Laura Schroeder and Therese Ure Stix joined Alan Schroeder in questioning agency deference in a recent op-ed piece published by the Capital Press: Commentary: Get ready for sage grouse management plan 4.0 | Columns | capitalpress.com
It is not unusual for natural resource attorneys to be on the opposing side of federal and state agency decisions. Unlike a civil courtroom, where both sides have an even playing field, an individual on the opposite side of an agency decision plays on slanted turf. The ball rolls more easily to the agency’s goal post.
The cause of the uneven playing field is “agency deference.” Federal and state establish agencies assuming that such agencies have expertise in the field – for example, water rights or public grazing – that a permittee or civil judge does not have. This assumption is based on a special set of statutes called the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). The APA contains “rules” by which agency decisions are challenged. There are both state APAs and the federal APA that govern the different types of agencies. The APA as it is written and interpreted by courts allows for “agency deference.” For more, see the Capital Press article.
Schroeder Law Offices is often involved in hearings before administrative law judges. The firm has extensive experience in this realm. Recent and pertinent educational videos are found in the Water Rights Video Handbook or Guide.
