OCR Text |
Show 506 ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES settlement of water rights controversies, for the purpose of supervising the distribution of water pursuant to the decrees and, if necessary, modifying the orders. Decisions in some other States are in accord.360 Stream Crossing State Line Questions as to the jurisdiction of courts of one State to determine the rights of parties on both sides of an interstate line to the use of waters of a stream crossing such line, and to enjoin unlawful diversions in the other State, have been litigated in a number of cases. In the following paragraphs some cases are discussed with respect to the areas in which they arose. Each paragraph heading gives first the State above the boundary line and then the State into which the stream flowed. In general, they are presented in chronological order. (1) Idaho-Utah. In a suit to determine rights to the use of waters of a stream flowing through Idaho into Utah, brought in the Idaho court, but in which all parties both diverted and used the water in Utah, a decree of adjudication was entered by the Idaho court. The Utah Supreme Court held that since an action to quiet title and to establish a water right is in the nature of an action to quiet title to real estate, it must be brought and prosecuted in the courts of the State in which the land is situated. It was further held by the Utah court that although the Idaho court had jurisdiction to protect the rights of appropriators who divert in Utah to have the water flow down the stream and to determine the rights of Idaho proprietors thereto, "this rule of law can not be so extended as to give to the Idaho court jurisdiction to adjudicate and determine the rights, as between themselves, of the several appropriators who divert water from said stream in Utah, and use the same for irrigation upon lands in this State, and to quiet their titles thereto. Such matters are exclusively within the jurisdiction of this State***."361 (2) California-Nevada. Controversies were settled in the Federal courts with 360 From the nature and object of a water rights adjudication, the process of enforcing it is continuous; it must therefore remain the continuing function of the court that enters it. Weiland v. Reorganized Catlin Consol. Canal Co., 61 Colo. 125, 131, 156 Pac. 596 (1916); Ward County W. I. Dist. No. 3 v. Ward County Irr. Dist. No. 1, 117 Tex. 10, 16, 295 S.W. 917 (1927). In the latter case, the Texas Supreme Court, after approving the rotation method of distributing water, took measures to forestall possible waste of water. To this end, the judgment of the court of civil appeals was reformed to expressly adjudge that nothing contained in the judgment should prevent the trial court from modifying the judgment at any time in the future, on proper application and showing, in such manner as to prevent defendants in error from withholding from plaintiffs in error water in excess of the quantities for which defendants in error have use on their lands both riparian and nonriparian. 36lConant v. Deep Creek & Curlew Valley Irr. Co., 23 Utah 627, 629-632, 66 Pac. 188 (1901). |