| Show WATER RIGHTS LAW BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT to decide whether or not lesla a tivo tive act supersedes the morse arse decree attorney general harvey H cluff representing the state engineers office attorney D N a former justice of the supreme court in behalf of judge J H erickson of the sixth judicial district court and attorney lewis larsen of manti representing the sevier valley canal company appeared before the supreme court wednesday to argue the case of the state slate engineer versus the sixth judicial district court the case to definitely settle the ques tion ion whether the act of the legislature of 1919 conferring the right to adjudicate waters upon the state engineer supersedes the morse decree by which the adjudication ot of waters is put in the hands of the district court the test was provoked when two months ago the state engineer sent armed deputies to richfield Richtie ld with an order to shut down the gates and prohibit the richfield irrigation canal company from taking water so as to enforce payment of salary for the water commissioner appointed by the state engineer against lewis jones who had been appointed water commissioner by the district court under the morse decree mr jones opened the gates and was formally arrested in this way the case was brought before the supreme court tor for an order to enjoin the district judge from further interfering with the state in the administration of the river under the state judge argued that the administrative powers of 0 the court in carrying its decrees into effect are being interfered with by the state engineer and held such action and any law attempting to require such action unconstitutional mr cluff on the other hand contended that the legislature had the right to delegate this administrative function to any agency it deemed fit he contended that the legislature has given the state engineer police powers in such cases and that the court still has full powers to enforce its decrees and compel obedience to them but that the legislature has hag relieved the court of the purely administrative feature of seeing that the water is distributed d in accordance with the law which the court has determined he argued that in this duty therefore the state engineer is independent of the court so long as aa he carries out the distribution of water rights in in accordance with the requirements of the court decrees mr larsen did not argue the case at this occasion al cluff was given ten days in which to tile file a written brief and the defense will have an additional ten days to tile file its brief the matter will then be finally before the supreme court for its action |
