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

• The case involves a dispute over water rights related to the development of a copper mine in New Mexico. The project, spanning over fifty years, faced various economic, financial, logistical, and legal challenges, leading to periods of inactivity and changes in ownership. The appellants, including Harris Gray, William Frost, and New Mexico Copper Corporation, sought to assert water rights for the mine, which had been declared but not put to beneficial use, and contested the adjudication court's finding of abandonment for some of these rights. Cross-appellants argued for a broader finding of abandonment due to non-use (paras 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-20, 22-24, 26-28, 30-32, 34-35, 37-38, 40-41, 43-44, 46-47, 49-50, 52-53, 55-56, 58-59, 61-62, 64-65, 67-68, 70-71, 73-74, 76-77, 79-80, 82-83, 85-86, 88-89, 91-92, 94-95, 97-98, 100-101, 103-104, 106-107, 109-110, 112-113, 115-116, 118-119).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County, February 28, 2018: Recognized a vested right in Frost & Gray to use 861.84 acre-feet per year of water for mining-related purposes and 3 acre-feet per year for livestock purposes. Denied all other relief to Frost & Gray. Granted New Mexico Copper 34.45 acre-feet per year from the so-called open-pit for dust control (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that the adjudication court erred in not recognizing their Mendenhall rights and in concluding they had forfeited or abandoned all rights attached to the thirteen miscellaneous wells on the site (para 34).
• Cross-Appellants: Requested the court to conclude that Appellants abandoned all of their vested rights through non-use (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the adjudication court erred in refusing to recognize appellants' Mendenhall rights in water declared but not put to beneficial use.
• Whether the adjudication court correctly concluded that appellants abandoned their rights in some of the wells.
• Whether appellants abandoned all of their vested rights through non-use.

Disposition

• Affirmed in part and reversed in part the adjudication court's decision regarding the recognition of vested water rights and the finding of abandonment for some water rights (paras 122-123).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the adjudication court did not err in its application of the doctrine of relation and its diligence requirement to the complex project of developing a copper mine. It also found that the adjudication court correctly concluded that appellants did not abandon their vested rights in the production wells but erred in finding abandonment with regard to the miscellaneous wells. The Court of Appeals reversed the adjudication court's ruling granting New Mexico Copper 34.45 acre-feet per year from the open pit for dust control and remanded for reconsideration. The decision was based on the unique factual circumstances of the case, the application of the doctrine of relation, and the legal and equitable considerations involved in determining abandonment and forfeiture of water rights (paras 34-35, 37-38, 40-41, 43-44, 46-47, 49-50, 52-53, 55-56, 58-59, 61-62, 64-65, 67-68, 70-71, 73-74, 76-77, 79-80, 82-83, 85-86, 88-89, 91-92, 94-95, 97-98, 100-101, 103-104, 106-107, 109-110, 112-113, 115-116, 118-119).