N.M. Const. art. XVI, § 2
The unappropriated water of every natural stream, perennial or torrential, within the state of New Mexico, is hereby declared to belong to the public and to be subject to appropriation for beneficial use, in accordance with the laws of the state. Priority of appropriation shall give the better right.
Cross references. — For beneficial use as basis, measure and limit of right to use water, see N.M. Const., art. XVI, § 3.
Prior appropriation is not exclusive. — The doctrine of prior appropriation does not require that resolution of existing and projected future water shortage issues be attempted exclusively through the procedure of a priority call when senior water rights are supplied their adjudicated water entitlement by other reasonable and acceptable management methods. State ex rel. State Eng'r v. Lewis, 2007-NMCA-008, 141 N.M. 1, 150 P.3d 375.
Pecos River settlement agreement. — The Pecos River settlement agreement, which recognizes prior appropriation rights, but subsumes individual interests to collective and representative bodies; which provides for a comprehensive contractual water resource management program involving land and water rights purchases and development of well fields or the lease or purchase of existing wells to use as augmentation wells for purpose of pumping water to the Pecos River to augment its flow; and which is authorized by Section 72-1-2.4 NMSA 1978, is constitutional. State ex rel. State Eng'r v. Lewis, 2007-NMCA-008, 141 N.M. 1, 150 P.3d 375.
Priority administration. — Article 16, Section 2 of the constitution of New Mexico mandates priority administration of existing water rights. It does not mandate any particular permitting procedure or require identical permitting procedures for all appropriations. Bounds v. State ex rel. D’Antonio, 2013-NMSC-037, aff’g 2011-NMCA-011, 149 N.M. 484, 252 P.3d 708.
Section 72-12-1.1 NMSA 1978 is not facially unconstitutional. — Section 72-12-1.1 NMSA 1978, the domestic well statute, does not violate the doctrine of prior appropriation set forth in the New Mexico constitution and is facially constitutional. Bounds v. State ex rel. D’Antonio, 2013-NMSC-037, aff’g 2011-NMCA-011, 149 N.M. 484, 252 P.3d 708.
Where plaintiff owned adjudicated surface rights in the Mimbres basin to irrigate plaintiff’s farm; the Mimbres basin was a fully appropriated and adjudicated basin and the state engineer had declared the basin closed; plaintiff facially challenged the constitutionality of 72-12-1.1 NMSA 1978 on the grounds that the statute authorized the state engineer to issue domestic well permits without determining the availability of unappropriated water, and that the domestic wells authorized by the permits would necessarily impair senior water users; and the state engineer’s regulations provided that domestic well permits were subject to priority administration, 72-12-1.1 NMSA 1978 was not facially unconstitutional. Bounds v. State ex rel. D’Antonio, 2013-NMSC-037, aff’g 2011-NMCA-011, 149 N.M. 484, 252 P.3d 708.
Section 72-12-1.1 NMSA 1978 does not on its face violate the priority doctrine or constitute an impermissible exception to that doctrine. Bounds v. State, 2011-NMCA-011, 149 N.M. 484, 252 P.3d 708, aff’d, 2013-NMSC-037.
Water treated as natural resource for commerce clause analysis purposes. — For purposes of constitutional analysis under the commerce clause, water is to be treated the same as other natural resources. City of El Paso ex rel. Pub. Serv. Bd. v. Reynolds, 563 F. Supp. 379 (D.N.M. 1983).
Prohibition of out-of-state export of ground water unconstitutional. — New Mexico's prohibition of the out-of-state export of ground water, derived from N.M. Const., art. XVI, §§ 2 and 3, and former 72-12-19 NMSA 1978, which statute, with minor exceptions, expressly prohibited the transport of ground water from New Mexico for use in another state, is unconstitutional, as such an embargo violates the commerce clause of U.S. Const., art. I. City of El Paso ex rel. Pub. Serv. Bd. v. Reynolds, 563 F. Supp. 379 (D.N.M. 1983).
Section is merely declaratory of prior existing law. State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 1945-NMSC-034, 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421.
Implementing statute declaratory of existing law. — Laws 1927, ch. 182, § 1 (repealed), declaring waters of underground streams, artesian basins, reservoirs and lakes, the boundaries of which may be reasonably ascertained, to belong to public and be subject to appropriation for beneficial use, was not subversive of vested rights of owners of land overlying such waters, since it was declaratory of existing law. Yeo v. Tweedy, 1929-NMSC-033, 34 N.M. 611, 286 P. 970.
Water rights law extends to all parties. — New Mexico constitution and statutory law and case law of federal, territorial and New Mexico courts govern acquisition of water rights of all parties, including United States, state game commission of New Mexico and individual defendants. United States v. Ballard, 184 F. Supp. 1 (D.N.M. 1960).
Pueblo Indians excepted. — Water uses by pueblo Indians in New Mexico are not controlled by state water law or prior appropriation. New Mexico v. Aamodt, 537 F.2d 1102 (10th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, New Mexico v. United States, 429 U.S. 1121, 97 S. Ct. 1157, 51 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1977).
State's control over public waters is plenary, subject probably only to governmental uses of United States. State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 1945-NMSC-034, 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421.
State may in exercise of police power require license of person drilling well in area determined by state engineer (now water resources division of natural resources department) to be an underground source, the boundaries of which have been determined to be reasonably ascertainable. State v. Myers, 1958-NMSC-059, 64 N.M. 186, 326 P.2d 1075.
Prior confirmed title superior. — This section cannot operate to deprive a party of right of title derived from congressional act of confirmation and based upon early Mexican grant. State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 1945-NMSC-034, 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421. See N.M. Const., art. XVI, § 1.
Kinds of water within this provision. — Waters of underground streams, channels, artesian basins, reservoirs and lakes, the boundaries of which may be reasonably ascertained, are public and subject to appropriation for beneficial use. McBee v. Reynolds, 1965-NMSC-007, 74 N.M. 783, 399 P.2d 110.
Does not apply to artificial waters. — Artificial waters are not subject to appropriation under laws of New Mexico. Creator of an artificial flow of water is owner of the water so long as it is confined to his property, except possibly where it appears that artificial flow is created by agency which is of permanent nature and creator of flow has abandoned all claim to use of water. Hagerman Irrigation Co. v. East Grand Plains Drainage Dist., 1920-NMSC-008, 25 N.M. 649, 187 P. 555.
No right to particular silt content. — An owner of surface water rights does not have a right to receive a particular silt content that has existed historically. Ensenada Land & Water Ass'n v. Sleeper, 1988-NMCA-030, 107 N.M. 494, 760 P.2d 787 , cert. quashed, 107 N.M. 413, 759 P.2d 200.
New Mexico does not recognize pueblo rights doctrine. State v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47, rev'g 1994-NMCA-095, 118 N.M. 257, 880 P.2d 868.
Pueblo rights doctrine is incompatible with water law in New Mexico and violates public policy. State v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47, rev'g 1994-NMCA-095, 118 N.M. 257, 880 P.2d 868.
Pueblo rights doctrine is inconsistent with New Mexico law and not protected by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. State v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47, rev'g 1994-NMCA-095, 118 N.M. 257, 880 P.2d 868.
Pueblo rights doctrine is inconsistent with New Mexico’s system of prior appropriation. State v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47, rev'g 1994-NMCA-095, 118 N.M. 257, 880 P.2d 868.
Water rights acquired by municipality under colonization grant from antecedent sovereigns is recognized in New Mexico in the same manner as other municipal water rights. State v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47, rev'g 1994-NMCA-095, 118 N.M. 257, 880 P.2d 868.
State controls the use of water because it does not part with ownership; it only allows a usufructuary right to water. Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States, 657 F.2d 1126 (10th Cir. 1981).
Waters already reserved for public use. — Waters need not be appropriated for public use since they are already reserved for such use, subject to being specifically appropriated for private beneficial use. State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 1945-NMSC-034, 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421.
Alternative view nowhere expressed by state. — If it were intention that public waters should have been public only in sense that they could be diverted from natural channel through specific appropriation for irrigation, mining and other beneficial uses, apt language could have been used in the early statutes and constitution. State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 1945-NMSC-034, 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421.
Alternative view not expressed by congress. — When congress confirmed title to lands in 1869 and when United States issued title thereto in 1873, federal government did not limit or destroy right of general public to use public waters. State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 1945-NMSC-034, 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421.
Sportsman may fish in public water so long as he does not trespass upon lands of another, and owner of underlying land cannot complain of fishing from boat upon public waters above. State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 1945-NMSC-034, 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421.
Riparian owner lacks recreation rights distinct from general public's. — Riparian owner has no rights of recreation or fishery distinct from rights of general public where waters impounded are from natural streams which are public waters subject to jurisdiction of state game commission. State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 1945-NMSC-034, 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421.
Continuance of public nature. — Where two perennial streams were public waters prior to building of dam, they continued to be public after waters from two streams were artificially impounded. State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 1945-NMSC-034, 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421.
State engineer to prevent instream flows despite failure of game commission so to provide. — Though at time state game commission negotiated for creation of reservoir by construction of dam, it did not press for recognition of public's right to fish in waters impounded, the public's right to use public waters in question was not thereby foreclosed. State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 1945-NMSC-034, 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421.
Regulations limiting access to public waters are unconstitutional. — Where petitioners sought a writ of prohibitory mandamus challenging the constitutionality of regulations promulgated by the New Mexico state game commission (commission) which outlined the process for landowners to obtain a certificate allowing them to close public access to segments of public water flowing over private property, the writ of mandamus was granted, because N.M. Const., art. XVI, § 2 provides that the unappropriated water of every natural stream, perennial or torrential, within the state of New Mexico is public water, and the public may engage in such acts as are reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of fishing and recreation on public waters. To the extent that the commission's regulations could be interpreted as closing access only to public water where walking and wading is involved, the regulations are an unconstitutional limitation on the public's right to recreate and fish in public waters. Adobe Whitewater Club v. State Game Comm'n, 2022-NMSC-020.
New Mexico constitution does not permit a law to exclude the public from using public water on, or running through, private property. — The New Mexico supreme court has construed this section to give members of the public the right to use public water in streams and lakes for fishing and other recreational activities, even when those streams and lakes are on private property, and therefore a 2015 amendment to 17-4-6 NMSA 1978, which added a prohibition against accessing private property through public water or accessing public water through private property without the property owner's consent, is constitutional only to the extent it prohibits a person, absent the required consent, from gaining access to private property from a stream or other public water and gaining access to a stream or other public water from private property. The constitution does not allow a law that would exclude the public from using public water on, or running through, private property for recreational uses if the public water is accessible without trespassing on private property. Access to Public Waters on Private Property (8/5/16), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2016-06.
New Mexico has adopted so-called appropriation doctrine of water use. Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92, 58 S. Ct. 803, 82 L. Ed. 1202 (1938).
Establishment of an existing water right. — To establish an existing water right, a claimant must demonstrate his intent to appropriate the water and show that he has actually diverted the water and applied it to beneficial use. Estate of Boyd v. United States, 2015-NMCA-018, cert. denied, 2015-NMCERT-001.
Where plaintiff who claimed an existing water right was not currently diverting or using water to which he claimed a right, but rather based his claim to water rights on the water rights and irrigation work from his predecessor in interest, who diverted irrigation water over one hundred years prior to the existing cause of action, plaintiff failed to establish an existing water right by failing to show that he had actually diverted the water and applied it to beneficial use. Estate of Boyd v. United States, 2015-NMCA-018, cert. denied, 2015-NMCERT-001.
Adjudication of rights is essential to operation of appropriation doctrine. New Mexico v. Aamodt, 537 F.2d 1102 (10th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, New Mexico v. United States, 429 U.S. 1121, 97 S. Ct. 1157, 51 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1977).
Service of decision denying protest on attorney rather than on protestant, where protestant's well was mentioned in application to change use of existing rights, did not adjudicate protestant's rights to the well. Garbagni v. Metropolitan Inv., Inc., 1990-NMCA-070, 110 N.M. 436, 796 P.2d 1132, cert. denied, 110 N.M. 330, 795 P.2d 1022.
No right to specific water. — Appropriator does not acquire any right to specific water flowing in public stream, though he may take therefrom a given quantity of water for specific purpose. State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 1945-NMSC-034, 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421.
Municipal water rights must be determined by prior appropriation based on beneficial use regardless of a colonization grant from preceding sovereigns. State v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47, rev'g 1994-NMCA-095, 118 N.M. 257, 880 P.2d 868.
Colonization grant from antecedent sovereigns establishes date of priority, but the priority date applies only to the quantity of water put to beneficial use within a reasonable time of the initial appropriation. State v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47, rev'g 1994-NMCA-095, 118 N.M. 257, 880 P.2d 868.
Determination of beneficial use is a question of fact. Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States, 657 F.2d 1126 (10th Cir. 1981).
Beneficial uses of water can be non-consumptive. — A beneficial use of water does not require its consumption. Both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of water can be beneficial uses. A non-consumptive, beneficial use can be the basis for an appropriation of water as much as a consumptive use. Carangelo v. Albuquerque-Bernalillo Cnty. Water Util. Auth., 2014-NMCA-032, cert. denied, 2014-NMCERT-002.
Non-consumptive use of water was a new beneficial use that required an appropriation. — Where applicant applied for a permit to divert native Rio Grande water, to which applicant had no appropriative right, to enable applicant to carry its San Juan-Chama water into the applicant’s water treatment plant for processing and distribution through applicant’s drinking water project; the application did not request an appropriation of the native Rio Grande water or a request to divert the water for a beneficial use; applicant claimed that it would not apply the water to beneficial use and that the water would not be consumptively used because it would be returned to the river in full measure; and the Middle Rio Grande Basin was fully appropriated, applicant’s diversion of native Rio Grande water was for a beneficial use which required an appropriation of the water to enable applicant to put the water to the beneficial use. Carangelo v. Albuquerque-Bernalillo Cnty. Water Util. Auth., 2014-NMCA-032, cert. denied, 2014-NMCERT-002.
A non-consumptive beneficial use of water in a fully appropriated basin. — The state engineer has the authority to determine whether a new non-consumptive use would or would not have any impact on the available water in a fully appropriated basin and whether it could be allowed under Section 72-5-7 NMSA 1978. A non-consumptive beneficial use piggy-backed onto a fully appropriated basin can, under certain appropriate circumstances, be a legitimate appropriation. Carangelo v. Albuquerque-Bernalillo Cnty. Water Util. Auth., 2014-NMCA-032, cert. denied, 2014-NMCERT-002.
"Beneficial use" construed. — "Beneficial use" to which public waters may be placed includes fishing and recreation. State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 1945-NMSC-034, 51 N.M. 207, 182 P.2d 421.
Because water conservation and preservation is of utmost importance, maximum utilization is a fundamental requisite of "beneficial use". Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States, 657 F.2d 1126 (10th Cir. 1981).
The holding of Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States, 657 F.2d 1126 (10th Cir. 1981), does not broadly stand for the proposition that using San Juan-Chama Project water for recreation, fish and wildlife purposes is not "beneficial" under federal and state law. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 333 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2003).
Diverting San Juan-Chama Project water to prevent jeopardy to an endangered species of minnow is a “beneficial use” under New Mexico law. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 333 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2003).
Water not put to beneficial use within a reasonable time cannot be reserved by a municipality for future expansion. State v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47, rev'g 1994-NMCA-095, 118 N.M. 257, 880 P.2d 868.
Quantity of appropriation measured by amount applied to beneficial use. — Amount of water which has been applied to a beneficial use is a measure of quantity of appropriation. State ex rel. Erickson v. McLean, 1957-NMSC-012, 62 N.M. 264, 308 P.2d 983.
Use must be reasonable. — Use of water must not only be beneficial to lands of appropriator, but it must also be reasonable in relation thereto. State ex rel. Erickson v. McLean, 1957-NMSC-012, 62 N.M. 264, 308 P.2d 983.
No matter how early a person's priority of appropriation may be, he is not entitled to receive more water than is necessary for his actual use. Excessive diversion of water through waste cannot be regarded as diversion to beneficial use. State ex rel. Erickson v. McLean, 1957-NMSC-012, 62 N.M. 264, 308 P.2d 983; Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States, 657 F.2d 1126 (10th Cir. 1981).
Interim administration of junior water uses of stream system constitutional. — In a suit to adjudicate rights to the surface and ground waters of an entire stream system, an order permitting the court to enjoin junior water users to show cause in individual proceedings why their uses should not be enjoined pursuant to this section, such injunctions being subject to the right of each user to contest inter se the rights adjudicated for use through and by means of a senior irrigation project, and also subject to the right of each user to establish that his use of the public waters of the stream system should not be terminated to satisfy the senior rights adjudicated for use through the project, and appointing the state engineer as an interim watermaster to administer such orders of injunction as may be entered by the court in the proceedings which will be held pursuant to the order, does not violate rights to due process. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist., 1983-NMSC-044, 99 N.M. 699, 663 P.2d 358.
Interstate stream commission may condemn land in state's name. — Interstate stream commission is entitled to institute proceedings in name of state for condemnation of land for erecting dam and reservoir to impound and conserve water. State ex rel. Red River Valley Co. v. District Court, 1935-NMSC-085, 39 N.M. 523, 51 P.2d 239.
Eminent domain proper where water storage and conveyance for beneficial uses. — Beneficial use is of primary importance, not the particular purpose (ultimate use) to which water is put. Beneficial uses would be impossible to accomplish without means to transport or convey water from its source to place of utilization. Thus out of necessity the right of eminent domain is provided (42-1-31 and 72-1-5 NMSA 1978) for storage and conveyance of water for beneficial uses, not for irrigation or domestic purposes alone, but for all beneficial uses. Kaiser Steel Corp. v. W.S. Ranch Co., 1970-NMSC-043, 81 N.M. 414, 467 P.2d 986, superseded by statute, Santa Fe S. Ry., Inc. v. Baucis Ltd. Liab. Co., 1998-NMCA-002, 124 N.M. 430, 952 P.2d 31.
Confiscation for private use exception to general rule. — Private property can be taken only for public use, and effect of New Mexico law is to carve out an exception to this constitutional mandate in recognition of overriding considerations borne of necessity in an arid land where water is the life-blood of the community. W.S. Ranch Co. v. Kaiser Steel Corp., 388 F.2d 257 (10th Cir. 1967), rev'd on ground that federal action should be stayed awaiting state decision, 391 U.S. 593, 88 S. Ct. 1753, 20 L. Ed. 2d 835 (1968).
Conservancy district does not have authority to barter away vested water rights of landowners who have applied them to beneficial use. Waters are appurtenant to land and district stores and delivers them to the users. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391.
Equitable apportionment is the doctrine of federal common law that governs disputes between states concerning their rights to use the water of an interstate stream. When both states recognize the doctrine of prior appropriation, priority becomes the "guiding principle" in an allocation between competing states, but state law is not controlling. Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 U.S. 176, 103 S. Ct. 539, 74 L. Ed. 2d 348 (1982), reh'g denied, 459 U.S. 1229, 103 S. Ct. 1418, 75 L. Ed. 2d 471 (1983).
Rule of priority is not sole criterion. — In the determination of an equitable apportionment of the water of the Vermejo river between Colorado and New Mexico, the rule of priority is not the sole criterion. While the equities supporting the protection of established, senior uses are substantial, it is also appropriate to consider additional factors relevant to a just apportionment, such as the conservation measures available to both states and the balance of harm and benefit that might result from a diversion sought by Colorado. Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 U.S. 176, 103 S. Ct. 539, 74 L. Ed. 2d 348 (1982), reh'g denied, 459 U.S. 1229, 103 S. Ct. 1418, 75 L. Ed. 2d 471 (1983).
Doctrine applies to claim for future uses. — The flexible doctrine of equitable apportionment clearly extends to a state's claim to divert water for future uses. Whether such a diversion should be permitted will turn on an examination of all factors relevant to a just apportionment. Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 U.S. 176, 103 S. Ct. 539, 74 L. Ed. 2d 348 (1982), reh'g denied, 459 U.S. 1229, 103 S. Ct. 1418, 75 L. Ed. 2d 471 (1983).
Do not include stream beds. — Right to flow of water is quite distinct from ownership of bed of stream, and state does not own bed of any stream, except as riparian owner. 1939 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 39-3152.
Does not apply to artificial waters. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-38.
Access to public waters. — A private landowner cannot prevent persons from fishing in a public stream that flows across the landowner's property, provided the public stream is accessible without trespass across privately owned adjacent lands. 2014 Op. Att’y Gen. 14-04.
State engineer to protect instream flows. — Neither the New Mexico constitution nor statutes governing appropriation and use of surface water prohibit the state engineer from affording legal protection for instream flows for recreational, fish or wildlife, or ecological purposes, by conditioning approval of a transfer of an existing water right to an instream use on the installation of gauging devices. 1998 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 98-01.
Prior actual appropriation gives better right than administratively approved application. — Prior actual appropriation of water to a beneficial use, open and visible, will give better right to water than could be obtained under approved application to state engineer for right to appropriate. 1914 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 14-1271.
Appropriator may also condemn. — Applicant for appropriation of waters for irrigation purposes may acquire, by condemnation proceedings, right to use of project and right-of-way through existing ditch or canal of another appropriator, by enlargement. 1915 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 15-1508.
Law reviews. — For comment, "Water Rights - Failure to Use - Forfeiture," see 6 Nat. Resources J. 127 (1966).
For article, "Water Rights Problems in the Upper Rio Grande Watershed and Adjoining Areas," see 11 Nat. Resources J. 48 (1971).
For note, "Appropriation By the State of Minimum Flows in New Mexico Streams," see 15 Nat. Resources J. 809 (1975).
For note, "New Mexico's National Forests and the Implied Reservation Doctrine," see 16 Nat. Resources J. 975 (1976).
For comment, "Indian Pueblo Water Rights Not Subject to State Law Prior to Appropriation," see 17 Nat. Resources J. 341 (1977).
For article, "Water Law Problems of Solar Hydrogen Production," see 18 Nat. Resources J. 521 (1978).
For comment on geothermal energy and water law, see 19 Nat. Resources J. 445 (1979).
For note, "Brantley v. Carlsbad Irrigation District: Limits of the Templeton Doctrine Affirmed," see 19 Nat. Resources J. 669 (1979).
For comment, "Protection of the Means of Groundwater Diversion," see 20 Nat. Resources J. 625 (1980).
For comment, "New Mexico's Mine Dewatering Act: The Search for Rehoboth," see 20 Nat. Resources J. 653 (1980).
For article, "New Mexico Water Law: An Overview and Discussion of Current Issues," see 22 Nat. Resources J. 1045 (1982).
For article, "Legislation on Domestic and Industrial Uses of Water: A Comparative Review," see 24 Nat. Resources J. 143 (1984).
For note, "Commerce Clause Curbs State Control of Interstate Use of Ground Water: City of El Paso v. Reynolds," see 24 Nat. Resources J. 213 (1984).
For article, "Centralized Decisionmaking in the Administration of Groundwater Rights: The Experience of Arizona, California and New Mexico and Suggestions for the Future," see 24 Nat. Resources J. 641 (1984).
For comment, "Is There a Future for Proposed Water Uses in Equitable Apportionment Suits?," see 25 Nat. Resources J. 791 (1985).
For note, "Recent Developments in the El Paso/New Mexico Interstate Groundwater Controversy - The Constitutionality of New Mexico's New Municipality Water Planning State," see 29 Nat. Resources J. 223 (1989).
For note, "The Milagro Beanfield War Revisited in Ensenada Land & Water Ass'n v. Sleeper: Public Welfare Defies Transfer of Water Rights," see 29 Nat. Resources J. 861 (1989).
For article, “The Administration of the Middle Rio Grande Basin: 1956-2002,” see 42 Nat. Resources J. 939 (2002).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 78 Am. Jur. 2d Waters §§ 229, 316.
Appropriation of subterranean and percolating waters, springs and wells, 55 A.L.R. 1444, 109 A.L.R. 395.
Right of appropriator of water to recapture water which has escaped or is otherwise no longer within his immediate possession, 89 A.L.R. 210.
Methods or means of diversion, appropriation of water as creating right to continue, as against subsequent appropriator, 121 A.L.R. 1044.
Riparian owner's right to continuation of periodic and seasonal overflows from stream, 20 A.L.R.2d 656.
Riparian owner's right to construct dikes, embankments or other structures necessary to maintain or restore bank of stream or to prevent flood, 23 A.L.R.2d 750.
Liability for obstruction or diversion of subterranean waters in use of land, 29 A.L.R.2d 1354.
Relative riparian or littoral rights respecting the removal of water from a natural, private, nonnavigable lake, 54 A.L.R.2d 1450.
Apportionment and division of area of river as between riparian tracts fronting on same bank, in absence of agreement or specification, 65 A.L.R.2d 143.
Modern status of rules governing interference with drainage of surface waters, 93 A.L.R.3d 1193.
Public rights of recreational boating, fishing, wading, or the like in inland stream the bed of which is privately owned, 6 A.L.R.4th 1030.
Allocation of water space among lakefront owners, in absence of agreement or specification, 14 A.L.R.4th 1028.
Liability for diversion of surface water by raising surface level of land, 88 A.L.R.4th 891.
93 C.J.S. Waters § 157 et seq.