OCR Text |
Show SPECIAL STATUTORY ADJUDICATION PROCEDURES 445 including court reference procedures. Some States also have provisions for transferring private actions to statutory adjudication proceedings. Purposes of Statutory Procedures The State legislatures appear to have had several purposes in mind in enacting the special statutory adjudication procedures. A number of such purposes are suggested by the following description of statements by some of the State courts. The Nevada Supreme Court has indicated that the purpose of the statutory adjudication procedure in Nevada was to provide a workable, comprehensive procedure for the determination of relative rights on a stream system, with as little delay and expense as possible as a prerequisite to State control of distribution of the water for the protection of all users in the exercise of their rights.1 It was intended to bring about a speedy, summary, and effectual determination of the relative rights of various claimants to the use of water of a stream or stream system for administrative and regulative purposes;2 and to protect rights to the use of water, secure a just distribution, and perpetuate water rights in a public record.3 The Utah Supreme Court has said, "One of the purposes of the general adjudication statute is to prevent a multiplicity of suits."4 It was stated in the opinion in another Utah case that the old system of trying water rights controversies piecemeal had often proved ineffectual "and was in the highest degree unsatisfactory."5 Apparently, the intent of the legislature and the purpose of the statute were to remedy the problem then existing in determining the rights of parties in cases of this character. In a later case, the Utah Supreme Court characterized the purpose of the statutory procedure for determination of water rights as a measure to prevent piecemeal litigation and to provide a means of determining all rights in a given source of water supply in one action.6 lOrmsby County v. Kearney, 37 Nev. 314, 336-338, 142 Pac. 803 (1914); Vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. District Ct., 42 Nev. 1, 13-14, 171 Pac. 166 (1918); State ex rel. Hinckley v. Sixth JudicialDist. Ct, 53 Nev. 343, 352,1 Pac. (2d) 105 (1931);Ruddell v. Sixth JudicialDist. Ct., 54 Nev. 363, 367, 17 Pac. (2d) 693 (1933). 2Pitt v. Scrugham, 44 Nev. 418,427-428,195 Pac. 1101 (1921). 3Humboldt Land & Cattle Co. v. District Ct., 47 Nev. 396, 407, 224 Pac. 612 (1924). 4Rocky Ford Canal Co. v. Cox, 92 Utah 148,160, 59 Pac. (2d) 935 (1936). 5Huntsville Jrr. Assn. v. District Ct., 72 Utah 431, 438, 270 Pac. 1090 (1928). 6In re Bear River Drainage Area, 2 Utah (2d) 208, 211, 271 Pac. (2d) 846 (1954). Although in essence an action to quiet title to water rights, said the supreme court in this decision, it differs from the ordinary private suit in that it is a statutory procedure which may be commenced by the State Engineer for the purpose of bringing into the suit all water claimants or users on a single water source or system and to require them to litigate and settle their relative rights in one proceeding. See Huntsville Irr. Assn. v. District Ct., 72 Utah 431, 438, 270 Pac. 1090 (1928); Hardy v. Beaver County Irr. Co., 65 Utah 28, |