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 Applicants sought to transfer 15.05 acre-feet per year of existing surface water rights from Valencia County to Sandoval County for domestic groundwater use. Protestants, who own surface water rights in Sandoval County, objected, arguing the transfer would impair their rights, harm public welfare, and be contrary to water conservation (paras 1, 3-4).
Procedural History
- State Engineer: Approved the Applicants' water transfer applications, finding no impairment to existing rights, no harm to public welfare, and no conflict with conservation (para 4).
- District Court of Sandoval County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Applicants, affirming the State Engineer's decision (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Protestants-Appellants: Argued that the applications constituted new appropriations of water, would impair their existing water rights, and that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without addressing issues of public welfare and conservation (paras 2, 4).
- Applicants-Appellees: Contended that the applications were lawful transfers of existing water rights, not new appropriations, and that the State Engineer's findings on impairment, public welfare, and conservation were correct (paras 2, 4).
Legal Issues
- Was the transfer of water rights a new appropriation of surface or groundwater?
- Did the applications impair existing water rights?
- Were the issues of public welfare and conservation properly addressed?
- Did the district court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Applicants?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the approval of the water transfer applications (para 42).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Wechsler J. concurring):
The Court held that the applications were not for new appropriations but lawful transfers of existing water rights. It distinguished the case from prior rulings, emphasizing that the Middle Rio Grande Administrative Area's hydrological guidelines allowed such transfers without constituting new appropriations (paras 6-19).
The Court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding the sufficiency of the springs' yield to support existing and transferred rights. It upheld the State Engineer's reliance on beneficial use as the measure of water rights, rejecting Protestants' argument that declared but unused rights should be considered (paras 21-28).
The Court ruled that new depletions at the move-to site did not constitute per se impairment and that the Applicants had sufficiently offset any adverse effects on the Rio Grande stream system. It also found no material issue of fact regarding impairment at the springs (paras 29-38).
On public welfare and conservation, the Court noted that Protestants failed to address these issues in their summary judgment response, effectively conceding them (paras 39-40).
Finally, the Court rejected Protestants' motion for summary judgment, finding no legal basis for their claims of per se impairment (para 41).
Per Kennedy J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part):
Kennedy J. agreed that the applications were not new appropriations and that new depletions were not per se impairment. However, he dissented on the summary judgment, arguing that unresolved material facts regarding the springs' impairment warranted a full de novo review. He criticized the State Engineer's exclusion of declared but unused rights from its calculations, asserting that these rights should have been considered to ensure accurate assessment of impairment (paras 44-58).