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 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (the Water Authority) sought to change the purpose and place of use for certain water rights it had held for approximately forty years. These rights were associated with land that had been converted into permanent roadways, ceasing its use as irrigated land. The Water Authority's application for this change initiated an administrative proceeding known as the Transfer Hearing (para 2).

Procedural History

• Transfer Hearing: The Water Authority's application to change the use and purpose of the water rights was initially recommended for denial by the hearing examiner on the basis of forfeiture, despite the Water Authority and the Water Right’s Division of the Office of the State Engineer (WRD) arguing in favor of the application (para 3).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court found in favor of the Water Authority, granting its motion for summary judgment and denying the State Engineer's motion. The court also issued a permit for the transfer application (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Water Authority: Argued that the doctrine of abandonment was inapplicable and unsupported by the record at the Transfer Hearing. They maintained that the water rights were valid and transferable, and that they had not intended to abandon these rights (para 6).
• State Engineer: Conceded that the water rights had not been forfeited but argued that they were abandoned as a matter of law due to not being put to beneficial use for over forty years. Additionally, the State Engineer contended that there were disputed issues of material fact and that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the transfer permit (paras 8, 10, 15, 18).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Water Authority abandoned the water rights by not using them for an extended period.
• Whether there were disputed issues of material fact that would preclude summary judgment.
• Whether the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the transfer permit (paras 8, 10, 15, 19).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Water Authority.
• The Court of Appeals reversed the part of the district court's order that issued a transfer permit to the Water Authority and remanded the matter to the State Engineer for the issuance of the transfer permit (para 22).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found no evidence of the Water Authority's intent to abandon the water rights, noting that abandonment requires an intent to relinquish a right, which was not demonstrated in this case (para 11). The court also determined that the State Engineer failed to preserve the argument of abandonment for review, as it was not raised during the Transfer Hearing or before the district court (para 14). Regarding the State Engineer's claim of disputed material facts, the court concluded that the State Engineer only addressed the legal effect of undisputed facts, which does not suffice to establish a genuine issue for trial (para 18). Lastly, the court agreed with the State Engineer that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the transfer permit, as determining the appropriate conditions for such a permit falls within the State Engineer's original jurisdiction (para 19).