NM Stat § 73-14-9 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 73 - Special Districts|Article 14 - Conservancy Districts; Definitions; Organization and Management|Section 73-14-9 - Hearing.

A. Upon the hearing of the petition as provided for in Section 73-14-8 NMSA 1978, if it appears that a petition for the organization of the district has been signed and presented as required by law, and that the allegations of the petition are true, that the lands described in the petition substantially conform to the requirements of Subsection K, Section 73-14-5 NMSA 1978, and that no protesting petition has been filed, or if filed has been dismissed, the court shall give the district a corporate name, by which in all proceedings it shall thereafter be known, and shall fix a date for an election and order the board of county commissioners of any county within which the proposed district lies, to conduct such election on the question of whether or not the district shall be created. B. If the court finds against the prayer of the petitions [petition], it shall dismiss the proceedings and adjudge the costs against the signers of the petition in the proportions as it deems just and equitable. History: Laws 1927, ch. 45, § 206; C.S. 1929, § 30-206; 1941 Comp. § 77-2709; 1953 Comp., § 75-28-8.1, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 76, § 1. ANNOTATIONSBracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law. Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1965, ch. 76, § 1 repealed and reenacted this section. This section is considered a continuation of Laws 1927, ch. 45, § 206. See 12-2A-14 NMSA 1978. Scope of discretion to form districts. — A water conservancy district is a quasi-municipal corporation, the formation of which is a legislative function, and for which the Conservancy Act (Laws 1927, ch. 45) has set up certain standards and requirements and has delegated to the district court the ministerial and judicial task of determining whether these standards have been met in a given case; but the court does not have and could not constitutionally have been invested with a general discretion for the formation of whatever districts the court deemed to be in the public interest. Rancho Del Rio Grande Conservancy Dist. v. Tres Rios Ass'n, 1975-NMSC-024, 87 N.M. 482, 535 P.2d 1333. Powers not to be expanded beyond language. — Formation of a water conservancy district is a statutory proceeding and the powers conferred may not be expanded by inference or construction beyond the language of the statute. Rancho Del Rio Grande Conservancy Dist. v. Tres Rios Ass'n, 1975-NMSC-024, 87 N.M. 482, 535 P.2d 1333. Effect of substantial change in property to be included. — In the formation of water conservancy districts which will result in the imposition of taxes or other assessments upon the property included therein, a substantial change in the property to be included from that described in the petition or petitions for the creation of such districts vitiates the petition or petitions and requires their dismissal. Rancho Del Rio Grande Conservancy Dist. v. Tres Rios Ass'n, 1975-NMSC-024, 87 N.M. 482, 535 P.2d 1333. Once the people have weighed the merits of the proposal to establish a water conservancy district as embodied in the petition and each has estimated the burden and benefit for himself, it would be grossly unfair to permit changes to be made by eliminating property belonging to numerous individuals and municipalities, thus multiplying the cost per acre foot of water to the user; this would materially and substantially amend the signer's original petition without his authority, subjecting him to additional burdens, and cannot be approved. Rancho Del Rio Grande Conservancy Dist. v. Tres Rios Ass'n, 1975-NMSC-024, 87 N.M. 482, 535 P.2d 1333. Result of excluding certain lands from petition for creation of a water conservancy district is that the signatures of all persons on originating petitions become a nullity, since after the exclusions the petitions no longer describe the territory to be included in the proposed district. It cannot be assumed that any one of the petitioners would have affixed his signature to the originating petitions had he known that the district to be created would be substantially different from that made known to him by the instrument which he signed as an originating petitioner. Rancho Del Rio Grande Conservancy Dist. v. Tres Rios Ass'n, 1975-NMSC-024, 87 N.M. 482, 535 P.2d 1333. All property in petition must be benefited. — The petitioners must allege and the conservancy court must find that the property described in the petition will be benefited by the organization of the conservancy district - not some of the property described in the petition, but all of it, and upon finding some of the lands would not be benefited, the conservancy court should have dismissed the petition; when it permitted the amendment of the petition and the creation of a new and different district, it exceeded its authority. Rancho Del Rio Grande Conservancy Dist. v. Tres Rios Ass'n, 1975-NMSC-024, 87 N.M. 482, 535 P.2d 1333. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 94 C.J.S. Waters § 319(2).