| OCR Text |
Show 746 of riparian owners was not in force in that jurisdiction;m that the law of prior appropriation had existed under the Republic of Mexico and had been the settled law of the Territory by legislation, custom, and judicial decision;198 and that the appropriation doctrine had superseded the riparian doctrine as a matter of necessity arising from the climatic and agricultural conditions of the region.199 The State supreme court has held to the same effect.200 New Mexico, while not the first State to enact ground-water legisla- tion, has pioneered in this field in that its ground-water administrative statute, after having been declared unconstitutional and subsequently reenacted in corrected form, was the first of the Western State ground- water statutes to be put into active operation and has set the pattern for much of the subsequent legislation in that field in the West. The first New Mexico statute, enacted in 1927,201 was declared invalid in Yeo v. Tweedy202 because it violated a constitutional prohibition against legislation by mere reference to title of preexisting legislation. However, the supreme court held in that case that the 1927 statute, while objectionable in form, was declaratory of existing law, was not subversive of vested rights of owners of lands overlying the waters of an artesian basin the boundaries of which had been ascertained, and was fundamentally sound. At the ensuing session of the legislature the present law was enacted; and it has been amended or supplemented subsequently in various particulars.203 This law provides that the waters of underground streams, channels, artesian basins, reservoirs, or lakes, having reasonably ascertainable boundaries, belong to the public and are subject to appropriation. Intending appropriators for irrigation or industrial uses of water must first make application to the State Engineer for permits. Claimants of vested ground-water rights may file declarations of their claims. Water rights not exercised for four years are forfeited. In certain instances artesian conservancy districts and the State Engineer have concurrent authority in regulating the installation and use of artesian wells.204 m Trambleyv. Luterman, 6 N. Mex. 15, 25, 27 Pac. 312 (1891). 198 United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irr. Co., 9 N. Mex. 292, 306, 51 Pac. 674 (1898). 188 Albuquerque Land & Irr. Co. v. Gutierrez, 10 N. Mex. 177, 236-237, 61 Pac. 357 (1900); Hagerman Irr. Co. v. McMurry, 16 N. Mex. 172, 181-182, 113 Pac. 823 (1911). 200 Snow v. Abalos, 18 N. Mex. 681, 693, 140 Pac. 1044 (1914); Carlsbad Irr. Dist. v. Ford,46 N. Mex. 335, 341,128 Pac. (2d) 1047 (1942). 201N. Mex. Laws 1927, ch. 182. 202 Yeo v. Tweedy, 34 N. Mex. 611, 286 Pac. 970 (1930). ¦"N. Mex. Laws 1931, ch. 131; Stats. 1941, Ann., §§ 77-1101 to 77-1111; Laws 1943, ch. 70; Laws 1947, ch. 21; Laws 1949, ch. 178. 204 N. Mex. Stats. 1941, Ann., §§ 77-1201 to 77-1212. See Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist. v. Peters, 50 N. Mex. 165, 183, 173 Pac. (2d) 490 (1945,1946). |
