OCR Text |
Show METHODS OF APPROPRIATING WATER OF WATERCOURSES 413 (7) Utah. The statutory restrictions on approval of applications include a finding that the "proposed plan is physically and economically feasible unless the application is filed by the United States Bureau of Reclamation and would not prove detrimental to the public welfare."915 The Utah Supreme Court recognized that even though all waters of a stream had not been appropriated, the statute required rejection of applications under specified conditions in the interest of the public welfare.916 Noting that the Utah statute concerning preferences (see below) indicates that the legislature considered domestic and agricultural uses as the most beneficial uses to which water may be applied, the court took the view that anything which is not for the best interest of the public would be "detrimental to the public welfare." Therefore it was in the interest of the public welfare for the State Engineer-provided he did not act arbitrarily or capriciously-to reject or limit an application for power purposes in favor of a later application for agriculture and domestic uses. Necessarily, in reaching various conclusions on these matters, an exercise of discretion by the Utah State Engineer is required, and to this end he is vested by the legislature with broad discretionary powers. The question of abuse of discretion is subject to a judicial review.917 The important-but not conclu- sive-discretionary powers and duties of the State Engineer are deserving of great respect. As a safeguard against possible injustices, however, and by plenary review on trial de novo, the court is invested with the final word as to conflicting contentions of applicants and contestants.918 (8) Oregon. The current water rights statute provides that certain applications for permits to appropriate water must be referred by the State Engineer to the State Water Resources Board for consideration. Included is an application to appropriate water for purposes other than generation of electricity if, in the State Engineer's judgment, the proposed use may prejudicially affect the public interest. In the hydroelectric act is a provision that under prescribed circumstances an application for a preliminary permit or a license to generate electricity must be referred by the State Engineer to the Board for consideration. If in any such case the Board determines that the proposed use would impair or be detrimental to the public interest so far as the coordinated, integrated State water resources policy is concerned, it enters an order rejecting the application or requiring its modification to conform to the public interest. The application is then referred back to the State Engineer for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Board's order. 915 Utah Code Ann. §73-3-8 (1968). 916 Tanner v. Bacon, 103 Utah 494, 505-510, 136 Pac. (2d) 957 (1943). '"United States v. District Court, 121 Utah 1, 5-8, 238 Pac. (2d) 1132 (1951); In re Application 7600 to Appropriate Water, 73 Utah 50, 55-56, 272 Pac. 225 (1928). 918 American Fork Irr. Co. v. Linke, 121 Utah 90, 93-94 239 Pac. (2d) 188 (1951). |