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 concerning the rights of several landowners to irrigate their properties using water from the Acequia Mesa del Medio (the Acequia) and the governing body's role in water distribution. The district court ruled against the Plaintiffs-Appellants, finding that the Acequia Mesa del Medio (AMM) had the authority to distribute water based on custom, that the Lujans owned only a portion of a decreed water right, failed to show a constitutionally protected property interest for their due process claim, and must pay AMM’s expert costs and attorney’s fees (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that AMM must distribute water in accordance with the Chacon Decree rather than the derecho system, claimed ownership of a decreed water right for 42.2 acres, and alleged a violation of procedural due process due to changes in irrigation time (paras 12-13).
• Defendants-Appellees: Contended that AMM had the authority to distribute water based on custom, that the Lujans did not own the entire decreed water right, and that the Lujans did not have a constitutionally protected property interest to support their due process claim (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Acequia Mesa del Medio (AMM) has the authority to distribute water to its members based on custom.
• Whether the Lujans owned the entire decreed water right or only a portion of it.
• Whether the Lujans had a constitutionally protected property interest that supported their due process claim.
• Whether the Lujans are responsible for paying AMM’s expert costs and attorney’s fees (para 1).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's decision, supporting AMM's authority to distribute water based on custom, the partial ownership of the decreed water right by the Lujans, the absence of a constitutionally protected property interest for the due process claim, and the Lujans' responsibility for AMM’s expert costs and attorney’s fees (para 2).

Reasons

• The court concluded that the district court correctly distinguished between irrigation water rights and ditch rights, correctly rejected the Lujans’ arguments about the relationship between these rights, and did not err in its decisions regarding the Lujans’ due process claim, expert costs, or attorney’s fees. The court found no merit in the Lujans' arguments that the adjudication of water rights in the Chacon Decree superseded or conflicted with AMM’s use of the derecho system to distribute water or that the derecho system was incompatible with the prior appropriation doctrine. The court also determined that the district court did not overstep its jurisdiction by enforcing the Decree rather than readjudicating water rights and that the Lujans did not establish a constitutionally protected property interest for their due process claim. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the award of expert fees and attorney’s fees to AMM (paras 17-50).