Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1130581
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:49:01+00:00

Document:
412 APPROPRIATION OF WATER was to obtain the greatest possible benefit to the public. By way of illustration, the public interest would be served by protecting investors against making worthless investments in the Territory, especially if made after official approval of unsound enterprises. Further, said the court, while the question of relative costs of two competing water supply projects was not conclusive on the issue of public interest, it was believed that it should be taken into account.907 Until 1923, there was a New Mexico Board of Water Commissioners, whose duty was to hear and determine appeals from the acts and decisions of the State Engineer. Its decisions were final, subject to appeal to the district court.908 The supreme court held that the board was not called upon to review the discretion of the State Engineer, but that on appeal the board would determine for itself the question as to whether an application should be approved or rejected. The hearing in the district court likewise was de novo, without review of the discretion of the State Engineer or of the board.909 This case was expressly overruled in 1963 to the extent that former case law allowed the district court to hear new or additional evidence, and based thereon to form its own conclusions.910 The scope of review is limited to evidence adduced at the hearing before the state engineer or the board or both and the issue is whether or not the state engineer acted fraudulently, capriciously or arbitrarily. The determination of the state engineer must be based upon substantial evidence.911 (6) The Washington Director of Ecology is directed to reject an application to appropriate water if, among other things, the proposed use "threatens to prove detrimental to the public interest, having due regard to the highest feasible development of the use of the waters belonging to the public." In making his determination, it is the duty of the Director to investigate "all facts relevant and material to the application."912 The statute vests the Director with a considerable degree of discretion in making investigations and findings and otherwise performing his delegated functions.913 He must determine, for the purpose of deciding for or against the issuance of a permit, matters of public interest.914 But as stated above in discussing questions of availability of unappropriated water, the Director is an administrator and his findings are in no sense intended to be adjudications of private rights. 907 Young & Norton v. Hinderlider, 15 N. Mex. 666, 667-668, 110 Pac. 1045 (1910). 908N. Mex. Stat. Ann. §75-2-11 (1968). 909Farmers' Development Co. v. Rayado Land & In. Co., 18 N. Mex. 1,9, 133 Pac. 104 (1913). 910Kelley v. Carlsbad In. Co., 71 N. Mex. 464, 466^67, 379 Pac. (2d) 763 (1963). 911 See Ingram v.Malone Farm, 382 Pac. (2d) 981, 982 (N. Mex. 1963). 912 Wash. Rev. Code §90.03.290 (Supp. 1961). 9l3Id. §§90.03.250-90.03.330. 914Funk v. Bartholet, 157 Wash. 584, 593-595, 289 Pac. 1018 (1930).

References: v. 
 §75
 v. 
 v. 
 §90
 v.