OCR Text |
Show 777 party may appeal to the district court. The final orders or decrees of the Board in the adjudication of water rights are conclusive, subject to procedural provisions of law relating to rehearings and reopening of orders or decrees, and subject to the right of appeal to the courts.412 The Wyoming Supreme Court held this statutory determination of water rights to be a valid exercise of legislative authority, the power of the Board being quasi-judicial only, and properly conferred upon executive officers.413 This "Wyoming method" of determining water rights by an administrative agency acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, without a court hearing unless an aggrieved party appeals to the court, was adopted by the legislature of Nebraska and was held constitutional by the supreme court of that State, and was also adopted in Texas but held invalid there.414 Pursuant to constitutional mandate,415 the legislature divided the State into four water divisions and provided for the appointment of superintendents thereof,416 who together with the State Engineer con- stitute the Board of Control. The Board of Control has the responsi- bility of creating water districts within the water divisions, each district having a water commissioner. Each division superintendent has general control of the water commissioners within his division, and under the general supervision of the State Engineer, has charge of the distribution of water according to rights of appropriation.417 412 Wyo. Comp. Stats., 1945, § 71-258. 4M Farm Investment Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110, 132-135, 143, 61 Pac. 258 (1900). 414 The Nebraska Supreme Court considered the validity of the procedure at length and upheld it, in Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Nebr. 325, 365-368, 93 N. W. 781 (1903). The Texas Supreme Court, in Board of Water Engineers v. McKnight, 111 Tex. 82, 92-97, 229 S. W. 301 (1921), ruled similar legis- lation invalid as being in conflict with the constitution of that State in effect when the legislation was enacted. However, in 1945, in Corzelius v. Harrell, 143 Tex. 509, 511-514, 186 S. W. (2d) 961 (1945), the Texas Supreme Court pointed out that a constitutional provision authorizing legislation for the con- servation and development of natural resources was not in effect when the water statute was enacted but was in effect prior to the enactment of legislation for the control of oil and gas; hence the McKnight case did not control the validity of the oil and gas legislation, which was held constitutional. 418 Wyo. Const., art. VIII, § 4. 416 Wyo. Comp. Stats., 1934, §§71-101 and 71-102. 417 Wyo. Comp. Stats., 1945, §§ 71-103 to 71-108, and 71-301 to 71-309. O |