Opinion ID: 3179092
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: History of the General Stream Adjudication

Text: This general stream adjudication began in 1966 when the State sued the United States, Pueblo de Nambé, Pueblo de Pojoaque, Pueblo de San Ildefonso, and Pueblo de Tesuque (collectively “Pueblos”), and approximately 1,000 individuals living in the -3- Basin. The lawsuit, styled New Mexico ex rel. State Engineer v. Aamodt, seeks to establish the water rights in the Basin by determining: a. The water rights adjudged each party. b. The source, priority, amount, purpose, periods, and place of use of each [water] right. c. The specific tracts of land to which the water right for irrigation is appurtenant. d. Such other matters as may be necessary to define a particular right and its priority. N.M. Aplee. Suppl. App. at 9. Since the beginning of the adjudication, approximately 3,000 individuals who claim water rights in the Basin have been named as defendants. Although it was initially a defendant, “[t]he United States, on its own behalf and on behalf of the Pueblos, intervened to remove any immunity problem and was aligned as plaintiff.” New Mexico ex rel. State Eng’r v. Aamodt, 537 F.2d 1102, 1105 (10th Cir. 1976). The Pueblos later retained private counsel to represent them. Id. at 1107. In 1983, the district court entered an order enjoining the State from issuing domestic well permits unless the permits limited the use of underground water to household purposes only. In 1985, Ms. Trujillo’s predecessor-in-interest received a domestic well permit. The permit limited underground water use in accordance with the 1983 injunction (household purposes only and no irrigation) and allowed a maximum use -4- of 3.0 acre-feet per year (“AFY”).1 The parties and the district court refer to the permits issued after the 1983 injunction as the post-1982 permits. In 1994, the district court directed a special master to join all post-1982 permit holders as defendants and to determine their water rights based on the doctrine of beneficial use. The New Mexico Constitution states, “The unappropriated water of every natural stream, perennial or torrential, within the state of New Mexico, is hereby declared to belong to the public and to be subject to appropriation for beneficial use, in accordance with the laws of the state. Priority of appropriation shall give the better right.” N.M. Const. art. XVI, § 2. It also provides that beneficial use is “the basis, the measure and the limit of the right to the use of water.” N.M. Const. art. XVI, § 3. To obtain water rights in New Mexico, a party must appropriate water for beneficial use, which entails “the use of such water as may be necessary for some useful and beneficial purpose in connection with the land from which it is taken.” State ex rel. Erickson v. McLean, 308 P.2d 983, 988 (N.M. 1957). In a separate 1994 order, the district court amended all post-1982 permits, which included Ms. Trujillo’s permit, to limit water use to either 3.0 AFY or “the historic beneficial use, whichever is less.” Pueblo Suppl. App. at 79. 1 An acre-foot is a unit of volume commonly used to measure an amount of water and denotes “the quantity of water required to cover an acre to a depth of one foot.” Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423, 460 n.12 (1931). -5- In 2006, the district court entered an order requiring all post-1982 permit holders to show cause: 1. Why the [permit holder’s] water rights under a post-1982 domestic well permit should not be adjudicated in the quantity of 0.5 acre feet per annum; and 2. Why the [permit holder’s] water rights under a post-1982 well permit should not otherwise be adjudicated consistent with the terms of the domestic well permit. N.M. Aplee. Suppl. App. at 10-11. In the motion seeking the foregoing order to show cause, the State proposed a limit of 0.5 AFY based on the typical use of domestic well water statewide, even though evidence of domestic well water usage by post-1982 permit holders reflected a lower average of 0.3 AFY.