AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Defendants, co-owners of land acquired in 1881, faced a legal challenge regarding the abandonment and forfeiture of their water rights. The land, affected by a flood in 1884, became isolated, complicating access. Despite historical irrigation, the land had not been farmed nor had water been beneficially used since 1956. Defendants argued that physical access difficulties justified their non-use of water rights. The State Engineer pursued forfeiture and abandonment claims against the Defendants' water rights, leading to a legal dispute over the constitutionality and applicability of water rights forfeiture and abandonment laws.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Jerald A. Valentine, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, August 6, 2012, No. 33,646.
• Released for Publication September 25, 2012.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State Engineer): Argued that Defendants' non-use of water rights since 1956 constituted abandonment and forfeiture under New Mexico law, unaffected by constitutional protections or the date of original appropriation.
• Defendants-Appellants: Contended that their non-use of water rights was justified due to access difficulties and that statutory forfeiture violated the New Mexico Constitution. They also argued that the State Engineer lacked authority for forfeiture actions before 1981 and disputed the court's findings on land access and the amount of land in question.

Legal Issues

• Whether Defendants' water rights were subject to statutory forfeiture and abandonment.
• Whether statutory forfeiture violates the New Mexico Constitution, Article XVI, Sections 1 and 2.
• Whether the State Engineer has statutory authority to pursue forfeiture for events occurring prior to 1981.
• Whether the district court erred in its findings regarding the amount of land, access to the property, and the standard of proof applied.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order adopting the special master’s report and denying Defendants' objections.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jonathan B. Sutin, with Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo and Judge Timothy L. Garcia concurring, held that:
  The forfeiture of water rights due to non-use is consistent with New Mexico's prior appropriation doctrine and statutory law, which mandates beneficial use as the basis for maintaining water rights (paras 14-17).
  Defendants' arguments regarding the constitutional protection of pre-1911 water rights and the State Engineer's authority were not persuasive. The court found no basis to exempt Defendants' early-acquired water rights from statutory forfeiture (paras 13-18).
  The court rejected Defendants' claims about the lack of substantial evidence supporting the district court's findings on land access and the amount of land, emphasizing that substantial evidence supported the court's conclusions (paras 20-27).
  The court also dismissed Defendants' contention regarding their demand for a jury trial, noting the special statutory proceeding nature of water right forfeiture proceedings, which does not inherently include a right to a jury trial (paras 28-29).