HB0105 would add procedural requirements before the state engineer can carry out an emergency order to breach a dam or diversion. Under current law, when the state engineer declares an emergency and determines that repairs or breaching are immediately necessary to protect life and property, the work may begin at once. This bill keeps that emergency authority in place, but requires the state engineer to hold a public meeting, seek alternatives, and provide notice before executing an emergency breach order, unless an exception applies.
The bill also directs the state engineer to adopt rules to implement these new procedures and states that the act applies to breach orders issued on or after the effective date. It is framed as a due process measure for dam and diversion breach orders, while preserving the ability to act quickly in true emergencies.
Impact
HB0105 would amend Wyoming Statutes § 41-3-314(a) by adding a new subsection requiring additional procedural steps before emergency breach orders are executed. The practical effect is to impose notice, public meeting, and alternatives-review requirements on the state engineer’s emergency dam/diversion breach decisions, while leaving the underlying emergency authority intact. It would affect dam and diversion owners, the state engineer, and potentially local emergency response agencies involved in water infrastructure emergencies.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote history, or recorded opposition, so there is no documented public debate to gauge sentiment. Based on the bill title and structure, the measure appears to be a process-oriented reform intended to increase transparency and due process in emergency water decisions rather than to change substantive water safety standards.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the balance between procedural protections and emergency response speed. Supporters would likely favor notice, public input, and consideration of alternatives before a dam or diversion is breached, especially where property and water rights may be affected. Opponents or critics may argue that requiring a public meeting and additional notice could delay urgent action needed to protect life and property, though the bill preserves an exception for emergencies. No specific stakeholder positions are recorded in the provided materials.