Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1910-07-18
Settlement of Water Right
Dispute Assures Big Project

board al trustees IF the TOW n Of Las
Vegas thar ft is entitled to the use Of
the entefs applied for and which have
thelr source upon or flo~ through The
las Vegas grant bY Yirtne Of the laws
III Mexico 10 force st the time thf
grant was made.
counsel for applicant Ola not sub
n.t authorities ia support ~ TINS
r. IN.
A. - water merely flowing through
efsn lsni> tn public streams ana
having their source outside the grant.
The decisions of the courts 0f New
/ Mexfuo and IN. United states appeaf
.to b. ngainst the contention
AZ 10 waters having their source IN
springs On the land or flood waters
falling upon o. flowing over the land
tbis board has held 10 other cas's
that such waters belong @ and are
subjects e. the rights 81 the owner 81
the band. IT, use the SAM Tor any
beneficial purpose On that land
and that such waters are not public
eaiers. subject o. appropriation IN
der the statute 81 as o. deprive the
.a4rtr III their IKE, 40 q reasonable
extent upon Die land
This 3 not based upon The theory
IL riparian ownership hitch the
courts seem ~ have held not nppH-
bie H. Sew Mexico. but upon the
fhecrr that such caters of springs
on the land. and flood waters prectp-
itated upon 81 flowing over the land
az well e~ perrolating waters beneath
the eurfeee are part and parcel Of
the land. and as such are the property
cf the owner ~ the same extent as
the sand. clay 90 rocks thereon
II Is confended by counsel for pro
testunt. 4. 4. Jones, in support % his
appeal n connection With his own ap-
ulteation. which appeal was argued
the same as the appeal ia this case.
that the United states Reclamation
service had ~ right 10 utilize public
waters for the object which contem r
plated irrigating only private lands.
and That even 10 il had such right
the same mas been forfeited in this
case because plans aud specifications
had not been flied within the ina re-
quired by the statute
While there seems 10 be merit in
these contentious. particularly the
Tart a the board does not feel call,
ed upon 70 consider them in this case
The representative OF the United
states Reclamation Service does not
object to the granting Of the permit
under application No. 3ft. with the
p~roviso that Il shall be subject 70
whatever rights the United states
government may have under It's no.
tlccs. We viii say. however, that the
board would b. inclined O. affirm the
approval &c an application 20 appto-
pirate part or an OF the water includ-
ed ia such notice filed by the United
states Reclamation Service IN a case
nkr the ono before as. where no steps
have been taken by the government
within q reasonable lime toward con
|struction 81 the works end where
There we're good reasons to believe
that the project had been abandoned.
Aa 10 the waters on the sapcllo riy-
or. there appears 10 be nothing in the
record about the quantity oi water.
IL any. available after the arprOpria-
zion approved under application No.
ga. Of The Pluclta Ranch COMPANY
ehail have been perfected The board
believes that no "a can he injured
hH including IN permit No. @Al the
right 60 appropriate any surplus Wa
tors there may he IN the Sapcllo river
over ana above that required undei
permit No. gtf and other valid prioi
appropriations ct rights. even u y
we're apparent that there would be nt
water available after the quantity re
CURED under permit 40 sti had been
appropriated. There t. no certainty
chat the appropriation allowed under
that permit viii Dee perfected as re-
anired hy law We believe that the
permit tp the board of trustees should
( include hose waters subject 90 prior
applications and rights. The dccis-
ion of Che board rs that application
No 34l De approved with the pro
I vision that the permit Is subject g
tl,e iiahfs of the United states under
the totices uled Janurrs 30. 1905, Cd
Ithe r.ghts OF the Plulitu Ranch com
ItRuy Sc the waters uf thc Supeile
river under application IN permit No
-lt rud sui' cet to nll other vail,
rHt,r tillts Go the use of the Watcr'
SPIT such streams and arroyas
Tho opinion sustaining the rejection
OF thc Jones application IS os follows
opinion sustaining Epgineer~ nuiing