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 involves two disputes over the denial of requests to change the use of water rights by acequia commissioners. In one case, the commissioners of the San Jose de Hernandez Community Ditch denied a request to transfer water rights from agricultural use to residential use for a subdivision. In the other, the commissioners of the Acequia del Gavilan denied a request to transfer water rights to a pond to offset evaporative losses. The denials were based on concerns about detriment to the acequias and their members, including reduced water for irrigation, absentee ownership, and cultural impacts (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Rio Arriba County: The district court consolidated the cases and ruled that the deferential standard of review under Section 73-2-21(E) was unconstitutional, finding it violated both article XVI, section 5 and the equal protection clause of article II, section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution (paras 5, 8).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Acequias): Argued that the deferential standard of review under Section 73-2-21(E) is constitutional and does not violate article XVI, section 5 or equal protection principles. They contended that the statute is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of preserving acequia governance and water distribution (paras 10-11, 20-21).
- Appellees (Water Rights Owners): Claimed that the deferential standard of review violates their constitutional rights to a de novo hearing under article XVI, section 5 and equal protection under article II, section 18. They argued that the standard of review is inadequate and impacts their access to the courts and right to appeal (paras 9, 12-14).
Legal Issues
- Does Section 73-2-21(E) violate article XVI, section 5 of the New Mexico Constitution by denying water rights owners a de novo hearing in district court?
- Does Section 73-2-21(E) violate the equal protection clause of article II, section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution by affording different standards of review for water rights decisions?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, holding that Section 73-2-21(E) does not violate either article XVI, section 5 or the equal protection clause of article II, section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution (para 23).
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Sutin CJ. and Pickard J. concurring):
The Court held that Section 73-2-21(E) does not violate article XVI, section 5 because the legislature is permitted to establish a standard of review other than de novo for acequia decisions. The statute provides for a deferential review standard, which is “otherwise provided by law” under the constitutional provision (paras 10-11).
On the equal protection claim, the Court applied rational basis review, finding that the deferential standard of review is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of preserving acequia governance and ensuring decisions are made by those familiar with the unique needs of the acequias. The Court rejected the argument that a de novo hearing is necessary for meaningful review, noting that the statute still allows for judicial review of whether the commissioners acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, or not in accordance with the law (paras 12-18, 20-21).
The Court declined to address additional arguments regarding procedural due process, vagueness, and takings, as they were outside the scope of the interlocutory appeal (para 19).