This act being necessary to secure and preserve the public health, safety, convenience and welfare, and being necessary for the prevention of great loss of life, and for the security of public and private property from floods and other uncontrolled waters, it shall be liberally construed to effect the purposes of this act.
History: Laws 1927, ch. 45, § 906; C.S. 1929, § 30-906; 1941 Comp., § 77-3020; 1953 Comp., § 75-31-20.
ANNOTATIONSCompiler's notes. — For the meaning of "this act", see the compiler's notes to 73-17-1 NMSA 1978.
Absence of provisions reposing management in property-owners not unconstitutional. — The absence of provisions reposing the management of the conservancy district in the property-owners does not violate any constitutional provision. This is a general law (Laws 1927, ch. 45) and not special or class legislation. Gutierrez v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1929-NMSC-071, 34 N.M. 346, 282 P. 1, cert. denied, 280 U.S. 610, 50 S. Ct. 158, 74 L. Ed. 653 (1930).
Raising of constitutional questions. — Questions involving the constitutionality of the act (Laws 1927, ch. 45) cannot be considered unless raised in the court below. Cater v. Sunshine Valley Conservancy Dist., 1928-NMSC-061, 33 N.M. 583, 274 P. 52.