Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1139129
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:41:08+00:00

Document:
747 The constitutionality of the ground-water law, which for nearly two decades has been taken for granted, now is under attack in a group of cases on appeal to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.205 The trial court held in these cases that both the artesian waters and the shallow ground waters in litigation were public waters, a valid right to the use of which could be obtained after the effective date of the 1931 law only by compliance with the provisions of that law. It was further held that the law of 1931 did not infringe either the State constitution or the Federal constitution, but was a valid exercise of the police power of the State in the regulation of the use of its public waters; and that the de- cision in Yeo v. Tweedy had become a rule of property and should not be disturbed or reconsidered. The appeal was argued before the su- preme court in August 1950. Counsel for the defendants contended in the argument, according to a newspaper account,206 that there was no basis in law or custom for the decision in Yeo v. Tweedy, which re- sulted in enactment of the 1931 law, whereas counsel for the State contended that that decision had become a rule of property in the State and that upsetting it would involve millions of dollars in damages. Adjudications of water rights are made exclusively in the courts. Upon completion of the hydrographic survey of any stream system by the State Engineer, the Attorney General is authorized to initiate a suit on behalf of the State to determine all water rights concerned, unless such suit has been brought by private parties. In any suit to determine water rights all claimants are to be made parties, and the court is required by statute to direct the State Engineer to furnish a complete hydrographic survey.207 The State Engineer has supervision over the apportionment of waters, may create water districts, and may appoint watermasters upon application of water users within districts.208 The statute provides that such supervision shall extend to the apportion- ment of water according to licenses issued by the State Engineer and adjudications of the courts.209 The old established "community acequias", which base their rights upon Spanish and Mexican laws and customs and some of which antedated the acquisition of the terri- tory by the United States, are accorded certain preferences in respect to public regulation.210 206 State ex rel. Bliss, State Engineer v. Doritz et al., in the District Court of Chavez County, New Mexico, Nos. 13791, 13883, and 14928. 206 Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, N. Mex., August 29, 1950. 207 N. Mex. Stats. 1941, Ann., §§ 77-402, 77-404 to 77-410. 208 N. Mex. Stats. 1941, Ann., §§ 77-201 to 77-305. 209 N. Mex. Stats. 1941, Ann., § 77-209. See Vanderwork v. Hewes, 15 N. Mex. 439, 443-446, 449, 110 Pac. 567 (1910); Pueblo of Isleta v. Tondre, 18 N. Mex. 388, 392,137 Pac. 86 (1913). 810 N. Mex. Stats. 1941, Ann., §§ 77-502 and 77-802. Pueblo of Isleta v. Tondre, 18 N. Mex. 388, 392,137 Pac. 86 (1913).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 77
 v. 
 v. 
 v.