| OCR Text |
Show METHODS OF APPROPRIATING WATER OF WATERCOURSES 303 the State constitutional requirements for separation of governmental powers,410 and was reenacted in modified form in 1967.411 The original Nevada procedure likewise followed this plan, but was changed to conform to the Oregon variation noted below.412 A variation of the Wyoming plan originated in Oregon and was adopted in California, Arizona, and Nevada.413 This provides for an initial administrative determination of conflicting water rights, which on completion is filed in court as the basis of a civil action. As approved or modified by the court, in whole or in part, it results in a court decree of adjudication. Here the administrative procedure is concluded before the judicial procedure begins. The adjudication is complete when the court judgment is rendered and the decree issued. In Utah and Washington, the procedure begins with a filing in the appropriate court.414 Thereafter, in Utah, the State administrator makes the necessary studies and formulates a report and proposed determination.415 In Washington, the proceeding is referred to the administrator for the purpose of taking testimony as referee.416 In each of these States, the administrative functions are performed after the judicial proceeding begins and are followed by final judical proceedings and determination of the rights involved. In New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma the State administrator's participation is confined to preparation of basic hydrographic data to be offered in evidence in a statutory judicial proceeding. He makes the technical study, and the Attorney General enters suit on behalf of the State for a determination of all rights on the stream system.417 The data thus obtained by the administrative study are introduced as evidence in the court proceeding. The Montana State administrative agency is authorized to bring action to adjudicate water rights, and may make hydrographic studies and introduce them in evidence.418 The South Dakota administrative agency shall be requested to make or furnish a hydrographic survey in adjudications of water rights instituted by the State Attorney General or other parties.419 In Kansas, in any suit brought to adjudicate water rights in which the state is not a 410Board ofWater Engineers v.McKnight, 111 Tex. 82, 229 S. W. 301 (1921). 411 Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7542a (Supp. 1970). This requires a court review. 412Nev. Laws 1907, ch. 18; Laws 1915, ch. 253, Rev. Stat. §§ 533.O9O-.32O (Supp. 1967-1969). 413Oreg. Laws 1909, ch. 216, Rev. Stat., ch. 539 (Supp. 1955); Cal. Stat. 1913, ch. 586, Water Code, Div. 2, pt. 3, ch. 3 (West 1956); Ariz. Laws 1919, ch. 164, Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 45-231 to -245 (1956). 414Utah Code Ann. § 73-4-1 (1968); Wash. Rev. Code § 90.03.110 (Supp. 1961). 415Utah Code Ann. § 73-4-11 (1968). 416 Wash. Rev. Code § 90.03.160 (Supp. 1961). 417N. Mex. Stat. Ann. § 75-4-4 (1968); N. Dak. Cent. Code Ann. §§ 61-03-15 and 61-03-16 (1960); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 82, §§ 11 and 12 (1970). 418 Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § § 89-848 and -851 (Supp. 1969). 419 S. Dak. Comp. Laws Ann. § 46-10-4 (1967). |
