OCR Text |
Show SPECIAL STATUTORY ADJUDICATION PROCEDURES 455 the rights of claimants.63 All claimants are notified, and all must appear and submit proof of their claims.64 Hearings are held upon contests.65 When the superintendent's record and the State Engineer's hydrographic study have been received, the Board of Control reviews the materials and enters an order determin- ing and establishing the several priorities of water rights.66 Any aggrieved party may appeal to the district court and thence to the State supreme court.67 But subject to the right of rehearing, reopening of the order or decree, and appeal, the administrative determination of the Board of Control is final-it is conclu- sive as to all prior appropriations and rights of existing claimants lawfully embraced in the adjudication.68 Any claimant who fails to appear and submit proof of his claim, as specified above, "shall be barred and estopped from subsequently asserting any rights theretofore acquired upon the stream or other body of water embraced in such proceedings and shall be held to have forfeited all rights to the use of said stream theretofore claimed by him."69 The validity of this Wyoming legislation was upheld by the Wyoming Supreme Court.70 The Wyoming system, with some variations and considerable brevity, was adopted in Nebraska.71 It was adopted and rejected in two other States: (1) Nevada. The constitutionality of a provision purporting to make the adminis- trative determination conclusive, subject to the right of appeal,72 was ques- tioned by the supreme court,73 whereupon the legislature eliminated the provision and adopted the Oregon system discussed later.74 (2) Texas. Legisla- tion adopted in 191775 was declared unconstitutional as attempting to confer upon persons belonging to the executive branch of the State government powers that properly attached to another branch without express permission of the constitution.76 In 1967, the Texas Legislature enacted an integrated admin- istrative-judicial procedure77 similar to the Oregon system discussed later.78 63Wyo. Stat. Ann. § § 41-180 and -172 (1957). MId. § 41-166 to-171. "Id. §§ 41-176 and-177. 66 Id. § 41-181. 61 Id. § 41-193 to-200. 6*Id. § 41-190;Parshall v. Cowper, 22 Wyo. 385, 394,143 Pac. 302 (1914). 69Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-174 (1957). ™Farm Inv. Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110, 132-135, 61 Pac. 258 (1900), discussed at notes 277-278 w/ra. 71Nebr. Rev. Stat. § 46-226 et seq. (1968). 72Nev. Laws 1913, ch. 140. "Ormsby County v. Kearney, 37 Nev. 314,142 Pac. 803, 810-812 (1914). 74Nev. Laws 1915, ch. 253, Rev. Stat. § 533.160 et seq. (1969). "Tex. Laws 1917, ch. 88, § § 105-129. 76Board of Water Engineers v.McKnight, 111 Tex. 82, 229 S.W. 301 (1921). See the discussion of this matter at notes 30-31 supra. See also the discussion at notes 32-33 supra. 77Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7542a (Supp. 1970). 78 Details for Nevada and Texas are included in the appendix. |