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 Waterfall Community Water Users Association (Waterfall) applied to appropriate 320 acre-feet per year of surface water from Culberson Spring, part of the Pecos River stream system, for use in its community water system. The State Engineer denied the application, asserting that the Pecos River stream system, including Culberson Spring, was fully appropriated. Waterfall argued it had a "natural right" under NMSA 1978, Section 72-5-29, to utilize the water despite the system's full appropriation (paras 1-5).
Procedural History
- State Engineer, August 8, 2001: Denied Waterfall's application, finding no unappropriated water in the Pecos River stream system and concluding that granting the application would impair existing rights and be contrary to public welfare and water conservation (paras 5-6).
- Twelfth Judicial District Court of New Mexico, August 31, 2007: Granted summary judgment against Waterfall, holding that the Pecos River stream system was fully appropriated and that Section 72-5-29 did not apply to Waterfall's claim (paras 6-10).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Waterfall): Argued it had a "natural right" under Section 72-5-29 to appropriate water from Culberson Spring for domestic use, claiming the statute allowed equitable distribution of water without interfering with vested rights. Waterfall also asserted that most of the water it sought to appropriate would return to the Pecos River stream system after use, minimizing interference with existing rights (paras 4, 8-9, 14).
- Appellee (State Engineer): Contended that the Pecos River stream system, including Culberson Spring, was fully appropriated, and Section 72-5-29 did not create a superseding right to water. The State Engineer argued that granting Waterfall's application would interfere with vested rights and violate statutory water appropriation principles (paras 3, 7, 12, 20).
- Protestant (Mel Elkins): Supported the State Engineer's position, asserting that Section 72-5-29 was limited to floodwater conservation and did not apply to Waterfall's claim. Elkins argued that Waterfall's interpretation of the statute was erroneous and inconsistent with New Mexico's water law framework (paras 7, 19).
Legal Issues
- Does Section 72-5-29 grant Waterfall a "natural right" to appropriate water from Culberson Spring despite the Pecos River stream system being fully appropriated?
- Was the district court correct in granting summary judgment against Waterfall?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Waterfall was not entitled to appropriate water from Culberson Spring under Section 72-5-29 and that summary judgment was proper (paras 24-25).
Reasons
Per Vanzi J. (Wechsler and Garcia JJ. concurring):
Interpretation of Section 72-5-29: The court held that Section 72-5-29 does not create a superseding "natural right" to water in fully appropriated systems. The statute is limited to the conservation and utilization of floodwaters under specific circumstances and does not override the general statutory scheme for water appropriation. The court emphasized that any appropriation under Section 72-5-29 must not interfere with vested rights and is subject to existing water law provisions (paras 16-21).
Fully Appropriated System: The court agreed with the State Engineer's finding that the Pecos River stream system, including Culberson Spring, was fully appropriated. Waterfall's acknowledgment of this fact and its failure to provide evidence that its proposed use would not interfere with vested rights supported the denial of its application (paras 12-14, 22).
Summary Judgment: The court found that Waterfall's arguments and evidence, including an affidavit from its water system operator, were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The district court properly granted summary judgment, as Waterfall's claims under Section 72-5-29 were legally untenable and unsupported by admissible evidence (paras 10, 23).
Policy Considerations: The court noted that the State Engineer's interpretation of Section 72-5-29 aligned with the statute's purpose of promoting conservation and preventing erosion and waste. The court rejected Waterfall's argument that the statute created a "super status" water use right, finding no support for such an interpretation in the statutory language or legislative history (paras 20-21).