OCR Text |
Show SPECIAL STATUTORY ADJUDICATION PROCEDURES 463 decided in 1900, said at one point that the Wyoming statutory adjudication proceeding conducted by the Board of Control "is one in which a claimant does not obtain redress for an injury, but secures evidence of title to a valuable right * * *" and at another point said that "affirmative relief in favor of one party as against another is not its object."118 Even in some of the States where a court takes part in the statutory adjudication, it perhaps may not be authorized to grant injunctive relief or damages as a part of such adjudication proceedings. The applicable statutes do not appear to expressly deal with this matter. In a 1944 case, the Utah Supreme Court concluded that "While there is no express provision in the [Utah water adjudication] statute granting the district court equitable powers in this particular type of case, neither is there any provision depriving the court of any of the jurisdiction granted by Article VIII, Section 19 of the [Utah] Constitution."119 However, the court mentioned, among other things, that in an earlier case120 the court had said, " 'The statute provides no remedy for any relief except the determination of rights to the use of water and as a necessary corollary thereto such injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect and enforce such rights.' " The court concluded that, "This language does not restrict the injunctive relief in its operation until after the controversy has been determined. * * * "We are of the opinion the District Court has the power and jurisdication to issue temporary injunctive orders prior to judgment under the general statutory adjudication procedure."121 Statutory Procedures Generally Not Exclusive The statutory adjudication provisions do not declare that their procedures are the exclusive method for determining water rights on an area-wide basis or that they are exclusive of other forms of actions; nor do these statutes appear to clearly imply such exclusiveness except to the extent that the Utah and Texas statutes discussed below may do so. In fact, some statutes imply that they are not exclusive. For example, the North Dakota statutes provide that if the suit for the adjudication of water rights shall have been begun by private parties, the Attorney General is not required to bring suit, but he shall intervene in such suit if notified by the State Engineer that in his opinion the llsFarm Inv. Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110, 61 Pac. 258, 267, 268 (1900). 119Salt Lake City v. Anderson, 106 Utah 306,148 Pac. (2d) 350 (1944). Utah Const, art. VIII, § 19, provides, 'There shall be but one form of civil action, and law and equity may be administered in the same action." l20Huntsvitte In. Assn. v. District Ct., 72 Utah 431,438, 270 Pac. 1090,1093 (1928). 121148 Pac. (2d) at 351. The related considerations of (1) the extent to which statutory procedures may be exclusive, and of (2) transfer of private actions to statutory adjudication proceedings, are discussed under the immediately succeeding topics. |