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 revolves around a dispute over a water right associated with "railroad operations" (Railroad Right) in the defunct town of Cutter, which was conveyed to Petitioner Toby Romero in 1994 along with a parcel of land and a well. Romero claimed a water right of 394.85 acre-feet per year for "railroad and livestock purposes," based on the peak operation of the railroad in 1944. This claim was significantly higher than a later hydrographic survey's calculation of three acre-feet per year for livestock watering. The railroad's use of the well ceased around 1960, and Romero's subsequent attempts to utilize or market the water right led to a legal dispute over the extent of the right and its forfeiture due to nonuse (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that his use of three acre-feet per year of water for livestock purposes preserves the claimed 394.85 acre-feet per year water right, opposing the notion of partial forfeiture of the water right due to nonuse (paras 1, 7).
• Respondent: Supported the special master’s findings of nonuse by Petitioner resulting in forfeiture and argued for the constitutionality and applicability of partial forfeiture under New Mexico’s groundwater forfeiture statute (paras 1, 7, 13-22).

Legal Issues

• Whether an owner of a groundwater right may forfeit part or all of a claimed water right due to nonuse.
• Whether any use, no matter how small, preserves the right to the whole claimed water right.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals' interpretation of the groundwater forfeiture statute is affirmed, supporting partial forfeiture of the water right due to nonuse (para 1).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico, per Justice Thomson, held that New Mexico’s groundwater forfeiture statute allows for partial forfeiture of water rights due to nonuse, aligning with the constitutional doctrine of beneficial use as the basis, measure, and limit of a water right. The Court emphasized the importance of beneficial use in water law policy and rejected theories of water ownership that do not account for the possibility of forfeiture. The decision was based on a harmonious reading of the groundwater and surface water forfeiture statutes, legislative intent, and the constitutional requirement that water rights be measured by beneficial use. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the special master’s findings of nonuse by Petitioner, leading to the forfeiture of the unused portion of the claimed water right (paras 9-22).