| OCR Text |
Show 464 ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES public interest requires such action.122 And in Oregon, if an action to determine water rights is begun in court, the court may, in its discretion, transfer the case to the State Engineer for determination under the statutory procedure.123 Furthermore, courts in a number of Western States have indicated that the statutory adjudication procedures do not exclude the jurisdiction of the courts in ordinary civil actions in proper cases.124 For instance, there may be numerous ordinary civil actions brought to determine particular disputes between individuals regarding the alleged infringement or exercise of their alleged water rights. The Colorado Supreme Court in an action for damages and injunctive relief said, "One is not required to resort to the particular court authorized to conduct a general adjudication proceeding in the several water districts in order to secure redress in an action involving an alleged infringement of a right to the use of water."12S Moreover, in an action to quiet plaintiff's title to water rights as against a number of defendants, the Wyoming Supreme Court said: The district court is, by the constitution, vested with original jurisdiction, both at law and in equity. The jurisdiction of equity to entertain suits for quieting title to the use of water is well settled. The legislature has not attempted to devest [sic] the courts of that jurisdiction, and we do not think it could successfully do so. Although in the statutory proceeding for the determination of water rights the courts obtain jurisdiction only by way of appeal from the decisions of the board of control, all the ordinary remedies known to the law, pertinent to the use and appropriation of water, are open to all interested in such rights, equally with all other persons in respect to any other kind of right or property. The courts possess ample jurisdiction to redress grievances growing out of conflicting interests in the use of the public waters, and to afford appropriate relief in such cases. Nothing can be plainer, it seems to us, than that, in the absence of a previous determination by the board or in the courts of the priorities or rights of claimants upon a particular stream, an interested party may resort to the courts to obtain such relief as he may show himself to be entitled to. The jurisdiction of the courts remains as ample and complete after as well as before an adjudication by the board. But the principle applies here, as in other cases, that a party may not reliti- gate a question which has passed into final adjudication.126 122 N. Dak. Cent. Code Ann. § 61-03-16 (1960). See also S. Dak. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 46-10-5 and 46-10-6 (1967); N. Mex. Stat. Ann. § 754-4 (1968). 123Oreg. Rev. Stat. § 539.020 (Supp. 1955). See also Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 45-231(A) (1956); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.240(4) (Supp. 1967). 124See, e.g., Genoa v. Westfall, 141 Colo. 533, 349 Pac. (2d) 370, 377 (1960); Wailuka Sugar Co. v. Cornwell, 10 Haw. 476, 477-480 (1896); Famz Inv. Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110, 61 Pac. 258, 269 (1900). 125 Genoa v. Westfall, 141 Colo. 533, 349 Pac. (2d) 370, 377 (1960). 126Farm Inv. Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110, 61 Pac. 258, 269 (1900). |
