OCR Text |
Show SOME GENERAL PROCEDURAL MATTERS IN WATER RIGHTS LITIGATION 503 Hawaii In this State judges of the circuit courts have jurisdiction, both as courts of equity and as commissioners of water rights.343 In proper cases, courts of equity have jurisdiction over water rights controversies even where the lands and waters are situated in another circuit. Hence the judge of the first circuit, sitting as a court of equity, has jurisdiction to enjoin the illegal diversion of water when the land involved is situated in another circuit. But when the same judge of the first circuit sits as a commissioner of water rights, his jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the land is within his own circuit.344 Idaho An action to determine and decree the extent and priority of a water right, being in the nature of an action to quiet title to realty, should be maintained in the jurisdiction in which the res or subject matter is situated.345 The statutory adjudication provisions declare that the State Reclamation Engineer shall commence an action to adjudicate water rights "by filing a petition in the district court [for the district] in which any part of the water system is located***."346 Texas In a suit to adjudicate the relative appropriative rights of contesting irrigation companies on the use of streamflow, the Texas Supreme Court, in answering a certified question of venue, agreed that an action to quiet title and determine and establish rights to divert and use water is in the nature of an action to quiet title to real estate. From that, it necessarily followed that the injunctive relief sought was auxiliary to the main purpose of the suit, which was properly brought in the county in which the affected land was situated. The district court of such county, having jurisdiction to determine and establish plaintiffs' title to the water and to quiet such title, also acquired jurisdiction of the defendants and was entitled to issue any writ necessary to accomplish the purpose of the suit.347 Under the 1967 Water Rights Adjudication Act, the final determination of the Texas Water Rights Commission, together with accompanying evidence, is filed m the district court of the county in which the stream or segment thereof seven water divisions for the entire State which generally follow major watershed boundaries. 34iWailuku Sugar Co. v. Cornwell, 10 Haw. 476, 477-480 (1896); McBryde Sugar Co. v. Kotoa Sugar Co., 19 Haw. 106, 116-119 (1908). The provisions governing "commis- sioner" proceedings are encompassed within Haw. Rev. Stat. § § 664-31 to -37 (1968). 344 Territory of Hawaii v. Gay, 32 Haw. 404, 410-414, 418 (1932). 345 Taylor v. Hulett, 15 Idaho 265, 269, 97 Pac. 37 (1908). 346 Idaho Code Ann. § 42-1407 (Supp. 1959). ^ Lakeside Irr. Co. v. Markham In. Co., 116 Tex. 65, 77-78, 285 S.W. 593 (1926). |