State ex rel. Reynolds v. Niccum
| Decision Date | 18 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 14810,14810 |
| Citation | 102 N.M. 330,1985 NMSC 16,695 P.2d 480 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, ex rel. S.E. REYNOLDS, State Engineer, and Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Forrest NICCUM and Rose Ranch, Inc., d/b/a Hondo Ranch, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
The State of New Mexico brought suit in Chaves County to adjudicate water rights in the Rio Hondo, Rio Ruidoso and Rio Bonito stream systems, all tributaries of the Pecos River in the Pecos Valley Artesian Basin. Twice the matter was referred by the court to special masters and hearings were held in 1976 and 1981. Both special masters, after hearing relevant evidence, came to similar conclusions supporting the State Engineer's allocation of water to defendants Forrest Niccum (Niccum) and the Hondo Ranch. The trial court upheld the findings and conclusions of the special masters. We affirm.
The key issue is whether or not there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the special masters that the formula to determine "water duty" was correctly applied to the Niccum property. The threshold question is whether the formula used by the State Engineer was correctly applied to the stream users. Niccum maintains that if the formula was not correctly applied, then the result is an unconstitutional taking of his property rights without just compensation.
The State Engineer, to determine the correct water duty, prepared a hydrographic survey which grouped users according to the source of their water rights. Using a nationally recognized and proven formula, the State Engineer allotted water duty along each stream. The formula was developed to determine "consumptive use" water by irrigated crops. See Determining Water Requirements For Settling Water Disputes, 4 N.R.J. 29 (1964). The formula uses a procedure to estimate water requirements and may be used to:
transpose observed consumptive use data from one area to other areas for which only climatological data are available. The amount of water supplied from natural sources is subtracted from the computed total consumptive use, giving the net consumptive irrigation water requirement that must be met for optimum crop production. This net requirement, divided by the irrigation efficiency, gives the irrigation water requirement of the crop.
Id. at 31. The numbers used in the formula were based on the average needs of the group of users along each stream, not on the needs of one particular stream user.
After reviewing the formula, the methodology used, and after receiving evidence concerning climate and soil variations, both special masters found that the averaging of water duties of user's along a particular source stream was an appropriate and reasonable procedure for determining Niccum's water duty.
Niccum does not quarrel with the State Engineer's choice of formula. Additionally, he agrees that the application of a uniform average duty along a particular source stream is appropriate if climatological and other crucial data is similar along the stream. Niccum argues that it is essential to the proper use of the formula that the group being averaged is homogeneous. He asserts that the group selected by the State Engineer has wide variations as to elevation, rainfall, natural vegetation, cropping patterns, slope and soil measurements. His position is that the lack of homogeneity of the group makes the formula inoperative and unfair to the downstream users. He maintains that the downstream land, where his Hondo Ranch is located, is more arid and the field irrigation is less efficient, thus, he contends his ranch requires more water than the upstream ranches that receive heavier rainfall and have better soil.
Niccum purports that the correct use of the formula in the instant case would be on a site by site basis. He argues that the methodology used in applying the formula here destroys the scientific accuracy of the formula, because the averaging of the needs of the stream users was done without consideration for the differences in elevation and rainfall. The special masters made findings that a site by site application of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Office of the State Eng'r v. Romero
...as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." State ex rel. Reynolds v. Niccum , 1985-NMSC-016, ¶ 9, 102 N.M. 330, 695 P.2d 480 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, "[t]he [special] master’s findings are presumed to be correct and so far as the......
-
Lozano v. GTE Lenkurt, Inc.
...will be upheld on appeal if the special master's findings are supported by substantial evidence. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Niccum, 102 N.M. 330, 332-33, 695 P.2d 480, 482-83 (1985). 16. The standard of review a district court applies to the adoption of a special master's report differs depe......
- State ex rel. Garcia v. Dayton
-
State v. Goode
...clearly erroneous, so will not be reversed); Gamble v. State, 257 Ga. 325, 357 S.E.2d 792 (1987) (same); cf. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Niccum, 102 N.M. 330, 695 P.2d 480 (1985) (equating "clearly erroneous" standard of review with "substantial evidence" Neither Batson nor Sandoval provide g......