Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer Protection Federation of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Oklahoma Water Resources Board
2013 OK 29
| Okla. | 2013Background
- The Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) set a tentative maximum annual yield (MAY) for the Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer and held hearings under APA Article II and the Oklahoma Administrative Code.
- An OWRB hearing examiner (Emily Meazell) conducted the adjudicative MAY hearing and later issued a recommended Final Order to the OWRB for the MAY determination.
- Petitioner alleges ex parte communications occurred between the hearing officer and outside agencies (USGS) via OWRB staff, raising questions about neutrality.
- The hearing officer admitted to phone conversations with OWRB counsel and receiving information from USGS routed through OWRB, though she did not solicit it.
- Respondent contends the OWRB is not a party to the MAY proceeding; records show the proceedings are adjudicative, with the OWRB acting as the initiating and controlling agency but not a party.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus in part to require notice of ex parte communications and to incorporate those communications and responses into the record; writ of prohibition denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there improper ex parte communication affecting fairness? | Meazell's ex parte USGS communications created partiality concerns. | Ex parte communications were permissible as part of adjudicative process. | Ex parte communications raised appearance of partiality; mandamus remedies required. |
| Is the OWRB a party to the MAY proceeding for purposes of ex parte prohibitions? | OWRB communications with the hearing officer violate due process if treated as party communications. | OWRB is not a party; ex parte prohibitions do not apply to it directly. | OWRB is not a party; ex parte prohibitions do not apply to its communications with the hearing officer. |
| What is the appropriate remedy for bias concerns in this adjudicative proceeding? | Disqualification or new proceedings are necessary to cure bias. | No outright disqualification; potential remedies through appeal. | Writ of mandamus granted in part to require notice and record disclosure of ex parte communications; no restart of proceedings. |
| Did due process require disqualification or notice of communications to all parties? | Neutrality requires disclosure to all parties to preserve fair hearing. | Not necessary if communications did not influence decisions. | Notice and record incorporation of communications are required to avoid appearance of impropriety. |
| Is the MAY proceeding properly categorized as adjudicative with due process standards applicable? | As adjudicative, it requires impartial tribunal protections. | Proceeding follows APA provisions; standard due process applies, but not disqualification here. | Proceeding is adjudicative; due process standards apply; fair and impartial hearing is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Bd. of Governors of Registered Dentists of State of Oklahoma, 1996 OK 41 (Oklahoma Supreme Court (1996)) (due process requires impartial decision-maker; disqualification when impartiality is doubtful)
- Merritt v. Hunter, 575 P.2d 623 (Okla. 1978) (objective standard for disqualification when there are circumstantial doubts about impartiality)
- Tal (Miller Dollarhide, P.C. v. Tal), 2007 OK 58 (Oklahoma Supreme Court (2007)) (appearance of bias supports disqualification)
- Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (Supreme Court (1972)) (appearance of impropriety concerns in adjudicative proceedings)
- Bowen v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Real Estate Appraiser Bd., 270 P.3d 183 (Okla. 2012) (administrative adjudicatory proceedings require impartiality)
- Sadberry v. Wilson, 441 P.2d 381 (Okla. 1968) (neutrality required in decision-making)