OCR Text |
Show 812 WYOMING tion and to users of record by registered mail.26 Notice by registered mail was held to be sufficient to meet the due process clause of the constitution by the Wyoming Supreme Court.27 The individual users are required to file a verified water user's claim detailing the nature of the right claimed. Failure to submit a claim after notice will result in the claimant being barred and estopped from subsequently asserting his rights, although there are certain statutory conditions which curtail the effect of this provision. As mentioned, the division superintendent takes the testimony of the individual users.28 Upon the completion of these hearings, the superintendent transmits all of the evidence and the testimony (and the State engineer transmits his hydrographic survey) to the board of control. The board reviews the evidence and then enters its order determining and establishing the individual priorities of right to the use of water, and the user receives from the board a certificate evidencing his right.29 The orders of the board may be appealed to the district court and then to the Supreme Court, and provision is made for rehearing before the board.30 The Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled that the decision of the board adjudicating the various priorities among the users is prima facia correct.31 The adjudication of a water right in an adjudication proceeding is final and binding on all users joined in, or made parties to, the proceeding, and they cannot subsequently enlarge their award.32 But the board is, of course, without power to make an adjudication of rights of persons who are not parties to the proceed- ings.33 The Wyoming court has noted that the function of the board of control is primarily administrative, but in adjudication proceed- ings it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity,34 and the constitutionality of Wyoming adjudication procedure has been sustained against a claim that it unlawfully conferred judicial power upon an administrative board.35 As an aside, it should be noted that the statutory adjudication pro- cedure is not exclusive, since the courts have jurisdiction to quiet title to water rights and afford equitable or legal relief between water users.36 Although the adjudication procedure is the principal statutory method for resolving water use conflicts, there is provision for a pre- liminary evaluation of the available water supply in relation to the existing rights at the time a right is initiated. Persons seeking to ap- propriate public waters must file an application and obtain the ap- proval of the State engineer before commencing construction of works. If the engineer finds that the water will be applied to a bene- ficial use, and that the proposed use will not impair the value of existing rights, or is otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, he 26 Wyo. Stat., sees. 41-165 to 41-167, 41-172, 41-180. 27Farm Investment Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110, 61 Pac. 258 (1900). 28 Wyo. Stat., sees. 41-169, 41-170, 41-172, 41-174. 29 Wyo. Stat., sees. 41-179, 41-181, 41-189. 80 Wyo. Stat., sees. 41-191 to 41-200. slLaramie Irr. & Power Co. v. Grant, 44 Wyo. 392, 13 P. 2d 235 (1932). 93 Campbell v. Wyoming Development Co., 55 Wyo. 347, 100 P. 2d 124, 102 P. 2d 745 S3 Anita Ditch Co. v. Turner, 389 P. 2d 1018 (1964). M Anita Ditch Co. v. Turner, 389 P. 2d 1018 (1964). 35 Farm Investment Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110, 61 Pac. 258 (1900). 36 Campbell v. Wyoming Development Co., 55 Wyo. 347, 100 P. 2d 124, 102 P. 2d 745 (1940) ; Simmons v. Ramsbottom, 51 Wyo. 419, 68 P. 2d 153 (1937). |