Case Title: IN THE MATTER of the Petition for Declaration of Abandonment of the FRED WOLFLEY Appropriation, PERMIT NO. 798, and the FRED WOLFLEY, JR., Appropriation, PERMIT NO. 1072, Diverting from Birch Creek, A Tributary of the Salt Creek. CLYDE E. WOLFLEY and ALTA WOLFLEY, Husband and Wife, and LINDA P. RADFORD v. BRUCE CROOK and THELMA CROOK, and the WYOMING STATE BOARD OF CONTROL

Citation: 

Docket Number: 84-80

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1985-02-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER of the Petition for Declaration of Abandonment of the FRED WOLFLEY Appropriation, PERMIT NO. 798, and the FRED WOLFLEY, JR., Appropriation, PERMIT NO. 1072, Diverting from Birch Creek, A Tributary of the Salt Creek. CLYDE E. WOLFLEY and ALTA WOLFLEY, Husband and Wife, and LINDA P. RADFORD v. BRUCE CROOK and THELMA CROOK, and the WYOMING STATE BOARD OF CONTROL1985 WY 25695 P.2d 159Case Number: 84-80Decided: 02/14/1985Supreme Court of Wyoming
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF ABANDONMENT OF THE FRED WOLFLEY APPROPRIATION, 
PERMIT NO. 798, AND THE FRED WOLFLEY, JR., APPROPRIATION, PERMIT NO. 1072, 
DIVERTING FROM BIRCH CREEK, A TRIBUTARY OF THE SALT CREEK. CLYDE E. WOLFLEY AND ALTA WOLFLEY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND 
LINDA P. RADFORD, APPELLANTS (APPELLANTS-PETITIONERS), 

v. 

BRUCE CROOK AND THELMA 
CROOK, AND THE WYOMING STATE BOARD OF CONTROL, APPELLEES 
(APPELLEES-RESPONDENTS).

 
 
Appeal from the 
District Court, LincolnCounty, John D. Troughton, 
J.

 
 
Philip D. Sachs, 
Kemmerer, and E.J. Skeen, of Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy, Salt 
Lake City, Utah, for appellants.

A.G. McClintock, 
Atty. Gen., John D. Erdmann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee, 
Wyoming State Board of Control.

Before 
THOMAS, C.J., and ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, 
JJ.

BROWN, Justice.

[¶1.]     This appeal results 
from the district court's denial of an appeal from an administrative decision of 
the state board of control denying abandonment and adjudicating certain water 
rights. The merits of the board's decision are not at issue. The board issued 
its decision on November 1, 1983. The notice of appeal was not filed in the 
district court until December 30, 1983. The district court dismissed the appeal 
for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely filing.

[¶2.]     We will 
affirm.

[¶3.]     Appellants raise the 
following issues:

"1. Whether Section 
41-4-402, which provides that appeals from an order of the State Board of 
Control which modifies an existing adjudicated water right must be filed within 
60 days, is superseded by Rule 12.04 of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate 
Procedure.

"2. Whether the order 
sought to be reviewed is an `administrative action' as provided by Rule 12.01 of 
the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.

"3. Whether the State 
Board of Control is an administrative agency within the meaning of Rule 
12.04."

I

[¶4.]     We will address 
appellants' last issue first: Whether the state board of control is an 
administrative agency for purposes of perfecting an appeal therefrom under Rule 
12, Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellants concede that the state 
board of control is an administrative agency, but contend the board is also a 
"quasi-judicial body" and, therefore, Rule 12, W.R.A.P., is not applicable since 
the rule only refers to "administrative agencies."

[¶5.]     The point of 
appellants' argument is not completely clear, but we begin by noting our 
constitution creates three separate and distinct branches (departments) of 
government: legislative, executive, and judicial, and one cannot exercise power 
over the other. The departments are separate and any one entity cannot be 
considered part of more than one department.

"The powers of the 
government of this state are divided into three distinct departments: The 
legislative, executive and judicial, and no person or collection of persons 
charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these 
departments shall exercise any powers properly belonging to either of the 
others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted." Article 
2, § 1, Wyoming Constitution.

[¶6.]     Rule 12.02, W.R.A.P., 
adopts the definition of "agency" found in § 16-3-101(b)(i), W.S. 1977 (October 
1982 Replacement), of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, which 
reads:

"(b) As used in this 
act:

"(i) `Agency' means any 
authority, bureau, board, commission, department, division, officer or employee 
of the state, a county, city or town or other political subdivision of the 
state, except the governing body of a city or town, the state legislature and 
the judiciary * * *."

[¶7.]     The state board of 
control was established by Art. 8, § 2 of the Wyoming Constitution:

"There shall be 
constituted a board of control, to be composed of the state engineer and 
superintendents of the water divisions; which shall, under such regulations as 
may be prescribed by law, have the supervision of the waters of the state and of 
their appropriation, distribution and diversion, and of the various officers 
connected therewith. Its decisions to be subject to review by the courts of the 
state."

[¶8.]     We think there is 
little doubt that the board of control is an "administrative agency" and appeals 
therefrom are governed by our present scheme of rules in the Wyoming Rules of 
Appellate Procedure, specifically Rule 12. This is true regardless of whether 
the board's decision is characterized as administrative or 
"quasi-judicial."

II

[¶9.]     Appellants' first 
argument is whether § 41-4-402, W.S. 1977, granting 60 days to file an appeal 
from a decision of the board of control is superseded by Rule 12.04, W.R.A.P., 
granting 30 days to appeal from an administrative agency 
decision.

[¶10.]  We begin by noting that the right to 
judicial review of an administrative decision is entirely statutory. Walker v. Board of CountyCommissioners, Albany 
County, Wyo., 644 P.2d 772 
(1982); and United States Steel 
Corporation v. Wyoming Environmental Quality 
Council, Wyo., 575 P.2d 749 
(1978).

[¶11.]  Section 16-3-114, W.S. 1977 (October 1982 
Replacement), of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act [§§ 16-3-101 to 
16-3-115], governs appeals from administrative agencies:

"(a) Subject to the 
requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted and in the absence of any 
statutory or common-law provision precluding or limiting judicial review, any 
person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by a final decision of an agency 
in a contested case * * is entitled to judicial review in the district court for 
the county in which the administrative action * * * was taken * * 
*.

The procedure to be 
followed in the proceeding before the district court shall be in accordance with 
rules heretofore or hereinafter adopted by the Wyoming supreme court.

"(b) The supreme court's 
authority to adopt rules governing review from agencies to the district courts 
shall include authority to determine * * * the time and manner for filing the 
pleadings * *. The rules adopted by the 
supreme court under this provision may supersede existing statutory 
provisions." (Emphasis added.)

The purpose of 
the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act as stated in Sage Club, Inc. v. Employment Security 
Commission of Wyoming, Wyo., 601 P.2d 1306, 1308 (1979), is 

"* * * to provide uniform 
procedures to be followed in the adoption of rules and in conducting contested 
hearings. In addition, the W.A.P.A. sets out the means by which a final agency 
determination may be appealed to the courts for review. * * 
*"

[¶12.]  Accordingly, this court has adopted rules 
governing appellate procedure from administrative actions. Rule 12.04, W.R.A.P., 
reads:

"In a contested case, * * 
* the petition for review shall be filed within thirty (30) days after written, 
certified notice to all parties of the final decision of the agency * * * except 
that upon a showing of excusable neglect based upon the failure of a party to 
learn of the decision or action, the district court may extend the time for 
filing the petition for review not exceeding thirty (30) days from the 
expiration of the original time herein prescribed. * * *"

And Rule 87(b), 
Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically states that statutory provisions 
relating to time limitations for appeals from administrative actions are 
superseded:

"(b) Administrative procedure. - All 
statutory provisions relating to procedure on appeal from or review of 
administrative action by district courts, including all time limitations * * * 
are superseded * * *."

[¶13.]  When the board's decision was rendered, 
Section 1, Chapter VII of the board's regulations provided the following in 
regard to judicial review of decisions:

"Any final decision and 
order of the State Board of Control may be appealed to the District Court for 
the county wherein the original action arose. Judicial review is authorized by 
W.S. 9-4-114 [presently § 16-3-114, W.S. 1977 (October 1982 Replacement)] and is 
governed by the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure as most recently amended by 
the Supreme Court of Wyoming. * * *"

Furthermore, the 
hearing examiner advised the parties at the conclusion of the evidence that the 
proceeding was an administrative hearing and that anyone adversely affected by a 
decision could seek judicial review:

"It should be noted for 
the benefit of all persons here today, that this hearing is only an 
administrative hearing. Any person who is, in fact, adversely affected by the 
decision of the Board of Control has a right to seek judicial review of the 
Board's decision in accordance with Wyoming statute 9-4-114 [presently § 
16-3-114, W.S. 1977 (October 1982 Replacement)]. * * *"

[¶14.]  It is clear from the rules cited herein 
that the rules promulgated by the court pertaining to appeals from 
administrative actions have superseded the time limitation for appeals under § 
41-4-402, W.S. 1977, as well as all other statutory time provisions relating to 
appeals from administrative action. This was the clear intent of the legislature 
in passing the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, as stated succinctly in § 
16-3-114, W.S. 1977 (October 1982 Replacement).1 See, e.g., Board of County Commissioners of Teton 
County v. Teton County Youth Services, Inc., Wyo., 652 P.2d 400 
(1982).

III

[¶15.]  Finally, appellants contend that the part 
of the order appealed from is not an "administrative action" within the meaning 
of Rule 12.01, W.R.A.P., which reads:

"To the extent that 
judicial review of administrative action by a district court is available, any 
person who is aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by a final decision of an 
agency in a contested case, or who is aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by 
any other agency action or inaction, or who is adversely affected in fact by a 
rule adopted by agency, may obtain such review as provided in this 
rule."

We find no merit 
in this issue.

[¶16.]  Section 16-3-101(b)(ii), W.S. 1977 
(October 1982 Replacement), defines "contested case" as

"* * * a proceeding 
including but not restricted to ratemaking, price fixing and licensing, in which 
legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are required by law to be 
determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing * * 
*."

[¶17.]  We have previously held that a contested 
case is one in which legal rights are determined after an opportunity for a 
trial-type hearing. Diefenderfer v. 
Budd, Wyo., 
563 P.2d 1355 (1977).

[¶18.]  Here, a hearing was held before the board 
of control with evidence presented by both sides. At the close of all the 
evidence, the hearing examiner stated: "It should be noted * * * that this 
hearing is only an administrative hearing." Appellants claim their appeal is 
only from that part of the order changing an adjudicated water right. We fail to 
see how an appeal from part of an order which adjudicates a legal right is 
somehow not an administrative action. If the order could be so separated, the 
portion which is not "a final decision . . . in a contested case," must be 
considered as "other agency action," also subject to review under Rule 12.01, 
W.R.A.P.

[¶19.]  We find the trial court was correct in 
dismissing the untimely appeal. We have held that the timely filing of an appeal 
is mandatory and jurisdictional. Department of Revenue and Taxation v. 
Irvine, Wyo., 589 P.2d 1295 (1979); and Regan v. City of Casper, Wyo., 
494 P.2d 933 (1972).

[¶20.]  Affirmed.

1 We were faced with a 
similar situation in Matter of Zabaleta 
v. FMC Corporation, Wyo., 638 P.2d 648 (1981), in which we 
dismissed an appeal to this court for failure to timely file a record. Therein 
we noted a conflict between Rule 3.02, Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, and 
§ 27-12-615, W.S. 1977. Rule 3.02, W.R.A.P., requires the record on appeal to be 
filed within 40 days from the date of filing the notice of appeal, while § 
27-12-615 allows 70 days to file the record on appeal in a workmen's 
compensation case. We held that § 27-12-615 was superseded by Rule 3.02, and the 
40-day period under the rule was controlling.