State Ex Rel. Reynolds v. Mendenhall

Citations: 362 P.2d 998; 68 N.M. 467Docket: 6768

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court; June 26, 1961; New Mexico; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A legal dispute arose regarding the validity of a water right claimed by the Mendenhalls for irrigation purposes. The central question was whether a landowner who initiates the development of an underground water right can claim a priority date from the start of that development, even if the land was later included in a formally declared artesian basin. The Mendenhalls' land was outside the Roswell Artesian Basin until it was included in a 1950 declaration by the State Engineer. Their predecessors began drilling for water in 1949 but initially found insufficient supply. After entering a contract for further drilling in October 1949, which progressed after the basin's declaration, they successfully developed a usable water supply by early 1950, irrigating 248.49 acres each subsequent year.

A Special Master determined that the Mendenhalls had a valid water right with a priority date of May 31, 1949. However, the district court ruled that for the water right to be valid, it must have been applied to beneficial use before the 1950 declaration, which did not occur, leading to the conclusion that the Mendenhalls lacked a valid water right. This ruling was appealed. The excerpt also references historical context regarding New Mexico's underground water laws, indicating that the legal framework for such rights has evolved since 1927, ultimately affirming that underground waters are public and subject to appropriation for beneficial use.

Beneficial use is the foundation for the right to use water under the specified statutes, recognizing existing water rights based on beneficial use without impairing their priorities. The 1931 law was affirmed as constitutional in State ex rel. Bliss v. Dority, which established that the prior appropriation doctrine applies to artesian basin waters, subject to compliance with statutory acquisition methods. The state engineer supervises public artesian waters, but jurisdiction requires a finding of reasonably ascertainable basin boundaries. Regulation of well drilling in underground basins was instituted in 1949, and in 1953, all underground waters were declared public, with existing rights acknowledged. Transporting underground water outside the state is prohibited, and permits are only required in basins identified by the state engineer. The 1959 legislation introduced procedures for recognizing rights when basin declarations occur after a well is drilled, establishing the doctrine of relation for appropriating underground waters. Although the statutes enacted after the relevant wells were drilled do not affect existing rights, they indicate legislative acknowledgment that prior law governs development and appropriation rights. The doctrine of relation protects the rights of those who have diligently pursued water appropriation, allowing them to relate back to the time they began their efforts.

The doctrine of relation, recognized in New Mexico since 1883, allows water appropriation rights to relate back to the time of notice or initiation of appropriation efforts, provided the appropriator acts with reasonable diligence. This principle was reiterated in several cases, including Keeney v. Carillo and Millheiser v. Long, affirming that valid appropriation occurs when intent is established, notice is given, and water is beneficially used within a reasonable timeframe. The doctrine applies universally in arid states where statutory notice is required, preserving rights from the time notice is given, and it does not protect those who do not diligently pursue their appropriation efforts. The 1907 irrigation act, discussed in the case of Farmers' Development Co. v. Rayado Land Irrigation Co., highlighted that prior laws remained applicable for rights initiated before the new law's enactment, allowing for the recognition of priority dates based on initial claims if diligently completed. In the context of a 1949 water appropriation case, it was noted that although applicable ground water laws were enacted during the appropriation process, the absence of a comparable provision to the surface water doctrine of relation created challenges. The general appropriation law applies to both surface and ground water, indicating that rights initiated under existing laws should be honored despite changes in statutory frameworks.

Omission of a provision from the statute does not change the legal outcome as compared to if it had been included. The 1907 surface water law had a different effect than the 1931 underground water law, which was not self-executing and did not immediately alter existing rights. The right to develop underground water remained intact until a declaration was made by the State Engineer, which could occur at varying times. Section 75-11-4, while more concise than 75-8-1, shares the same substance and intent, acknowledging existing rights without limiting recognition to previously beneficial uses. The term "based upon application to beneficial use" indicates the legislature's intent to encompass the entire process of establishing a water right, recognizing potential delays in achieving beneficial use. This interpretation avoids unjust outcomes for those in the process of appropriating water rights and ensures that ongoing efforts are not negated by subsequent declarations. The statute preserves existing priorities and rights, allowing for valid appropriations to mature and aligning with the legislative intent to favor public convenience and protect public interest.

Appellants argue that the State Engineer was aware of the well situation since 1950 but took no action to prevent their water use, implying the validity of their claim until the lawsuit was initiated. They assert that the State Engineer's adopted rules reflect an understanding that their usage was lawful. However, they acknowledge that if their water use was indeed illegal, the State is not barred from asserting its rights due to the Engineer's inaction. Appellees counter that the Roswell Artesian Basin was overappropriated in 1950, and recognizing the appellants' rights would harm prior rights holders, relying on the Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist. v. Peters case. The ruling in that case clarified that the Conservancy District could act regardless of the legality of the well's location, emphasizing the priority of existing rights over potential junior claims. The second appeal in that case affirmed a denial of injunction due to insufficient proof of prior appropriators' water rights, effectively recognizing the junior appropriator's claim as valid from the well's commencement date. In this case, the appellants did not prove that their water use interfered with prior appropriators. The current suit seeks to adjudicate water rights in the Roswell Artesian Basin, determining priorities and specific use conditions as mandated by relevant New Mexico statutes.

The court determined that it must assess the presence of a water right based on the evidence presented. While a legal right was established, its priority compared to other valid rights was still to be finalized. The appellants had legally initiated drilling their well by May 31, 1949, and demonstrated diligent development and beneficial use of water on 248.49 acres in the 1950 crop year, thus acquiring a valid water right with a priority date of May 31, 1949. The intervening order extending the Roswell Artesian Basin on February 6, 1950, did not affect the legality or validity of this appropriation. The district court's contrary decision was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to set aside the previous order and issue a new one in line with the court's findings. Justices Compton and Carmody concurred, while Justices Chavez and Noble did not participate.