N.M. Stat. Ann. § 73-18-2
B. A contracting district:
History: Laws 1939, ch. 148, § 2; 1941 Comp., § 77-3102; 1953 Comp., § 75-32-2.
Effective dates. — Laws 1939, ch. 148, contained no effective date provision, but was enacted at a session which adjourned on March 11, 1939. See N.M. Const., art. IV, § 23.
Compiler’s notes. — For the meaning of "this act" and "Conservancy Act", see the compiler’s notes to 73-18-1 NMSA 1978.
For the reclamation law, which includes the act of congress of June 17, 1902 and all acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, see 43 U.S.C. § 371 et seq.
Constitutionality of reclamation contract. — A provision of a reclamation contract allowing a reclamation district to enter into a lawful contract with the United States for the improvement of the district and the increase of its water supply does not violate N.M. Const., art II, §§ 4 and 18. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391.
Adoption of reclamation statutes by reference to the title of the federal Reclamation Act is not violative of N.M. Const., art. IV, § 18, where these reclamation statutes are not a necessary part of the act in which they are adopted. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391.
Illegal provision. — A provision of a reclamation contract which provides that, "Should any assessment or assessments required by the terms of this contract and levied against any tract of land or water user in the district be judicially determined to be irregular or void or the district or its officers be enjoined or restrained from making or collecting any assessment upon said land as provided for herein, then such tract or water user shall have no right to any of the benefits of this contract and no water made available through the works constructed or rehabilitated by the United States hereunder shall be delivered to or for such tract of land or water user," is an express provision that the secretary of the interior may override the decision of the conservancy court, or any other court, and enforce his mandate whether legal or illegal, regardless even of what the supreme court of the United States might say, and is illegal. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391.
Making secretary of interior final arbiter not illegal. — The provision of a reclamation contract making the secretary of interior the final arbiter of disputed facts is improvident, but it is not illegal. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391.
Reclamation contract does not lack mutuality although the United States is not bound to do or perform any act to carry out the terms of said contract other than to take possession, at its discretion, of the property of the district and operate it in whole or in part in its discretion unless and until the congress of the United States appropriates or makes available funds for the United States to carry out the improvements mentioned and described in said contract, and the district is obligated without any consideration to transfer all of its property and the management thereof to the United States. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391.
No authority to barter vested water rights. — A conservancy district does not have the authority to barter away the vested water rights of the landowners who have applied them to beneficial use. The waters are appurtenant to the land and the 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.
Power to compel district to make assessment. — For money lawfully expended for the district, or operation and maintenance charges lawfully made, the secretary of interior can compel the district to make assessment; but this must be made by the conservancy district following a hearing at which the water owner may have his day in court. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391 (1953).
Valid existing water rights recognized. — The federal Reclamation Act, as well as the federal Flood Control Act of 1948, under topic "Rio Grande Basin," provides for the recognition of valid existing water rights, as does this article (now Sections 73-18-1 to 73-18-24 NMSA 1978). Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391 (1953).
Excess acreage limitation is not confiscation of water user's land. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391 (1953).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 45 Am. Jur. 2d Irrigation §§ 62, 88.
52A C.J.S. Levees and Flood Control § 24; 94 C.J.S. Waters §§ 316, 321.