OCR Text |
Show 718 UTAH with the proposed determination of water rights as submitted by the State engineer.19 While the court is not bound to accept the recommendations of the State engineer, his recommendations are nevertheless entitled to a great weight since he gathered the information which formed the basis of the decree.20 The Utah Supreme Court has said that a statu- tory adjudication action contemplates a complete determination of all rights which have been or could have been asserted in the pro- ceedings.21 In such a proceeding, it is proper for the court to set a duty of water and thereby limit the individual appropriators to their beneficial use requirements.22 The Utah Supreme Court, in some relatively early cases, upheld the constitutionality of various aspects of the general adjudication procedure, and rejected the claim that the act unlawfully conferred judicial powers upon the State engineer, who is an administrative officer.23 The State engineer may, with the consent of the department of natural resources and the Governor, maintain or defend suits to adjudicate interstate waters on behalf of the State or its citizens.24 While the statutory adjudication procedure is the principal ve- hicle for resolving water disputes in Utah, there are additional ways in which such problems are concluded. Before approving a new application to appropriate, the State engineer must find that there is unappropriated water in the source and that there will be no interference with existing rights or, in the case of a change appli- cation filed on an existing right, that the proposed change will not impair other rights. Thus, disputes sometimes arise between the applicant and the existing users regarding the available water sup- ply. As will be noted in greater detail later, this statutory procedure allows for protests to be filed against any new appropriation or proposed change of an existing right, and any party aggrieved by the engineer's decision has the right to appeal it to the district court where the matter is heard de novo.25 While this procedure is merely to determine if the applicant is entitled to proceed with his proposal, and is not an adjudication of the right which he may ultimately acquire, nevertheless this procedure has the practical effect of re- solving many water disputes. However, the above procedure does not foreclose subsequent ac- tion after an application is finally approved. If a junior appropria- tor interferes with a prior right, the owner of the prior right may maintain a cause of action to protect his claim, or seek damages for injury suffered.26 Nor is it necessary for the owner of the prior right to have protested the application originally in order to maintain such an action. 19 Utah Code Ann., sec. 73-4-12. 20 Garrison v. Davis, 88 Utah 358, 54 P. 2d 439 (1936). 21 Green River Adjudication v. United States, 17 U. 2d 50, 404 P. 2d 251 (1965). 22 In re Water Bights of Escalante Valley Drainage Area, 10 U. 2d 77, 348 P. 2d 679 (1960). 23 Eden Irr. Co. v. District Court of Weoer County, 61 Utah 103, 211 Pac. 957 (1922) ; also, see Huntsville Irr. Assn. v. District Court of Weber Co., 72 Utah 431, 270 Pac. 1090 (1928). 24 Utah Code Ann., sec. 74-4-2. 25 Utah Code Ann., sec. 73-3-14. ^Ephraim Willow Creek Irr. Co. v. Olson, 70 Utah 95, 258 Pac. 216 (1927). |