Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Water Law topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee approves bill to allow attorney and expert‑witness fee awards in prescriptive‑easement disputes

Select Water, Agriculture, State & Public Lands & Water Resources Interim Committee (joint meeting) · November 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee approved a draft (26LSO182) that allows courts to award reasonable attorney fees to the party who substantially prevails in litigation to enforce or challenge prescriptive easements for water conveyances, and committee added language to cover the existence or exercise of an easement and to permit expert witness fee awards.

Lawmakers approved a statutory change allowing courts to award reasonable attorney fees — and, by committee amendment, expert‑witness fees — to a substantially prevailing party in litigation to enforce or challenge prescriptive easements for water conveyances.

The draft, 26LSO182, would add a subsection to current prescriptive‑easement law providing: “In any action to enforce a prescriptive easement established under this section or to challenge the existence or exercise of a prescriptive easement asserted under this section, the court may award reasonable attorney and expert witness fees to the party who substantially prevailed in the action.” The committee adopted the edits during the meeting to make clear the fee award applies both to disputes about the existence of a right and to accused abuses of an easement’s exercise; lawmakers also added expert witness fees after testimony that hydrology, water‑use and surveying experts are often necessary in such cases.

Committee members said the change seeks to deter meritless challenges or abusive litigation tactics and to help ensure parties forced into court to defend an existing prescriptive right are not left with disproportionate legal costs. The amendment preserves the contested‑case appeal route through the Board of Control for matters involving water right property‑interest questions and keeps appeals under the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act available for others.

Vote: The committee voted to sponsor the bill as amended (roll call recorded as 7 yes, 2 no, 2 excused). The measure will be carried forward as a committee item.