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 Mimbres River Stream System in southwestern New Mexico. The San Lorenzo Community Ditch Association, holding senior water rights, alleged that upstream users were diverting water in violation of its rights. The Water Master, appointed to administer water rights, implemented a rotation system for water distribution, which San Lorenzo refused to follow, claiming it was entitled to priority administration of water rights during shortages (paras 1-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, 1993: Issued a final decree adjudicating water rights in the Mimbres River Stream System, recognizing San Lorenzo's senior rights and enjoining others from diverting water contrary to the decree (para 2).
- District Court, April 8, 2004: The Water Master ordered a rotation system for water distribution after upstream and downstream users failed to agree on a schedule (para 4).
- District Court, June 28, 2004: San Lorenzo filed a petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus, alleging the Water Master failed to enforce its senior rights (para 5).
- District Court, 2004: Issued a peremptory writ of mandamus but later quashed it, finding factual disputes and determining that San Lorenzo had an adequate remedy through its pending injunction action (paras 6-8).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (San Lorenzo Community Ditch Association): Argued that the Water Master failed to enforce its senior water rights as adjudicated in the final decree. It claimed that upstream users were diverting water unlawfully and requested a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the Water Master to administer water rights by priority during shortages (paras 5-6, 17).
- Appellee (State Engineer and Water Master): Contended that San Lorenzo had an adequate remedy through its pending injunction action. They disputed San Lorenzo's factual claims regarding water diversion rates and argued that effective administration required further analysis of the water system, including measurements and field investigations (paras 7, 17-20).
Legal Issues
- Was the district court's order quashing the peremptory writ of mandamus a final, appealable order?
- Did the Water Master have a clear legal duty to administer water rights by priority as requested by San Lorenzo?
- Did San Lorenzo have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law?
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the district court's order quashing the writ of mandamus was not a final, appealable order (paras 9, 22-23).
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Bustamante CJ. and Robinson J. concurring):
The Court of Appeals determined that it lacked jurisdiction because the district court's order quashing the peremptory writ of mandamus was not a final, appealable order. The Court reasoned that unresolved factual disputes between the parties required further proceedings in the district court. Mandamus is only appropriate when the duty to act is clear and indisputable, and factual issues must be resolved before such a determination can be made. Additionally, the Court noted that San Lorenzo had an adequate remedy through its pending injunction action, which it had not pursued. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings (paras 9-23).