Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130489
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:32:15+00:00

Document:
320 APPROPRIATION OF WATER the effectiveness of the determination.477 The amended Nevada procedure was held valid.478 (2) No judicial powers. In issuing and refusing to issue permits to appropriate water, the administrator exercises no judicial powers; his powers are administrative only.479 From the evidence, he must ascertain the conditions affecting certain matters as a guide in making his decision on the application for a permit. These are administrative determinations for his official use only. In no sense are they intended to be adjudications of private rights. And they are not binding on persons not party to an adjudication.480 (3) Exercise of discretion. In reaching various decisions on water matters by an administrator with quasi-judicial powers, exercise of a considerable measure of discretion is required, particularly in appraising the effect of granting or amending a permit upon the public interest.481 These powers and duties are not in any sense judicial. Essential to their fulfillment is the exercise of a sound and reasonable discretion. "Fact finding," said the Texas court of civil appeals, "is not an exclusive judicial function. In respects in which discretion inheres or is vested in a governmental official or agency, fact finding is an element or ingredient essential to a proper exercise of such discretion, whether the function of such official or agency be executive, legislative or administra- tive."482 These discretionary powers of the administrator are necessary and impor- tant in the exercise of his duties. They are deserving of great respect. However, on review in water cases, the judiciary is not bound by the administrative findings but is the sole arbiter of law and fact.483 Seldom if ever, said the Oregon Supreme Court, would there be interference by the court with the administrator's discretionary action on matters involving administration of water laws and substitution of its judgment for his. "Judges are not super engineers."484 And in statutory adjudication proceedings, the Washington 477Nev. Laws 1915, ch. 253. 478 Vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. District Court, 42 Nev. 1, 14-26, 171 Pac. 166 (1918); Bergman v. Kearney, 241 Fed. 884, 906, 908-910 (D. Nev. 1917). 479 East Bay Municipal Utility Dist. v. State Department of Public Works, 1 Cal. (2d) 476, 479-481, 35 Pac. (2d) 1027 (1934); Mojave River Irr. Dist. v. Superior Court, 202 Cal. 717, 721-722, 262 Pac. 724 (1927); Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 67 Nebr. 325, 365-368, 93 N. W. 781 (1903); Farm Investment Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110, 132-135, 61 Pac. 258(1900). 480 Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Works, 44 Cal. (2d) 90, 99-100, 280 Pac. (2d) 1 (1955); Bullock v. Tracy, 4 Utah (2d) 370, 373, 294 Pac. (2d) 707 (1956); Funk v. Bartholet, 157 Wash. 584, 593-595, 289 Pac. 1018 (1930);Madt v.Eldorado Water Dist., 56 Wash. (2d) 584, 587, 354 Pac. (2d) 917 (1960). 481 Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Works, 44 Cal. (2d) 90, 99-100, 280 Pac. (2d) 1 (1955);State v. Oliver Bros., 119 Nebr. 302, 304, 228 N. W. 864 (l930);Smyth v. Jenkins, 208 Oreg. 92, 100, 299 Pac. (2d) 819 (1956). 482 Clark v. Briscoe Irr. Co., 200 S.W. (2d) 674, 683 (Tex. Civ. Adp., 1947). 483American Fork Irr. Co. v. Linke, 121 Utah 90, 93-94, 239 Pac. (2d) 188 (1951). 484Smyth v.Jenkins, 208 Oreg. 92,100, 299 Pac. (2d) 819 (1956).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.