Selected News Items regarding NM Water Rights
Exciting News for Middle Rio Grande Water Rights Holders
The First Judicial District Court has filed its findings and conclusions in a very important case involving pre-1907 water rights on lands that were swamped in 1917. Case No. D-0101-CV-201000697 SANTA FE WATER RESOURCE ALLIANCE, LLC vs. JOHN D'ANTONIO was heard and the Court concluded that the water rights involved in a transfer to Santa Fe were valid and acceptable for transfer.
In the court's findings; 22.) The court accepts that the MRGCD does not claim pre-1907 rights; 62.) In its application to the OSE for a Permit to Change the Point of Diversion for the multitude of irrigation ditches that would come under the control of the MRGCD after its formation, the MRGCD claimed pre-1907 water rights for all lands classified as swamps or salt grass during the appraisal process, because all such lands had previously been cultvated prior to the destruction of valley agriculture caused by the rising water table. 72.) It is inappropriate to utilize the 1917/1918 Drainage Survey to establish the lack of a pre-1907 water right because the survey was intended to document those lands that had gone out of production due to a rising water table.
In the court's conclusions; 1) SFWRA has met its prima facie showing of the validity of the pre-1907 water rights through its predecessor-in-interest's filing of the Declaration with the OSE. 3.) The OSE has failed to rebut SFWRA's prima faciie showing that its water rights were vester prior to 1907.
While most water specialist feel this was a good decision, we feel certain that the State Engineer will be even more vigilant in "rebuttal" or rejection of Declarations of Ownership.
November 2012 New Mexico State Supreme Court reverses lower courts'Tri State Decision
OPINION byDANIELS, Justice.
{1} This case calls upon us to determine whether NMSA 1978, Section 72-2-9.1 (2003), provided a constitutional delegation of authority for the Office of the State Engineer to adopt new regulations to administer water resources according to administrative interim priority determinations based on a number of factors. The district court and Court of Appeals concluded that it did not and that the State Engineer’s lawful authority to supervise water allocations can be exercised only on the basis of licenses issued by the State Engineer and adjudications in court.
2} We reverse and hold that the Legislature delegated lawful authority to the State Engineer to promulgate the challenged water administration regulations. We also hold that the regulations are not unconstitutional on separation of powers, due process, or vagueness grounds.
Many law experts and water resource specialists have expressed the opinion that the Supreme Court had "no choice" but to rule and "hold" that the Legislature deligated lawful authority to the State Engineer to exercise Active Water Resource Management. It is expected that the court and others will be looking to the Legislature to either repeal the statute, or define the "authority" it deligated.
To view the Courts Decision click the link below:
_
Here are some water issues currently affecting New Mexico water users:
Site updated April 2016
