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 challenge to New Mexico's Domestic Well Statute (DWS), which mandates the automatic issuance of domestic well permits without prior evaluation of water availability or potential impairment of senior water rights. A senior water rights holder in the Mimbres Basin, where water is fully appropriated, argued that the DWS violates the constitutional priority doctrine by allowing junior domestic well users to impair senior water rights (paras 1-3, 6-7).
Procedural History
- District Court, Grant County: Declared the DWS facially unconstitutional, holding that it violated the priority doctrine by creating an impermissible exception to the constitutional system of water rights administration. The court required the State Engineer to administer domestic well applications like all other water appropriation applications (paras 3, 9, 12).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellee (Senior Water Rights Holder): Argued that the DWS is facially unconstitutional because it allows domestic well permits to be issued without evaluating water availability or protecting senior water rights, violating the priority doctrine. Claimed that the statute impairs vested property rights and fails to provide due process protections (paras 2-3, 6-7, 11).
- Defendants-Appellants (State of New Mexico and State Engineer): Contended that the DWS is constitutional, asserting that the priority doctrine is a broad principle that allows legislative exceptions. Argued that the State Engineer retains authority to protect senior water rights through priority administration when necessary (paras 4, 39-40).
Legal Issues
- Does the Domestic Well Statute (DWS) facially violate the priority doctrine under Article XVI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution?
- Can the Legislature create exceptions to the priority doctrine for domestic well permits?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the DWS is not facially unconstitutional and does not violate the priority doctrine (paras 50-51).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Robles and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the priority doctrine is a broad constitutional principle, not a self-executing system of water rights administration. The Legislature has the authority to enact laws governing water appropriation, including exceptions like the DWS, as long as senior water rights are ultimately protected from impairment (paras 37-38).
The Court emphasized that the DWS does not inherently violate the priority doctrine because it leaves the State Engineer with the responsibility to administer water rights and protect senior rights through priority administration when necessary. The Legislature's decision to automatically issue domestic well permits reflects a policy judgment balancing domestic water needs and administrative efficiency (paras 39-42).
The Court rejected the argument that the DWS creates an impermissible exception to the priority doctrine, noting that the Legislature can enact exceptions to existing statutes as long as they do not result in actual impairment of senior rights. The Court also highlighted the availability of administrative and judicial remedies for senior water rights holders to address potential impairments (paras 43-45).
The Court concluded that the DWS is not facially unconstitutional and reversed the district court's judgment, emphasizing that concerns about the statute's practical effects should be addressed through legislative or administrative processes rather than a facial constitutional challenge (paras 46-50).