Heated testimony on bill to create permanent water division court and clarify post-adjudication jurisdiction

Representative Rex Walsh opened the hearing on House Bill 886, a wide-ranging judiciary and water-administration bill that would implement permanent water division courts and clarify post-adjudication jurisdiction over water disputes and enforcement. "What this bill does is a great job of walking the process from the water court to the division court and transitioning that in a very concise timely manner," Walsh told the committee.

Supporters including Clayton Elliott (member of the DNRC stakeholder working group), Ryan McClane (private water-rights attorney), Brian Thompson (Senior Water Rights Coalition), Abby Brown (private water attorney) and multiple agricultural and municipal organizations argued the bill would provide a single forum with subject-matter expertise and hydrologically organized divisions to handle technical water disputes efficiently after adjudication. Proponents emphasized options to keep local control: the bill allows water division judges to "certify" cases down to a local district judge or to hold hearings in local venues.

Opponents were numerous and vociferous. Members of the Senior AG Water Rights Alliance, Rocky Mountain Stockgrowers, local ditch companies and many individual irrigators warned the proposal would strip local, elected district court authority and replace it with appointed judges selected by the governor (after nomination by the chief justice), creating a less accountable process. They argued the current system worked, that only a modest number of district-court water cases exist, and that the proposed appointment process and substitution criteria would in practice make it difficult to return cases to local district judges. Several witnesses warned of procedural burdens related to service of process and the appointment of water commissioners under the bill.

Legal concerns were also raised. Former water-law practitioners and others pointed to the Ross report and the historical decision to keep enforcement in district courts, and some lawyers warned that expanding permanent court authority could raise constitutional questions or create conflicts with federal adjudication rules. DNRC and MBMG representatives testified as informational witnesses; DNRC staff said the provision could be made to work but stressed that the legislative choice between "may" and "shall" language affects outcomes and that an orderly transition must protect local access and record-keeping.

The hearing generated extensive testimony from both sides across the afternoon. Representative Walsh closed by noting this was a complex policy choice intended to preserve expertise while allowing local substitution and that stakeholders had invested significant work drafting the bill. The committee did not immediately take final action.