OCR Text |
Show SPECIAL STATUTORY ADJUDICATION PROCEDURES 449 Board of Control with authority to adjudicate rights to the stream waters, subject to appeal to the judiciary.16 In a 1937 case, the Wyoming Supreme Court held this to be constitutionally unobjectionable; the basic right to adjudicate water rights was implied and was incident to the general power of supervision over waters of the State.17 Previously the Wyoming Supreme Court had held to the same effect, being not impressed with the objection that the statute conferred judicial power on the Board of Control. On the contrary, it was the court's opinion that the determination required to be made by the Board was primarily administrative rather than judicial in character. The determination required to be made by the board is, in our opinion, primarily administrative rather than judicial in character. The proceeding is one in which a claimant does not obtain redress for an injury but secures evidence of title to a valuable right-a right to use a peculiar public commodity. That evidence of title comes properly from an administrative board, which, for the state in its administrative capacity, represents the public, and is charged with the duty of conserving public as well as private interests. The board, it is true, acts judicially, but the power exercised is quasi-judicial only, and such as under proper circumstances may appropriately be conferred upon executive officers or boards.18 Essential parts of the Wyoming statutory adjudication procedure were embodied in the Nebraska statute enacted several years later, but in much briefer form.19 The Wyoming feature to the effect that the administrative determination of water rights is final unless appealed to the courts was adopted by Nebraska20 and was held constitutional there. These duties of the administrative agency, the court held, are supervisory and administrative, not judicial, even though they be of a quasi-judicial character.21 It is true that there have been some subsequent questionings and careless phraseology in court opinions, particularly as to whether this jurisdiction extended to rights acquired prior to the statute of 1895, but not yet adjudicated. However, in a decision rendered in 1947, with citations of numerous authorities, the Nebraska Supreme Court held it to be well settled by its own decisions that the State administrative agency "has jurisdiction to hear, determine, and make adjudication upon irrigation appropriation rights and priorities, and in the absence of an appeal as provided by law, the orders made in a proper proceeding in reference thereto are final and binding upon the parties."22 16Wyo. Laws 1890-91, ch. 8. 11 Simmons v.Ramsbottom, 51 Wyo. 419,432-433, 68Pac. (2d) 153 (1937). 1&FarmInv. Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110,132-135, 143, 61 Pac. 258 (1900). 19Nebr. Rev. Stat. § 46-226 et seq. (1968). 20Id. § 46-229.05. 21 Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Nebr. 325, 365-371, 93 N.W. 781 (1903). "Parsons v. Wasserburger, 148 Nebr. 239, 243, 27 N.W. (2d) 190 (1947). |