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 change the point of diversion for their surface water right from an above-ground location (Frazier-Bateman Ditch) to a 100-foot-deep well. They argued that upstream ground water pumping by junior appropriators had reduced the surface water available at their existing diversion point. The proposed well was located downstream from the original diversion point (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Office of the State Engineer, 1983: Denied the Applicants' request to change the point of diversion to a well.
- Hearing Examiner, Office of the State Engineer, 2001: Denied the Applicants' appeal of the 1983 decision.
- District Court of Grant County, (N/A): Conducted a de novo review and denied the Applicants' request.
Parties' Submissions
- Applicants (Appellants): Argued that the district court misapplied case law, failed to recognize their inherent right to change the point of diversion, incorrectly assessed impairment of existing water rights, erred in not granting a permit for a shallower well, contradicted provisions of an earlier adjudication, lacked sufficient evidence to support its judgment, and improperly relied on expert testimony (para 1).
- Office of the State Engineer (Appellee): Contended that the Applicants failed to meet the legal requirements under the Templeton doctrine, the proposed well would not draw from a source of the Applicants' surface water, and the Mimbres Underground Water Basin was closed to new appropriations (paras 12-13, 23).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court correctly interpret and apply the Templeton doctrine?
- Did the Applicants have an independent right to change their point of diversion to a ground water well?
- Was the district court required to address impairment of existing water rights?
- Should the district court have granted a permit for a shallower well?
- Were the district court's findings inconsistent or barred by res judicata?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the district court's decision?
- Did the district court improperly rely on the testimony of the Office of the State Engineer's expert?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Applicants' request to change the point of diversion for their surface water right (para 37).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Wechsler CJ and Robinson J. concurring):
Templeton Doctrine: The court held that the Applicants failed to meet the Templeton doctrine's requirements. Specifically, the proposed well was downstream from the surface diversion point and would not draw water that was a source of the surface water to which the Applicants had a right. The deep aquifer targeted by the proposed well did not contribute to the surface flow at the Applicants' diversion point (paras 12-15, 31-33).
Independent Right to Change Diversion: The court rejected the Applicants' argument that they had an inherent right to change the point of diversion to a ground water well without meeting the Templeton requirements. The court clarified that the Templeton doctrine applies to all surface-to-ground water transfers (paras 17-20).
Impairment of Existing Rights: Since the Applicants failed to meet the Templeton requirements, the court found it unnecessary to address the issue of impairment. Additionally, the Mimbres Underground Water Basin was closed to new appropriations, precluding the application as a new ground water appropriation (paras 21-23).
Shallower Well: The court held that the district court was not required to grant a permit for a shallower well, as it is the Applicants' burden to propose a legally permissible application. The Office of the State Engineer's discretion to impose conditions does not extend to modifying applications to make them compliant (paras 24-26).
Inconsistency and Res Judicata: The court found no inconsistency in the district court's findings. While the shallow aquifer was connected to the surface flow, the proposed well targeted the deep aquifer, which was not a source of the surface water. The earlier adjudication of the Applicants' water rights did not preclude the district court's findings, as it only established connectivity between the shallow aquifer and surface flows (paras 27-28).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The court determined that substantial evidence supported the district court's findings, including expert testimony and hydrological studies showing that the proposed well would draw from the deep aquifer, which was not connected to the surface water (paras 29-34).
Expert Testimony: The court rejected the Applicants' challenge to the State Engineer's expert witness, noting that any issues with methodology or bias went to the weight of the evidence, which was properly evaluated by the district court (paras 35-36).