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 Plaintiff obtained two permits to appropriate water from the Estancia Basin for irrigation purposes but never applied the water to beneficial use. Later, the Plaintiff sought to change the use of the water from irrigation to subdivision use. The State Engineer denied the applications, asserting that the failure to put the water to beneficial use meant there was no "water right" to change (paras 1, 3).
Procedural History
- State Engineer Hearing Officer: Denied the Plaintiff's applications to change the use of water, reasoning that no water had been put to beneficial use (para 4).
- District Court of Torrance County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the State Engineer, affirming the denial of the Plaintiff's applications (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that a permit to appropriate water constitutes a "water right" under NMSA 1978, § 72-12-7(A), even if the water has not been put to beneficial use. The Plaintiff also claimed that the State Engineer's inconsistent application of policies and delays violated due process and that the State Engineer should be estopped from denying the applications (paras 1, 18-22, 26-28).
- Defendant-Appellee (State Engineer): Contended that a "water right" under § 72-12-7(A) requires the perfection of the right through beneficial use, and a permit alone does not constitute a "water right." The Defendant also argued that estoppel and due process claims were unfounded (paras 1, 6, 18-22).
Legal Issues
- Does a permit to appropriate water constitute a "water right" under NMSA 1978, § 72-12-7(A), even if the water has not been put to beneficial use?
- Can the State Engineer be estopped from denying the Plaintiff's applications based on prior inconsistent decisions?
- Did the State Engineer's actions, including delays and inconsistent policies, violate the Plaintiff's due process rights?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Plaintiff did not possess a "water right" under § 72-12-7(A) and rejecting the Plaintiff's estoppel and due process claims (paras 1, 29).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Kennedy and Vigil JJ. concurring):
Statutory Interpretation: The Court held that a "water right" under § 72-12-7(A) requires the application of water to beneficial use. A permit to appropriate water is an inchoate right and does not constitute a perfected "water right" until beneficial use is established. The Court relied on longstanding New Mexico water law and legislative intent, which consistently require beneficial use as the basis for a water right (paras 6-12).
Distinguishing Precedent: The Court distinguished the Plaintiff's reliance on State ex rel. Reynolds v. Mendenhall and Clodfelter v. Reynolds, noting that those cases involved different factual and legal circumstances, including situations where water had been applied to beneficial use or where diligent efforts to apply water were ongoing (paras 13-17).
Estoppel: The Court rejected the Plaintiff's estoppel argument, emphasizing that estoppel against the government is rare and requires a showing of affirmative misconduct or a shocking degree of overreach, which was not present here. The Court also noted that inconsistent application of policies by the State Engineer does not establish estoppel (paras 18-22).
Due Process: The Court found no due process violation. The Plaintiff's claims of delay and inconsistent treatment were insufficient to establish a due process breach. The Court also upheld the district court's decision to stay discovery, finding no abuse of discretion or prejudice to the Plaintiff (paras 24-27).
Conclusion: The Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State Engineer, holding that the Plaintiff lacked a "water right" under § 72-12-7(A) and rejecting the Plaintiff's estoppel and due process claims (para 29).