Title: State v. Myers
Citation: 326 P.2d 1075, 64 N.M. 186
Docket Number: N/A
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: May 6, 1958

326 P.2d 1075 (1958) 64 N.M. 186 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John W. MYERS, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. E.T. HOARD, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 6268, 6269. Supreme Court of New Mexico. May 6, 1958. Rehearing Denied June 13, 1958. Hannett, Hannett &amp; Cornish, Albuquerque, for appellants. Fred M. Standley, Atty. Gen., Paul W. Robinson, Dist. Atty., Albuquerque, Charles D. Harris, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. SHILLINGLAW, Justice. These two consolidated cases came before the court on appeals from verdicts and judgments of the lower court wherein appellant Myers was found guilty of a violation under § 75-11-16, N.M.S.A. 1953, and appellant Hoard was found guilty under § 75-11-13, N.M.S.A. 1953, and each was sentenced to pay a fine of $25, which sentences were suspended. *1076 The appellant, John W. Myers, was accused under an information which read as follows: The appellant, E.T. Hoard, was accused in the information of "Drilling a Well Without a License," the information continuing: Section 1, Ch. 178, Laws of 1949, which is § 75-11-13, N.M.S.A. 1953, provides: Pursuant to the authority vested by the above statute the state engineer did, on November 29, 1956, declare: There follows description of an area along each side of the Rio Grande and extending from the Elephant Butte Reservoir to the New Mexico-Colorado line. The informations were filed on February 5, 1957. Appellants filed a motion to quash in each case, which motions were overruled. A plea of abatement was filed in each of *1077 said cases and was overruled. Thereafter, the cases were heard upon stipulated facts, a portion of which follows: As appears from paragraph 1 of the stipulation the State contends that the only material facts are: The appellants assign twelve (12) errors and argue extensively against the judgment and correctness of the trial court, but we feel we can fairly and briefly state their case to be; that the State Engineer had no right, authority or jurisdiction to declare the area in question an underground water basin simply because it is not an underground water basin, and consequently the area is not one in which it is necessary to obtain a permit from the state engineer to "drill or to begin the drilling of a well * * * without a valid, existing license for the drilling of such well issued by the state engineer of the State of New Mexico. * * *" The appellants argue: and further state: Appellants then further argue: The state engineer, whose statutory qualifications are found in § 75-2-1, N.M.S.A. 1953 Comp., and are as follows: did, as shown by the exhibit in the record, on the 29th day of November, 1956, declare the area in question to be the Rio Grande Underground Water Basin. So in view of appellants' argument to the contrary we refer to the record to examine the evidence in support of appellants' contention. We find none. The appellants admit this lack of evidence but suggest that: As authority appellants cite references to Hoefs v. Short, 114 Tex. 501, 273 S.W. 785, 40 A.L.R. 833; Vol. 2, Barron-Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, p. 681; Vol. 4, Barron-Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, p. 178-181. We do not question the statements there made but we prefer to reject the application of judicial notice in the case at bar on the same theory that the Supreme Court of the United States refused to take judicial notice of the non-navigability of the Rio Grande when it reversed United States v. Rio Grande Dam &amp; Irr. Co., 9 N.M. 292, 51 P. 674 in United States v. Rio Grande Dam &amp; Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690, 19 S. Ct. 770, 773, 43 L. Ed. 1136, saying: We further are of the opinion that in view of the state of the record in this case we must presume that the action of the state engineer is correct. We find ourselves in agreement with the authority cited by the State and appearing in 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure § 205, p. 556: For the purpose of this opinion we recognize that the appellant Myers may have a valid existing water right pre-dating the State constitution. He argues at length that the action of the state engineer is repugnant to Article 16, Section 1, Const. of New Mexico, reading: And Article 16, Section 2: The cases cited by the appellants do not hold that the State may not in the exercise of its police power require a license of any person drilling a well in any area determined by the state engineer to be an underground source the boundaries of which have been determined to be reasonably ascertainable. Concerning the police power of a state the Supreme Court of the State of Washington said in State v. Dexter, 32 Wash. 2d 551, 202 P.2d 906, 907, 13 A.L.R.2d 1081, at page 1085 of the A.L.R. report: As to rights of property that court stated in 32 Wash. 2d 551, 202 P.2d 909, at page 1088 of 13 A.L.R.2d: In treating a state's exercise of its police power in connection with water rights, the Utah Supreme Court said in Eden Irr. Co. v. District Court of Weber County, 61 Utah 103, 211 P. 957, at page 961: We find § 75-11-13 and § 75-11-16, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., to be legitimate exercise of the police power of the State. In passing, we note that Section 75-11-13, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., was amended by the 1957 legislature and as amended now reads: Finding no error the judgment is affirmed. It is so ordered. LUJAN, C.J., and SADLER, McGHEE and COMPTON, JJ., concur. SHILLINGLAW, Justice. The appellants, in their motion for rehearing, raise points which we do not deem controlling. However, in the brief in support of the motion one point is argued which we feel requires clarification. It will be noted that the State Engineer in his order of November 29, 1956, declaring the Rio Grande Underground Water Basin further ordered that: The charge against the appellant Myers was that he "did permit the drilling, deepening, repairing or cleaning of a well * * by a person other than a licensed driller." The charge against the appellant Hoard was that he did "drill, deepen, repair or clean * * * a well * * * without having a valid license." The parties in the court below stipulated that the defendant Myers employed the defendant Hoard to clean, deepen and repair the well located upon the land of the defendant Myers. The court below in its decision recited the charge against the appellant Myers to be "illegal drilling of a well," and the charge against the appellant Hoard to be "drilling of a well without a license." The theory on which the case was tried was that deepening a well constituted drilling a well. Nowhere in the court below or in the brief on the appeal was it argued that the appellants' acts were not within the statutes Sections 75-11-13 and 75-11-16, N.M.S.A. Our opinion is to be construed in *1082 that light. We are not deciding that the State Engineer has the authority to require a permit for the cleaning or repairing of a well, as that phase of his authority is not before us on this appeal. Our holding in the original opinion is affirmed and the motion for rehearing will be denied. LUJAN, C.J., and SADLER, McGHEE and COMPTON, JJ., concur.