| OCR Text |
Show 460 ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES "essential to the proper understanding and determination of the vested rights of all parties using water for beneficial purposes other than domestic."101 Based upon his observations and measurements, it is his duty to make an order determining the rights of all such parties as of or before the effective date of the enactment (June 28, 1945), and the then extent of their uses. All water users whose rights are so determined must be notified as to the contents of the order of determination. Any such water user who deems himself aggrieved by the order of determination may appeal to the district court. The order of determination is in full force and effect from the date of its entry in the Chief Engineer's office unless and until its operation is stayed by an aggrieved water user's appeal to the district court.102 However, among other amendments in 1957, the following proviso was added: "Provided, that no such determination shall be deemed an adjudication of the relation between any vested right holders with respect to the operation or exercise of their vested rights."103 Hawaii In 1860, the legislature amended a statute which had provided for commissioners to hear and determine all controversies respecting rights of way, by giving such commissioners corresponding power to settle controversies respecting rights in water.104 A reenactment in 1907 provided that the term "commissioner" as used therein should refer to the judge of the circuit court within which the affected property is situated.105 This vested in the circuit judges (rather than appointed commissioners) jurisdiction over water-rights controversies arising under the statute. It is the duty of such judges, within their respective circuits, to hear and determine all controversies respecting water rights between private individuals, or between them and the State. Any interested person or the State may apply for the settlement of the rights involved. The judges may exercise the same authority in regard to this special jurisdiction as is conferred upon circuit judges at chambers.106 Jurisdiction in equity, in a proper case for it, exists concurrently with this special statutory jurisdiction of the judges.107 101 Kans. Stat. Ann. § 82a-704 (1969). l02Id. 103Kans. Laws 1957, ch. 539, § 6, Stat. Ann. § 82a-704 (1969). For a similar proviso in Oklahoma legislation enacted in 1963, see Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 82, § 6 (1970), repealed, Laws 1972, ch. 256, § 33. ! This Kansas legislation is discussed in more detail in the State summary for Kansas in the appendix. Kansas also has a statutory court reference procedure which is discussed under "Private Actions in Which State Agencies Participate-Court Reference Procedure," infra. 104 Haw. Laws 1860, p. 12, originally enacted, Laws 1856, p. 16. 105Haw. Laws 1907, Act 56. 106 Haw. Rev. Stat. § § 664-31 to -37 (1968). l0VWailuku Sugar Co. v. Comwell, 10 Haw. 476, 477-480 (1896). |
