OCR Text |
Show 766 questions of law and of fact that are presented in a determination of water rights, and resulting in the adjudication of property rights, being strictly judicial. The provisions of the statute relating to the deter- mination of rights and distribution of water were omitted from the Revised Civil Statutes of 1925 and were thereby repealed.843 The Texas Supreme Court distinguished Board of Water Engineers v. McKnight in a decision rendered in 1945 in a controversy involving the constitutionality of statutes relating to the conservation of oil and gas, in which counsel had contended that the statutes in question con- ferred purely judicial duties upon an administrative body and, on the authority of the McKnight case, were therefore invalid.344 The su- preme court pointed out that the water legislation declared invalid in the McKnight case became effective June 19, 1917, whereas on August 21, 1917, there became effective a constitutional provision declaring the conservation and development of all natural resources to be public rights and duties and directing the legislature to pass all laws appro- priate thereto.348 Therefore, the validity of the water legislation was to be determined by the terms of the constitution in force when that legislation was enacted, prior to the adoption of the constitutional pro- vision of August 21, 1917. The oil and gas statutes, on the other hand, were adopted after the constitutional provision in question became effective, and hence must be considered in the light of that provision and not under the provisions of the constitution as they existed when the water legislation of June 19,1917, was enacted. It was held, there- fore, that the decision in the McKnight case did not control with respect to the validity of the oil and gas statutes. Utah All waters in the State, whether above or under the ground, are declared by statute to be the property of the public, subject to existing rights of use.846 A right to the use of unappropriated water is initiated by making an application to the State Engineer; and when the holder of an approved application has shown to the satisfaction of the State Engineer that he has perfected his appropriation, he receives a certificate of appropriation which is prima facie evidence of the holder's right to the use of the water as specified in the certificate, subject to prior rights.847 It is provided that in times of scarcity of water, the use for 348 Vernon's Tex. Stats., 1936 Rev. Civ. Stats., Final Title, § 2, p. 1569. *"Corzelius v. Harrell, 143 Tex. 509, 511-514, 186 S. W. (2d) 961 (1945). m Tex. Const., art. XVI, § 59a. 848 Utah Code Ann., 1943. § 100-1-1. S4TUtah Code Ann., 1943, §§ 100-3-2 to 100-3-18. The statute contains a provision to the effect that before an application to appropriate water from a navigable lake or stream contemplating the removal of salts and other minerals therefrom may be approved, the applicant must file with the State Engineer a |