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 case concerns water rights associated with an artesian well on an 84-acre tract of land in the Roswell Artesian Basin, New Mexico. The Defendants claimed a priority date of 1907 for their water rights, asserting that water was used for irrigation and beneficial purposes on the land starting in that year. The State Engineer challenged this claim, arguing that the priority date should be 1947 and that water rights on portions of the land had been forfeited or abandoned due to nonuse (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• State ex rel. Reynolds v. McLean, 74 N.M. 178, 392 P.2d 12 (1964): Addressed water rights in the Roswell Artesian Basin.
• State ex rel. Reynolds v. McLean, 76 N.M. 45, 412 P.2d 1 (1966): Reversed a decree establishing a 1947 priority date for the Defendants' well.
• State ex rel. Reynolds v. Allman, 78 N.M. 1, 427 P.2d 886 (1967): Held that due process required Defendants to have an opportunity to establish earlier water rights priorities under the doctrine of relation back.
• District Court of Chaves County, August 30, 1990: Ordered Defendants to show cause why their water rights priority date should not be adjudicated as March 1947 (paras 2-3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State Engineer): Argued that the Defendants failed to prove their water rights related back to 1907, as they did not demonstrate diligent development or beneficial use of water on the entire tract. The State Engineer also contended that water rights on a 20-acre portion were forfeited or abandoned due to nonuse (paras 6, 16-17).
• Defendants-Appellees: Claimed a priority date of 1907, presenting evidence of water use for irrigation and beneficial purposes on the land starting in that year. They argued that water rights were not forfeited or abandoned and that the State Engineer failed to meet the burden of proof on these issues (paras 3, 17-21).

Legal Issues

• Did the Defendants establish a priority date of 1907 for their water rights under the doctrine of relation back?
• Was there sufficient evidence to prove that water was applied to beneficial use on the entire tract within a reasonable time?
• Were the water rights on the 20-acre portion forfeited or abandoned due to nonuse?

Disposition

• The priority date of 1907 was affirmed for the 20-acre portion of the tract.
• The priority date of 1907 was reversed for the remaining 64 acres, which was assigned a priority date of March 1947.
• The district court's finding that water rights on the 20-acre portion were not forfeited or abandoned was upheld (paras 24-25).

Reasons

Per Donnelly J. (Flores and Wechsler JJ. concurring):

• Proof of Priority Date: The court held that the Defendants failed to establish beneficial use of water on the entire 84-acre tract within a reasonable time. While evidence showed crops were grown on 20 acres in 1907, there was no evidence of beneficial use on the remaining 64 acres until 1948. A one-time diversion of water onto the land without actual cultivation or irrigation was insufficient to establish beneficial use (paras 6-15).

• Forfeiture and Abandonment: The court found that the State Engineer did not meet the burden of proving forfeiture or abandonment of water rights on the 20-acre portion. Evidence of livestock watering did not conclusively establish nonuse for irrigation, and conflicting expert testimony regarding aerial photographs did not demonstrate intent to abandon the water rights (paras 16-23).

• Conclusion: The court affirmed the 1907 priority date for the 20-acre portion and reversed the priority date for the remaining 64 acres, assigning it a date of March 1947. The case was remanded for entry of an amended order reflecting these findings (paras 24-25).