OCR Text |
Show PUEBLO WATER RIGHTS IN NEW MEXICO 159 the city of Santa Fe had the right-regardless of the prior appropriation and beneficial use by others-to take from the Santa Fe creek from time to time all the water that may be needed at such time for the use of the inhabitants of said city and for all municipal and public uses and purposes therein." On appeal the New Mexico Supreme Court64 considered the origin and nature of the pueblo water right as declared in the California cases, and pointed out that in several such cases reference had been made to grants under Spanish and Mexican law as the source of the pueblo water right. Extensive quotations were taken from an opinion of the United States Supreme Court in a case involving the right of the City of Santa Fe to the lands upon which it is situated.65 With respect to the asserted "pueblo right" of Santa Fe, the New Mexico Supreme Court concluded:66 It appears to have been definitely settled by this decision [United States v. Santa Fe] that there was no grant made by the Spanish King to the Villa de Santa Fe. Without a grant, the Villa de Santa Fe had no pueblo right. We have found neither decision nor text suggesting that a mere colony of "squatters" could acquire under the Spanish law this extraordinary power over the waters of an entire nonnavigable stream known as "pueblo right," even though they were organized as a pueblo-which is the equivalent of the English word "town"-with a full quota of officers. The Supreme Court of the United States held, in effect, that the occupancy of the pueblo by the Spanish military and governmental authorities conferred no title on the inhabitants. Effect of the Earlier Decisions Neither of the two foregoing decisions relating to claims of pueblo water rights for Tularosa and Santa Fe is authority either for or against the principle that the pueblo rights doctrine obtained in New Mexico during the first half of the present century. The supreme court did not hold or intimate that some other municipality in the State which originated as a pueblo might or might not qualify for an adjudicated pueblo water right. What it held was that neither Tularosa nor Santa Fe possessed the qualifications requisite to such an adjudication. This was emphasized in the opinion in the Cartwright case wherein the supreme court said, in part,67 105, 287 Pac. 475 (1930), and to Los Angeles Fanning & Mill. Co. v. Los Angeles, 217 U.S. 217(1910). "42 N. Mex. at 315-318. 65 United States v. Santa Fe, 165 U.S. 675,676-678,691-692, 707 (1897). M42N.Mex.at318. "Cartwright v. Public Sen. Co. of N. Mex., 66 N. Mex. 64, 80-81, 343 Pac. (2d) 654 (1959). |