OCR Text |
Show SPECIAL STATUTORY ADJUDICATION PROCEDURES 457 Wyoming procedures, and its constitutionality has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court.86 The first part of the Oregon procedure substantially follows that of Wyoming.87 However, although the determination of water rights by the Wyoming Board of Control is final, subject to the right of appeal, the Oregon State Engineer's determination is not final. On completion of hearings and findings, he makes an order of determination, and files the record with the clerk of the proper trial court, whereupon the proceedings become as nearly as possible like those of a suit in equity.88 After final hearing, the court enters a decree affirming or modifying the order of the State Engineer and adjudicating the several water rights, subject to appeal to the State supreme court.89 In contrast to Wyoming, the Oregon administrative determination must be heard and passed on by the court before the water rights to which it relates are adjudicated. Both the administrative and judicial components of the procedure are necessary to this statutory adjudication.90 However, if no objections to the administrative determination have been filed, the court is required to affirm it. This Oregon administrative-judicial process has been substantially adopted also in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Texas, except that in Nevada, even if no objections to the administrative determination are filed, the court may take further testimony if deemed proper and then enter its findings of fact and judgment and decree.91 The Texas statute is silent on the matter of what is to happen if no objections are filed. Utah has a statutory procedure for the determination of water rights that resembles the Oregon system except that it is initiated by bringing a court action and the court has certain initial functions prior to the State Engineer's proposed determination of water rights.92 In 1969, Idaho adopted a statutory February 24, 1909," although the body of the chapter does not expressly limit its application to such rights. In this regard, see the discussion at notes 306-307 infra. ^Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, 241 U.S. 440, 451-452, 454 (1916). "That the State, consistently with due process of law, may thus commit the preliminary proceedings to the board and the final hearing and adjudication to the court, is not debatable." 87Oreg. Rev. Stats. § § 539.020 to .130 (Supp. 1955). 88Id. §§ 539.130 and .150. 89Id. § 539.150(4). 90 The United States Supreme Court pointed this out in affirming the constitutionality of the Oregon procedure. Referring to a contention of counsel, the Court said: "A serious fault in this contention is that it does not recognize the true relation of the proceeding before the board to that before the court. They are not independent or unrelated, but parts of a single statutory proceeding, the earlier stages of which are before the board and the later stages before the court." Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis, 241 U.S. 440, 451 (1916). 91Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.170(3) (1969). 92 Utah Code Ann. § 73-4-1 et seq. (1968). After completion of notice and service upon the claimants, the parties must file their claims with the court. Id. § 73-4-3. The State Engineer then tabulates the facts as set |