OCR Text |
Show 162 THE PUEBLO WATER RIGHT reasons which brought the Supreme Court of California to uphold and enforce the Pueblo Rights doctrine apply with as much force in New Mexico as they do in California."78 Authorities on Which the Cartwright Decision Rests The authorities on which the New Mexico Supreme Court based its original decision in the Cartwright case may be briefly and accurately summarized as the California Supreme Court decisions in the pueblo water rights cases. It is true that the opinion of the court in the Cartwright case includes a long quotation from Kinney on Irrigation and Water Rights and shorter ones from Wiel on Water Rights, Corpus Juris, and American Jurisprudence.79 However, the only authorities cited by the writers of the quoted paragraphs to support their statements are the California decisions. None of the statements so quoted, and none of the statements made by the New Mexico court in the Cartwright case, are supported by any specifically cited Spanish or Mexican law, regulation, or text to the effect that a pueblo was endowed on its creation with "this extraordinary power over the waters of an entire nonnavigable stream known as 'pueblo right' . . . . "m The reason given for the New Mexico court's adoption of the pueblo water rights doctrine of the California court was not that the New Mexico court had examined the basic Spanish-American authorities and believed that the doctrine has a solid foundation in Spanish or Mexican law; it was the New Mexico court's conclusion that the reasons for adoption in California apply with equal force in New Mexico.81 The minority's dissenting opinion severely and plausibly criticized the basis of the California doctrine. The majority decision accepted the California doctrine with full approval, and applied it to the settlement of the instant controversy. District Judge Federici wrote three dissenting opinions-on the original judgment of the court, the order denying motion for rehearing, and the order denying a second motion for rehearing. Judge Federici's disapproval related to most or all of the points in the original opinion written by Justice Sadler. One of these points is the instant topic-acceptability of the California pueblo rights doctrine-concerning which Judge Federici listed his many objections to following the California cases. Among other things, he quoted from sections 7 7866N. Mex. at 80-85. 7966 N. Mex. at 81-84, citing Kinney, C. S., "A Treatise on the Law of Irrigation and Water Rights," 2d ed., vol. 3, pp. 2591-93 (1912); Wiel, S. C, "Water Rights in the Western States," 3d ed., vol. 1, p. 68 (1911); 67 C. J. Waters § 462 (1934); 56 Am. Jur. Waterworks § 45 (1947). *°New Mexico Products Co. v. New Mexico Power Co., 42 N. Mex. 311, 318, 77 Pac. (2d) 634 (1937). 81 Cartwright v. Public Serv. Co. of N. Mex., 66 N. Mex. 64, 84-85, 343 Pac. (2d) 654 (1958). |