warned that some provisions could limit public participation or prompt new litigation. "Under existing law, 'any person' can file a protest," Posowitz said. "The dash-3 amendments would say you have to be adversely affected or aggrieved to invoke the contested case process," a change he said would invite litigation over standing and could undermine the bill’s stated efficiency goals.

Kaylin Barter, water-policy director for Wild Salmon Center, emphasized water’s public-ownership status under ORS 537.110 and flagged due-process risks from narrowing who may protest and from limiting the scope of exceptions raised to the Commission. "Water is different," Barter said. "Under ORS 537.110, all water within the state from all sources of supply belongs to the public," and that public-ownership framing, she said, increases the due-process concerns for contested-case changes.

Agency staff and the department’s deputy director, Rick Hellrianstier, said a full fiscal analysis will be completed before the bill leaves committee; he estimated only "some minimal fiscal" effects at this stage but cautioned that the department has not done a full cost study. Jesse Ratcliffe, appearing for the Department of Justice in his advisory capacity, confirmed that due-process protections were part of the bill review and that OJD counsel had been participating in the analysis.

Witnesses and committee members also discussed backlog and resourcing. Barter and Posowitz said the department’s contested-case backlog is concentrated in in-stream water-right protests and argued that targeted staffing and funding helped reduce the backlog in prior biennia. Barter cited figures discussed in testimony: roughly 229 pending applications with protests, about 173 related to in-stream water-right applications, approximately 11 transfer-related protests, and about 22 non-in-stream applications filed by non-applicants; she also noted a previous $3 million biennial allocation that reduced the backlog by roughly 61 cases.

Committee chairs closed the public hearing and said the committee will continue to work on amendments. The committee also announced it will carry over work session consideration of House Bill 2,773 and carry over a public hearing on House Bill 3,343 to a future meeting.