The decision of the state engineer shall be final in all cases unless appeal be taken to the district court within thirty days after his decision as provided by Section 72-7-1 NMSA 1978.
History: Laws 1931, ch. 131, § 10; 1941 Comp., § 77-1110; 1953 Comp., § 75-11-10.
ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For appeal de novo from decision, act or refusal to act of state executive officer or body in matters relating to water rights, see N.M. Const., art. XVI, § 5.
For procedures governing administrative appeals to the district court, see Rule 1-074 NMRA.
For scope of review of the district court, see Zamora v. Vill. of Ruidoso Downs, 120 N.M. 778, 907 P.2d 182 (1995).
Remedy not exclusive. — Water right owner is not restricted to hearing before state engineer under Section 72-12-3 NMSA 1978 and appeal therefrom under this section as his exclusive remedy against impairment of his right by another; such person has legal right to seek protection of or redress for impairment of his water rights by another without first exhausting all administrative procedures available to him. Tevis v. McCrary, 1963-NMSC-084, 72 N.M. 134, 381 P.2d 208, appeal after remand, 1965-NMSC-051, 75 N.M. 165, 402 P.2d 150.
Appealability. — Form letter, sent by state engineer to all applicants for permits to appropriate water, indicating intention to deny application, did not constitute appealable "decision, act or refusal to act," where it was clear that final action on application depended on further study by engineer. State ex rel. Bliss v. Alexander, 1955-NMSC-061, 59 N.M. 478, 286 P.2d 322.
Manner of appeal. — Appeal to district court from ultimate decision of state engineer must be taken in manner provided by this section and Section 72-7-1 NMSA 1978. City of Hobbs v. State ex rel. Reynolds, 1970-NMSC-133, 82 N.M. 102, 476 P.2d 500.
Jurisdiction after remand. — District court's attempt following a remand to the state engineer to retain jurisdiction to hear a subsequent appeal from the engineer's reconsideration of the issuance of a permit for a well location change exceeded the court's jurisdiction in view of the stautory requirements for appeal from the decision of the state engineer. Eldorado at Santa Fe, Inc. v. Cook, 1991-NMCA-117, 113 N.M. 33, 822 P.2d 672, cert. denied, 113 N.M. 1, 820 P.2d 435.
No formal application to district court is required in taking appeal from decision of state engineer; appeal is taken simply by serving state engineer and interested parties with notice of appeal, filing notice with proof of service in district court and paying required docket fee. Plummer v. Johnson, 1956-NMSC-077, 61 N.M. 423, 301 P.2d 529.
State engineer as proper party. — On appeal from his decision, state engineer becomes proper, if not indispensable, party. Plummer v. Johnson, 1956-NMSC-077, 61 N.M. 423, 301 P.2d 529.
Declaratory judgment suit premature. — Unless and until state engineer approved municipality's applications in whole or in part, in administrative proceeding pending before him, possible impairment of rights of others was speculative; hence, district court's determination of real party in interest in declaratory judgment action brought concerning state engineer's jurisdiction was premature. City of Hobbs v. State ex rel. Reynolds, 1970-NMSC-133, 82 N.M. 102, 476 P.2d 500.
Standing to seek injunction. — Though artesian conservancy district owned no land serviced by waters of an artesian basin and no water rights, it constituted proper party plaintiff for maintaining suit to enjoin use of water from unauthorized well. Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist. v. Peters, 1945-NMSC-029, 50 N.M. 165, 173 P.2d 490, appeal after remand, 1948-NMSC-022, 52 N.M. 148, 193 P.2d 418.
Law reviews. — For comment on Kelley v. Carlsbad Irrigation Dist., 71 N.M. 464, 379 P.2d 763 (1963), see 3 Nat. Resources J. 340 (1963).
For comment, "Protection of the Means of Groundwater Diversion," see 20 Nat. Resources J. 625 (1980).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 415 et seq.
93 C.J.S. Waters § 203.