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 case concerns a dispute over water rights in the Rio Hondo system, part of the Pecos stream system in New Mexico. The City of Roswell sought to establish that its supplemental groundwater wells, RA-2887 and RA-2888, were entitled to the same priority date as its predecessor's surface water rights under the Templeton doctrine. The wells were drilled to supplement surface water rights that had diminished due to upstream groundwater withdrawals. The State argued that the groundwater from these wells was not hydrologically connected to the surface water at the City's point of diversion.
Procedural History
- Case No. 20294 (1956): General adjudication of groundwater rights in the Roswell Artesian Basin initiated by the State of New Mexico and the Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District.
- Case No. 22600 (1958): Adjudication of surface water rights for the Hagerman Canal system initiated and later consolidated with Case No. 20294, forming the "Lewis case".
- State ex rel. Reynolds v. Allman, 78 N.M. 1, 427 P.2d 886 (1967): The New Mexico Supreme Court required reopening of subfile orders to allow water rights holders to present evidence to relate back priority dates for supplemental wells.
- Modified adjudication procedure (1976): Adopted to address priority enforcement and due process concerns, allowing show cause hearings to adjudicate priority dates.
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the groundwater from wells RA-2887 and RA-2888 was not hydrologically connected to the surface water at the City's point of diversion, and thus the Templeton doctrine did not apply. The State relied on expert affidavits to support this claim.
- Defendant-Appellant (City of Roswell): Contended that the groundwater and surface water in the Rio Hondo system were hydrologically related and that the Templeton doctrine allowed the priority date of its supplemental wells to relate back to its predecessor's surface water rights. The City relied on expert testimony to argue that the aquifer was continuous and part of the same watershed.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Templeton doctrine applies to allow the City of Roswell's supplemental wells to relate back to the priority date of its predecessor's surface water rights.
- Whether the groundwater from the City's supplemental wells is hydrologically connected to the surface water at the City's point of diversion.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the State.
Reasons
Per Alarid CJ (Donnelly and Minzner JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the Templeton doctrine requires a showing that the groundwater captured by supplemental wells is hydrologically connected to the surface water at the point of diversion. The City failed to demonstrate this connection. The affidavits presented by both parties agreed that the aquifer into which the City's wells were drilled was separated from the riverbed by unsaturated sediments, and the groundwater did not contribute to the surface flow at the City's point of diversion. Without this connection, the Templeton doctrine could not apply, and the City's supplemental wells could not relate back to the priority date of its predecessor's surface water rights. The Court concluded that there were no material facts in dispute and upheld the district court's grant of summary judgment to the State.