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 groundwater rights in the Lower Rio Grande Basin, originally established by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad Company (the Railroad) for various uses, including steam locomotives. The Defendant, Toby Romero, acquired the property where the well was located, aiming to sell the water rights. Despite historical usage and a declaration of groundwater rights filed by Romero, the State argued that the property had no water right, leading to a legal dispute over the existence and extent of these rights (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County, James J. Wechsler, District Judge: The special master’s report, which determined that Defendant’s underground water rights were forfeited and abandoned except for a portion used for livestock purposes, was adopted (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the special master erred in finding the Railroad forfeited and abandoned the non-livestock portion of the Railroad Right (para 15).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether New Mexico’s forfeiture statute permits partial forfeiture of water rights (para 19).
• Whether substantial evidence supports the special master’s findings regarding beneficial use and forfeiture of the Railroad Right (para 32).

Disposition

• The district court’s decision to adopt the special master’s report, which found that Defendant’s underground water rights were forfeited and abandoned except for a portion used for livestock purposes, was affirmed (para 42).

Reasons

• The Court concluded that Section 72-12-8(A) provides for partial forfeiture of water rights, aligning with the legislative intent, policy considerations, and the State Engineer’s interpretation of the statute. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the special master’s findings that the non-livestock portion of the Railroad Right was not beneficially used between December 31, 1960, and December 31, 1964, and was therefore subject to forfeiture. The Court did not address Defendant’s other arguments regarding the applicability of forfeiture, as they were either not raised on appeal or lacked sufficient development for review (paras 19-41).