OCR Text |
Show 490 ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES adjudicate water rights was implied and was incident to the general power of supervision over waters of the State.279 Some aspects of the adjudication.-(1) Binding on water distributors. The adjudication by the Board of Control as to the quantity of water to which an appropriator is entitled is as conclusive upon the water distributors as is its determination of priorities, although the water official may regulate a headgate so as to prevent waste. (2) Relation to tributaries. An adjudication of the waters of Big Laramie River was held by the supreme court to include the waters of the Little Laramie insofar as the appropriators on the main stream were concerned.281 Some aspects of the Board's jurisdiction.-(I) Not exclusive. The jurisdic- tion which the State Board of Control has to adjudicate water rights under the statutory procedure is not exclusive of jurisdiction of the courts. Nothing in the legislation indicates that the power of the courts to make such adjudications has been superseded.282 In its opinion in a leading case decided in 1900, the Wyoming Supreme Court said:283 Although in the statutory proceeding for the determination of water rights, the courts obtain jurisdiction only by way of appeal from the decisions of the Board of Control; all the ordinary remedies known to the law pertinent to the use and appropriation of water, are open to all interested in such rights, equally with all other persons in respect to any other kind of right or property. The courts possess ample jurisdiction to redress grievances growing out of conflicting interests in the use of the public waters, and to afford appropriate relief in such cases. * * * The jurisdiction of the courts remains as ample and complete after, as well as before, an adjudication by the board. But the principle applies here as in other cases, that a party may not re-litigate a question which has passed into final adjudication. (2) Duty to act. On an application to adjudicate a water right, it is the duty of the Board in the first instance to determine under the law whether the applicant has a water right. The Board has jurisdiction and should act upon the 279Simmons v. Ramsbottom, 51 Wyo. 419,432^33, 68 Pac. (2d) 153 (1937). 2*°Parshall v. Cowper, 22 Wyo. 385, 394, 143 Pac. 302 (1914), consturing Wyo. Comp. St. § 802 (1910), now Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-63 (1957). This and related considerations are discussed in the State summary for Wyoming in the appendix. 281 Campbell v. Wyoming Dev. Co., 55 Wyo. 347, 412-413, 100 Pac. (2d) 124, 102 Pac. (2d) 745 (1940). The court further stated it to be unnecessary for one who makes an appropriation upon a main stream to proclaim that he also makes claim to the waters of a tributary. The act of appropriation constitutes a sufficient and continuous claim which is effectual for such purpose. 282Simmons v. Ramsbottom, 51 Wyo. 419, 432-433, 68 Pac. (2d) 153 (1937); Farm Inv. Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110, 61 Pac. 258, 269 (1900). See also Louth v. Kaser, 364 Pac. (2d) 96, 99 (Wyo. 1961). 263FarmInv. Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110, 150, 61 Pac. 258 (1900). |