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

• Appellants, Intrepid Potash, Inc., and its associated entities, sought to modify the point of diversion and the purpose of use for water rights that had been dormant for decades. These rights were originally granted for industrial use at a refinery in Loving, New Mexico, which was shut down in 1973. Despite receiving numerous extensions to put these water rights to beneficial use, the appellants did not utilize them and eventually sought to change their use. The underlying proceedings involved objections to these changes by various parties, leading to a district court ruling that the appellants had forfeited or abandoned their water rights, except for a small portion allowed to another entity.

Procedural History

• State ex rel. Office of the State Engineer v. Intrepid Potash, Inc., A-1-CA-40372 (Case 1): District court concluded appellants forfeited all Pecos River water rights in excess of 5,813.6 acre-feet per year and abandoned all but 150 acre-feet per year of the remaining water rights.
• Carlsbad Irrigation District v. D’Antonio, A-1-CA-39378 (Case 2): District court denied appellants' joint motion to intervene and their subsequent motion for reconsideration in the writ of mandamus action filed by objectors against the New Mexico State Engineer.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that the district court deprived them of due process in adjudicating their water rights as forfeited and abandoned, and erred in denying their joint motion to intervene in the mandamus action.
• Appellees: Contended that appellants were given notice and an opportunity to be heard, thus no due process violation occurred, and that the trial provided appellants sufficient opportunity to present their case.

Legal Issues

• Whether appellants were deprived of due process in the adjudication of their water rights as forfeited and abandoned.
• Whether the district court erred in denying appellants' joint motion to intervene in the mandamus action.

Disposition

• The district court's conclusion that appellants forfeited or abandoned their water rights was affirmed.
• The issue of whether the district court erred in denying appellants' motion to intervene was dismissed as moot.

Reasons

• The Court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's decision that appellants had forfeited or abandoned their water rights due to nonuse and lack of beneficial use, thus not violating their due process rights. The appellants' failure to beneficially use the water rights for an extended period, despite having opportunities to do so, led to the forfeiture and abandonment under New Mexico water law. The Court also determined that since the appellants no longer possessed the water rights in question, their appeal regarding the denial of the motion to intervene in the mandamus action was moot. The Court considered the procedural history, the appellants' and appellees' submissions, and the legal framework governing water rights in New Mexico to affirm the district court's rulings.