AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The petitioners, long-time irrigators in the Rio de Arenas Valley, New Mexico, sought to drill a supplemental well to address diminished surface water rights caused by upstream groundwater pumping by junior appropriators. They argued that their surface water rights, established before 1907, were being impaired by groundwater wells intercepting baseflow that previously fed the Rio de Arenas stream (paras 1, 3-5).

Procedural History

• State Engineer, 1983: Denied the petitioners' application for a supplemental well.
• Hearing Examiner, 2001: Upheld the denial, concluding the proposed well would impair existing rights and draw from a different source of water.
• District Court, (N/A): Denied the application, finding the proposed well would access a new water source and conflict with the Templeton doctrine.
• Court of Appeals, 2004-NMCA-062: Affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the proposed well did not meet the requirements of the Templeton doctrine and statutory provisions.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners: Argued that their case satisfied the Templeton doctrine, as their surface water rights were diminished by junior groundwater appropriators intercepting baseflow. They claimed the proposed well would merely follow the source of their original appropriation and sought relief under both the Templeton doctrine and statutory transfer provisions (paras 1, 10, 30, 45).
• Respondent (State Engineer): Contended that the proposed well would draw from a different source of water, constituting a new appropriation. They argued that the Rio de Arenas consisted only of flood flows, not baseflow, and that the well would impair existing rights (paras 6, 25, 30).

Legal Issues

• Did the petitioners satisfy the requirements of the Templeton doctrine for a supplemental well?
• Can the petitioners transfer their surface water rights to a supplemental well under statutory provisions?
• Does the downstream location of the proposed well preclude its approval under the Templeton doctrine?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion (para 51).

Reasons

Per Bosson CJ (Minzner, Serna, Maes, and Chávez JJ. concurring):

• Templeton Doctrine: The Court clarified that the Templeton doctrine allows senior surface water appropriators to drill supplemental wells if junior groundwater appropriators intercept baseflow that previously fed the surface water. The petitioners satisfied the initial predicates of Templeton, including having a valid surface water right and demonstrating that junior wells intercepted groundwater feeding the Rio de Arenas (paras 11, 23-27).

• Depth of the Proposed Well: The Court found conflicting findings regarding whether the proposed well would draw from the same aquifer that fed the Rio de Arenas. It remanded the case for the district court to determine whether the well would tap a hydrologically continuous aquifer or a separate, deeper aquifer (paras 31-36).

• Downstream Location: The Court rejected a universal requirement that supplemental wells must be located upstream of the original point of diversion. It held that the location of the well is not dispositive but must be evaluated on a case-specific basis to determine whether it draws from the same source as the surface right (paras 37-43).

• Statutory Transfer: The Court held that statutory transfers of water rights are not bound by the narrow Templeton same-source requirements. It found that the petitioners may qualify for a statutory transfer if the proposed well draws from the same hydrologic unit and does not impair existing rights (paras 45-49).

• Remand: The Court remanded the case to the district court to resolve factual ambiguities regarding the aquifer system and to determine whether the proposed well satisfies the requirements of either the Templeton doctrine or statutory transfer provisions (paras 36, 49).