OCR Text |
Show SPECIAL STATUTORY ADJUDICATION PROCEDURES 495 according to the administrative order pending final adjudication, unless stayed by a stay bond, objectionable. Some other judicial views regarding the statutory adjudication procedure. - Establishment of an administrative system for the regulation and determination of water rights, such as that of Oregon, is a legitimate exercise of the police power of the State.310 The statute does not confer judicial power upon State officials. Their duties are executive or administrative, their findings and orders being prima facie final and binding until changed by the courts as part of the designated procedure. It might be said that these duties are quasi-judicial in character.311 The statute providing that the final determination shall be conclusive312 has been noted with approval by the Oregon Supreme Court.313 In such an adjudication of water rights the circuit court is a court of general jurisdiction, and its decrees are res judicata and conclusive upon the parties and their successors in interest. In a case in which a claim of deprivation of adjudicated priorities by prescription was made-which the Oregon Supreme Court viewed with disfavor although not finding it necessary to pass on the question-the supreme court considered it clear that a general adjudication of water rights clearly establishes their rights as of the date of the decree. It was held that if adverse possession can upset the decree, it must be by virtue of events occurring subsequently.315 Court transfer provision. -In case suit is brought in the circuit court for determination of rights to the use of water, the case may, at the court's discretion, be transferred to the State Engineer for determination under the statutory adjudication procedure.316 The fact that transfer of such a case to the State Engineer is a matter within the discretion of the trial court judge was emphasized by the Oregon Supreme Court.317 Water claims by persons not party to a suit, and the necessity for impartial water measurements and land examinations, were believed to be good reasons for transferring the action to the State Engineer and bringing in all claimants.318 310California-Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 73 Fed. (2d) 555, 567 (9th Or. 1934). 311 In re Willow Creek, 74 Oreg. 592, 610-611,144 Pac. 505 (1914), 146 Pac. 475 (1915). 312 Oreg. Rev. Stat. § 539.200 (Supp. 1955). M3/« re Willow Creek, 74 Oreg. 592, 618, 144 Pac. 505 (1914), 146 Pac. 475 (\9\5);Abel v. Mack, 131 Oreg. 586, 594-597, 283 Pac. 8 (1929). 314Bennett v. Salem, 192 Oreg. 531, 543, 235 Pac. (2d) 772 (1951). No appeal having been taken from the decree by certain parties, it must be regarded as conclusive upon them and their successors in interest. Tudor v. Jaca, 178 Oreg. 126, 139, 164 Pac. (2d) 680 (1945), 165 Pac. (2d) 770 (1946). 3lsCalderwoodv. Young, 212 Oreg. 197, 207-208, 315 Pac. (2d) 561 (1957). 316Oreg. Rev. Stat. § 539.020 (Supp. 1955). 317Dill v. Killip, 174 Oreg. 94, 105, 147 Pac. (2d) 896 (1944). "pacific Livestock Co. v. Balcombe, 101 Oreg. 233, 237-239, 199 Pac. 587 (1921). An- |