OCR Text |
Show 170 THE PUEBLO WATER RIGHT underground waters of the Rio Grande as is necessary for its use and that of its inhabitants. "11. That the State Engineer has no power to impair or disturb the ancient water rights of the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, which were vested and existed prior to 1907." The State Engineer contended that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the city's pueblo right claim, and that the district court on appeal had no greater jurisdiction in the matter. The supreme court agreed with the State Engineer. On this issue the supreme court stated in part that96 It is apparent that the city has attempted by this proceeding to secure an adjudication as to the validity of its claimed pueblo water right without notice of any kind to other appropriators of Rio Grande Stream and Basin Waters and none of these appropriators are parties hereto. * * * * It is fundamental to say that due process requires notice and hearing so that those who are to be bound or affected by a judgment may have their day in court. * * * The district court, in this proceeding, clearly had no jurisdiction to consider and adjudicate the claimed pueblo water right. We therefore hold that all of the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the district court, relating to the Pueblo of San Felipe de Alburquerque and the claimed pueblo water right, should be stricken as not being within the issues properly before the court, and the judgment of the district court, insofar as it is based upon such findings and conclusions, should be reversed. The Situation in Summary The decision rendered in the original Cartwright case in 1958 adopted the doctrine of pueblo water rights as declared in the California decisions, and adjudicated to the Town and City of Las Vegas a pueblo right to the waters of Gallinas River and tributaries.97 The second Cartwright decision in 1961, in a controversy between the same parties, held that the instant case was not a continuation of the first action, and that all matters respecting pueblo rights decided in the first action were res judicata. 96379Pac.(2d) at 76-77. 97 No mention was made in the court's opinion respecting ground water other than inclusion of a brief quotation from Corpus Juris. 67 C. J. 1130: "A Spanish or Mexican pueblo organized in California under the laws, institutions, and regulations of Spain or Mexico acquired a prior and paramount right to the use of the waters of rivers or streams passing through and over or under the surface of their allotted lands as far as was necessary for the pueblo or its inhabitants * * * ." [Emphasis added.] |