This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Applicants sought to transfer 15.05 acre-feet per year of surface water rights from Valencia County to groundwater rights in Sandoval County to supply water to a 106-lot residential development. Protestants, who hold water rights at the move-to location, objected, arguing the transfer would impair existing water rights, be contrary to water conservation, and harm public welfare (paras 1, 4, and 6).
Procedural History
- State Engineer, August 28, 2001: Approved the transfer applications, finding no impairment of existing water rights and compliance with statutory requirements (para 12).
- District Court, June 24, 2003: Conducted a de novo review, denied Protestants' motion for summary judgment, and granted Applicants' cross-motion for summary judgment, affirming the State Engineer's decision (para 12).
- Court of Appeals, 2005-NMCA-071: Affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Protestants failed to preserve issues of water conservation and public welfare (para 13).
Parties' Submissions
- Protestants: Argued that the applications constituted new groundwater appropriations, that any surface depletion at the move-to location constituted per se impairment, and that the State Engineer failed to consider all existing water rights. They also contended that material facts regarding depletion and impairment were in dispute and that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on water conservation and public welfare without proper notice (paras 2, 26, and 35-36).
- Applicants: Asserted that the applications were transfers of existing surface water rights, not new appropriations, and that the depletions were de minimis. They argued that the State Engineer properly considered impairment and that Protestants failed to challenge the findings on water conservation and public welfare (paras 19-20, 26, and 35-36).
Legal Issues
- Were the applications for new groundwater appropriations or transfers of existing surface water rights?
- Should surface depletions in a fully-appropriated system be considered per se impairment of existing water rights?
- Did the State Engineer properly consider all existing water rights at the move-to location?
- Were there material facts in dispute regarding impairment and depletion?
- Did the district court err in granting summary judgment on water conservation and public welfare without proper notice?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico remanded the case to the district court for a de novo proceeding to address unresolved factual disputes and statutory requirements (para 39).
Reasons
Per Serna J. (Bosson CJ., Minzner, Maes, and Chávez JJ. concurring):
Applications as Transfers, Not New Appropriations: The Court held that the applications were properly considered transfers of surface water rights to groundwater rights, as they complied with the Middle Rio Grande Administrative Area Guidelines and did not constitute new appropriations (paras 17-20).
No Per Se Impairment: The Court rejected the argument that any surface depletion in a fully-appropriated system constitutes per se impairment, reaffirming that impairment must be determined on a case-by-case basis (paras 21-25).
Consideration of Existing Water Rights: The Court found that the State Engineer erred by failing to consider all declared water rights at the move-to location or formally extinguish non-party declarants' rights, which could lead to overappropriation (paras 28-31).
Material Facts in Dispute: The Court determined that material facts regarding the magnitude of depletions and their impact on existing water rights were in dispute, making summary judgment inappropriate (paras 33-34).
Improper Summary Judgment on Conservation and Public Welfare: The Court held that Applicants failed to provide sufficient notice that these issues were at stake in their cross-motion for summary judgment, depriving Protestants of an opportunity to respond (paras 35-38).
The Court remanded the case for further proceedings to resolve these issues and ensure compliance with statutory requirements (para 39).