OCR Text |
Show PUEBLO WATER RIGHTS IN NEW MEXICO 169 disapproval of the first Cartwright case. His concurrence in the disposition of this particular proceeding was based solely on the construction of the statute mentioned in the majority opinion. The Albuquerque Case This case involved chiefly questions of jurisdiction and procedure applicable to statutory appropriation of ground water that is interrelated with the already fully appropriated surface streamflow of the Rio Grande;94 and the City of Albuquerque injected pueblo rights questions into this proceeding in connec- tion with four applications to the State Engineer for permits to appropriate ground water from the Rio Grande Underground Water Basin for its municipal water supply. Each application referred to and incorporated by reference a separate letter of transmittal in which the city stated its claim that, as the successor to the "Pueblo de Alburquerque y San Francisco Xavier," founded not later than 1706, it had the absolute right to the use of all waters, both ground and surface within its limits, for the use and benefit of its inhabitants and that this claim was not to be considered as waived or abandoned by reason of the filing and prosecution of the applications. At the hearing held by the State Engineer, hydrologic testimony was received, but no evidence was offered at the hearing in support of the city's claim to a pueblo water right. The city's applications for permits were denied, whereupon an appeal was taken to the district court. Over the objection of the State Engineer, the district court received evidence relating to the city's claimed pueblo water right and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law covering this claim as well as other contested questions. Judgment was entered granting the city the absolute right to appropriate and apply to beneficial use such ground waters from the basin as it might need from the four wells in question, without regard to the conditions imposed by the State Engineer. On appeal, the New-Mexico Supreme Court stated that the district court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to the city's claimed pueblo water right, and in its opinion quoted two of the conclusions of law, as follows.95 "4. That the State Engineer has no jurisdiction to impose upon the City of Albuquerque any requirement of retiring surface water rights as a condition precedent to the diversion and use of underground waters forming the subject of the four applications involved in this case, because the said City, as successor of the pueblo', San Felipe de Alburquerque, has an absolute and uncon- ditional right to divert and use so much of the surface and 94Albuquerque v. Reynolds, 71 N. Mex. 428, 379 Pac. (2d) 73 (1963). »5379Pac.(2d) at 75-76. |