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 Defendant owns a ranch with fourteen small ponds constructed between the 1930s and 1960s, used for livestock watering and recreational purposes. None of the ponds exceeds ten acre-feet of water storage or has a dam taller than ten feet. The State Engineer argued that these ponds required permits under New Mexico water law, while the Defendant claimed they were exempt under Section 72-5-32 of the New Mexico statutes (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Chaves County: Held that the Defendant's ponds were exempt from the State Engineer's permitting requirements under Section 72-5-32 (paras 2, 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant (State Engineer): Argued that the Defendant's ponds required permits under the general rule of Section 72-5-1, as Section 72-5-32 did not explicitly exempt smaller dams and ponds from regulation (paras 6, 9).
- Defendant-Appellee (Mrs. George Thomas Smith): Contended that Section 72-5-32 implicitly exempted dams under ten feet in height and ponds holding less than ten acre-feet of water from the permitting requirements (paras 6, 9).
Legal Issues
- Does Section 72-5-32 of the New Mexico statutes exempt dams under ten feet in height and ponds holding less than ten acre-feet of water from the State Engineer's permitting requirements?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the Defendant's ponds were exempt from the permitting requirements under Section 72-5-32 (para 17).
Reasons
Per Black J. (Alarid and Flores JJ. concurring):
The Court interpreted Section 72-5-32 as creating an implied exemption for dams under ten feet in height and ponds holding less than ten acre-feet of water. The statute's plain language specifies permitting requirements only for larger dams and ponds, and the inclusion of these criteria implies the exclusion of smaller structures. The Court applied principles of statutory construction, including the maxim "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius," to support this interpretation (paras 9-11).
The Court also relied on historical interpretations, including a 1947 Attorney General's opinion and the State Engineer's own prior practices, which aligned with the view that smaller dams and ponds were exempt. Legislative acquiescence to this interpretation further reinforced the Court's conclusion (paras 12-15).
While the State Engineer raised concerns about potential negative consequences of this interpretation, the Court emphasized that it was bound to apply the statute as written and that any policy changes were the responsibility of the legislature (paras 16-17).