Heine v. Reynolds
Decision Date | 02 January 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 6845,6845 |
Citation | 1962 NMSC 2,367 P.2d 708,69 N.M. 398 |
Parties | B. F. HEINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. E. REYNOLDS, State Engineer, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
John Jennings, Roswell, for appellant.
Hilton A. Dickson, Jr., Atty. Gen., Charles D. Harris, Sp. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, owner of an artesian water right in the Roswell Artesian Basin, made application to the state engineer, the appellee, to change the location of a well and the place of use of the water right. The application was denied by the appellee on the ground that it would impair existing rights. Appeal was taken by appellant-applicant to the district court of Chaves County under the provisions of Secs. 75-11-10 and 75-6-1, N.M.S.A.1953.
The district court affirmed the denial of the application, and made the following pertinent findings of fact:
'3. That the State Engineer did not act arbitrarily, capriciously nor contrary to law in denying said application.
Upon appellant's motion, finding No. 4 above was amended by the court in the following language 'It is, Therefore, the Order of the Court that the Court's Finding of Fact No. 4 be, and the same hereby is, amended to state that the impairment of existing rights referred to in the Court's original Finding of Fact No. 4 would not be a substantial impairment of those rights.'
Appellant's single point on appeal is to the effect that Sec. 75-11-7, N.M.S.A.1953, should be construed to include the bracketed word below. The pertinent part of Sec. 75-11-7, N.M.S.A.1953, reads:
'The owner of a water right may change the location of his well or change the use of the water, but only upon application to the state engineer and upon showing that such change or changes will not [substantially] impair existing rights and to be granted only after such advertisement and hearing as are prescribed in the case of original applications.'
Appellant argues that, on the basis of reasonableness, the word 'substantially' must be construed to be inherent in the above statute. Otherwise, he argues, any impairment, even on de minimus, would be sufficient to sustain a denial of a change of location. The statute, of course, does not discuss de minimus impairments; it merely provides that the applicant must show that the change 'will not impair existing rights.' This showing is to be made to the state engineer. It appears that the state engineer has no authority, under the statute, to grant such a change if there is impairment to existing rights. Of what effect, then, are findings of the state engineer concerning the impairment of existing rights? Section 75-6-1, N.M.S.A.1953, reads in part:
'The proceeding upon appeal shall be de novo, except evidence taken in hearing before state engineer may be considered as original evidence, subject to legal objection the same as if said evidence was originally offered in such district court, * * *.'
While there are no direct holdings by this court on this issue, we feel that we have sufficiently indicated, in the past, the path we would choose when the issue was squarely presented. In Spencer v. Bliss, 1955, 30 N.M. 16, 287 P.2d 221, 228, we stated:
'A case much like the present and relied upon strongly by the defendant, is Manning v. Perry, 48 Ariz. 425, 62 P.2d 693, 695, mentioned next above. It contains language in which we can find little to criticize, if we should be called upon to speak decisively on the question discussed, as we are not in view of the conclusion reached. In that case the Supreme Court of Arizona, without denying the appeal to the district court character as a trial de novo, would decline to overturn the decision of the State Engineer, unless it 'be without support of the evidence, or is contrary to the evidence, or is the result of fraud or misapplication of the law.'
* * *
* * *
In Application of Brown, 1958, 65 N.M. 74, 332 P.2d 475, 479, the appellants drilled a new well on a new location and then sought the approval of the state engineer for the move. After publication and hearing, the state engineer granted the application for the change, over the objections of protestants-appellees. The latter's appeal to the district court was denied, and on appeal to this court we reversed and remanded the case to the district court. That court granted summary judgment for the appellees on the ground that the state engineer could not approve such an application, in effect, retroactively. On the second appeal to this court, we stated:
(Emphasis added.)
In Clodfelter v. Reynolds, 1961, 68 N.M. 61, 358 P.2d 626, 630, we stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carangelo v. Albuquerque-Bernalillo Cnty. Water Util. Auth.
...¶ 15, 141 N.M. 21, 150 P.3d 971 (discussing rules promulgated by the OSE to ensure compliance with the Compact); Heine v. Reynolds, 1962–NMSC–002, 69 N.M. 398, 367 P.2d 708 (holding that the OSE has a positive duty to determine whether an application impairs existing water rights). In Montg......
-
Wilson v. Employment Sec. Commission
...of review approved by us in Johnson v. Sanchez, 67 N.M. 41, 351 P.2d 449; Yarbrough v. Montoya, 54 N.M. 91, 214 P.2d 769; Heine v. Reynolds, 69 N.M. 398, 367 P.2d 708; Continental Oil Company v. Oil Conservation Commission, 70 N.M. 310, 373 P.2d 809; and most recently restated in Kelley v. ......
-
Fellows v. Shultz
...the state engineer. Even though the review by the district court, in this case, was prior to the decision of this court in Heine v. Reynolds, 69 N.M. 398, 367 P.2d 708 and Continental Oil Co. v. Oil Conservation Commission, 70 N.M. 310, 373 P.2d 809, we had clearly indicated in Spencer v. B......
-
Board of Ed., School Dist. 16, Artesia, Eddy County v. Standhardt
...with the other findings. It is our duty to indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of the judgment. Heine v. Reynolds, 69 N.M. 398, 367 P.2d 708 (1962); cf. Morris v. Merchant, 77 N.M. 411, 423 P.2d 606 (1967). We will not undertake to search the mind of the trial court to det......
-
CHAPTER 6 WATER RIGHTS ISSUES IN THE IN SITU LEACH MINING OF URANIUM IN NEW MEXICO
...[42] 77 N.M. 239, 421 P.2d 771 (1966). [43] 106 N.M. 775, 750 P.2d 475 (Ct. App. 1988). [44] 77 N.M. at 245, citing Heine v. Reynolds, 69 N.M. 398, 367 P. 2d 708 (1962). [45] See e.g., Heine v. Reynolds, 69 N.M. 398, 367 P.2d 708 (1962); City of Roswell v. Berry, 80 N.M. 110, 452 P.2d 179 (......
-
CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AND BASIC CONCEPTS OF WATER LAW
...Ann. § 72-12-3(e) . [38] N.M. Stat. Ann. § 72-12-3(f) . [39] McBee v. Reynolds, 74 N.M. 783, 399 P. 2d 110 (1965); Heine v. Reynolds, 69 N.M. 398, 367 P. 2d 708 (1962). [40] 1976-1978 N.M. St. Eng., Thirty-Third Biennial Rept. at 4. [41] Mathers v. Texaco, Inc., 77 N.M. 239, 421 P. 2d 771 (......