Opinion ID: 2586233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does the Law of the State of New Mexico Recognize a Limited Forage Right Implicit in a Right-Of-Way for the Maintenance and Enjoyment of a Vested Water Right?

Text: {48} Similar to the argument that a forage right is implicit in a water right under New Mexico law, the Walkers also assert that a forage right is implicit in a right-of-way developed for the enjoyment of that water right. [6] In other words, the Walkers claim that a right to forage is within the scope of a right-of-way consistent with the Mining Act and state law. The Mining Act recognizes a property right in public lands for the right of way for the construction of ditches and canals to carry water. 43 U.S.C. § 661 (2000). We must determine if the scope of such a right-of-way includes a forage right under New Mexico law. {49} In New Mexico, the scope of an easement, or right-of-way, is narrow and is measured by the nature and purpose of the easement. Olson v. H & B Props., Inc., 118 N.M. 495, 498, 882 P.2d 536, 539 (1994). The Walkers rely on Section 19-3-13 and New Mexico precedent to support their assertion that the scope of such a right-of-way includes the right to forage. As to Section 19-3-13, the Walkers claim that the requirement that stock owners have sufficient water for the proper maintenance of such cattle includes bringing the cattle to the water source to maintain them. Thus, the Walkers argue that Section 19-3-13 includes a provision for easements over federal land as part of the maintenance provision. The Walkers then take this argument one step further and, similar to the above argument, assert that Section 19-3-13 gives the possessory interest in the right to forage on the land surrounding the easement because it is impossible to keep a cow from eating while being herded to the water source. {50} The language in Section 19-3-13 the Walkers rely on is vague and does not directly implicate any form of right-of-way or easement. The text of the statute does not use either of these terms. Moreover, as discussed in depth in our answer to the first certified question, Section 19-3-13 deals solely with priority of possession among users of the range, and does not convey any possessory rights or surface rights of any kind in federal lands. And certainly no such rights are statutorily implied from one's status as a holder of water rights. {51} There are, however, two statutes in New Mexico that do address similar types of rights-of-way. The first, NMSA 1978, § 72-1-5 (1981), states in pertinent part: The United States, the state or any person, firm, association or corporation may exercise the right of eminent domain, to take and acquire property [and] right-of-way [rights-of-way] for . . . the storage or conveyance of water for beneficial uses. Accordingly, a right-of-way over private property for the use of a water right is limited to storage or conveyance of the water. If an easement over private land is so limited under New Mexico law, an easement over public lands should not be interpreted more broadly. Thus, while the Walkers might, at least in theory, have the right to move their water to their cattle, it is outside the scope of any statutory right-of-way to move cattle to the water, and incidentally have them graze along the way. {52} NMSA 1978, § 73-2-10 (1953) is also directly contrary to the Walkers' claim. Section 73-2-10 states that [a]ll plants of any description growing on the banks of [public] ditches, or acequias, shall belong to the owners of the land through which said ditches or acequias run. Thus, the grass growing on ditch banks is subject to grazing by the landowner, not the holders of any destination water rights. This statutory provision has historical roots. See Clark, supra, at 26 (discussing the roots of this provision in traditional acequia law). Again, if a right-of-way for enjoyment of a water right through private lands, such as an acequia system, is so limited, there is no reason why a right-of-way through public land would be any broader. [7] {53} We, therefore, hold that the laws of New Mexico do not support the Walkers' claim to a forage right on federal lands implicit in their right-of-way for the maintenance and enjoyment of a vested water right.