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

• Horace Bounds, a rancher and farmer in the Mimbres basin, New Mexico, challenged the constitutionality of the New Mexico Domestic Well Statute (DWS), which mandates the State Engineer to issue domestic well permits without assessing the availability of unappropriated water. Bounds argued that this statute violates the New Mexico constitutional doctrine of prior appropriation and due process of law. Despite utilizing the statute's permitting process for his own wells, Bounds sought a declaratory judgment to declare the DWS unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent the issuance of new domestic well permits under the DWS (paras 1-5).

Procedural History

• District Court: Found the DWS unconstitutional as it creates an exception to the priority administration system without considering the availability of unappropriated water or the priority of appropriated water (para 7).
• Court of Appeals: Reversed the district court's decision, holding that the DWS does not violate the doctrine of prior appropriation or due process of law in the New Mexico Constitution (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners (Bounds and New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau): Argued that the DWS violates the New Mexico constitutional doctrine of prior appropriation and due process of law by requiring the State Engineer to issue domestic well permits without determining the availability of unappropriated water, to the detriment of senior water users (paras 1, 3).
• Respondents (State of New Mexico and New Mexico State Engineer): Contended that the DWS is a clear expression of legislative intent to treat certain necessary water uses differently and does not violate the New Mexico Constitution (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the New Mexico Domestic Well Statute violates the doctrine of prior appropriation set forth in the New Mexico Constitution (para 10).
• Whether the New Mexico Domestic Well Statute violates the guarantees of due process of law (para 10).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the DWS does not violate either the doctrine of prior appropriation or the guarantees of due process of law in the New Mexico Constitution (para 56).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Justice Richard C. Bosson, held that the DWS, which simplifies the permitting process for domestic wells, does not conflict with the New Mexico Constitution's doctrine of prior appropriation because it pertains to the permitting process rather than water right administration. The Court found that domestic well permits are subject to the same priority administration as other water rights, ensuring protection for senior water users. The Court also addressed the due process challenge, concluding that without a proven threat to water rights, there can be no due process violation. The Court emphasized the Legislature's role in making policy choices regarding water appropriation and urged diligence in protecting senior water users' rights. The Court disagreed with certain observations made by the Court of Appeals regarding the priority doctrine but affirmed the facial constitutionality of the DWS (paras 26-55).