## Facts

- Farm Investment Company (FIC) claimed senior irrigation water rights based on appropriations beginning in 1879 (before Wyoming statehood).
- Carpenter and other defendants were later appropriators who obtained permits and an adjudicated priority under Wyoming’s post-1890 statutory water administration system, including the state engineer and Board of Control.
- Carpenter sought Board of Control recognition of an appropriation dating from 1883 and received confirmation of his water right and priority in 1893.
- FIC did not file a claim with the Board of Control for recognition of its alleged earlier appropriations.
- FIC brought an action to quiet title to the right to use water, asserting its pre-statehood rights were prior and superior to Carpenter’s.
- FIC challenged the constitutionality of Wyoming’s constitutional and statutory water regime insofar as it could impair vested pre-statehood appropriative rights or make administrative adjudications exclusive of courts.
- The district court reserved constitutional and statutory questions to the Wyoming Supreme Court for review; the matter reached the Supreme Court on reserved questions rather than a final judgment after trial.

## Issues

1. Whether Wyoming may constitutionally declare state ownership of waters within the state and regulate appropriation and distribution through an administrative system.
2. Whether Wyoming’s statutory scheme (including procedures through the state engineer and Board of Control) can constitutionally impair or divest vested pre-statehood water rights acquired by prior appropriation.
3. Whether the Board of Control’s authority to determine priorities and administer distribution is an unconstitutional exercise of judicial power or violates separation of powers or due process.
4. Whether an early appropriator’s failure to seek recognition before the Board of Control results in abandonment, forfeiture, or subordination of vested pre-statehood rights to later adjudicated rights.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Wyoming’s constitutional declaration of state ownership of water and the statutory administrative system for regulating appropriation and distribution.
- The court held that vested pre-statehood prior-appropriation rights are protected property interests that the statutory system cannot constitutionally destroy or disregard.
- The court treated the Board of Control’s functions as administrative or quasi-judicial and permissible, particularly where judicial review remains available and vested rights are not extinguished.
- The court rejected the view that FIC forfeited or subordinated its pre-statehood rights solely by failing to participate in Board proceedings; later adjudications must respect earlier vested priorities.

## Legal Principles

- Prior appropriation for beneficial use creates a protected property interest; priority of use governs seniority among claimants from the same source.
- A state may assert public ownership/sovereign control over waters and implement comprehensive regulation of appropriation and distribution, consistent with the doctrine of prior appropriation.
- Administrative adjudication and recording of water priorities by a specialized board may be constitutional when the board’s role is regulatory/administrative in character and courts remain available to resolve disputes and protect vested rights.
- Statutory procedures may regulate and systematize water rights administration, but they cannot extinguish or subordinate vested pre-existing rights solely for noncompliance with later administrative processes absent constitutionally adequate safeguards.

## Conclusion

Wyoming sustained its centralized, administrative water-rights system while holding that pre-statehood appropriative rights remain vested property interests that must be honored, and cannot be lost merely because the senior claimant did not seek Board of Control recognition.


Farm Inv. Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110, 61 P. 258 (Wyo. 1900)