Middle Rio Grande Regional Water Plan
2iUWd5b
2iUWd5b
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
4.1.1.9 The Strategic <strong>Water</strong> Reserve<br />
In 2005, the New Mexico Legislature enacted legislation to establish a Strategic <strong>Water</strong> Reserve,<br />
NMSA 1978, Section 72-14-3.3 (2007). Regulations implementing the Strategic <strong>Water</strong> Reserve<br />
statute were also implemented in 2005. 19.25.14.1 et seq. NMAC.<br />
The statute authorizes the Commission to acquire water rights or storage rights to compose the<br />
reserve. Section 72-14-3.3(A). <strong>Water</strong> in the Strategic <strong>Water</strong> Reserve can be used for two<br />
purposes: (1) to comply with interstate stream compacts and (2) to manage water for the benefit<br />
of endangered or threatened species or to avoid additional listing of species. Section 72-14-<br />
3.3(B). The NMISC may only acquire water rights that have sufficient seniority and consistent,<br />
historical beneficial use to effectively contribute to the purpose of the Reserve. The NMISC<br />
must annually develop river reach or groundwater basin priorities for the acquisition of water<br />
rights for the Strategic <strong>Water</strong> Reserve. The <strong>Middle</strong> <strong>Rio</strong> <strong>Grande</strong> is a priority basin for the<br />
NMISC.<br />
4.1.1.10 Ditch and Acequia <strong>Water</strong> Use<br />
Two recent cases by New Mexico courts address the issue of acequia water use. Storm Ditch v.<br />
D’Antonio, 2011-NMCA-104, 150 N.M. 590, examined the process for transferring a<br />
landowner’s water rights from a community acequia to a municipality. The Court found that<br />
actual notice of the transfer application to the acequia was not mandated by statute; instead,<br />
publication of the landowner’s transfer application provided sufficient notice to the acequia to<br />
inform it of the proposed transfer. Further, the statute requiring that the transfer applicant file an<br />
affidavit stating that no rules or bylaws for a transfer approval had been adopted by the acequia<br />
was not intended to prove notice. Rather, the statute was directed at providing the State Engineer<br />
with assurance that the applicant had met all requirements imposed by acequia bylaws before<br />
action was taken on the application, not in providing notice.<br />
Pena Blanca Partnership v. San Jose Community Ditch, 2009-NMCA-016, 145 N.M. 555,<br />
involved attempts to transfer water rights from agricultural uses appurtenant to lands served by<br />
two acequias to non-agricultural uses away from the acequias. The acequias denied the water<br />
rights owners’ (Owners) requests to make these changes pursuant to their authority under NMSA<br />
1978, Section 73-2-21(E) (2003). The Owners appealed the acequias decision to district court.<br />
On appeal, the standard of review listed in Section 73–2–21(E) only allowed reversal of the<br />
acequia commissioners if the court found they had acted fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously,<br />
or not in accordance with law.<br />
The Owners challenged this deferential standard of review in the Court of Appeals based on two<br />
grounds. First, the Owners argued that the de novo review standard in Article XVI, Section 5 of<br />
the New Mexico Constitution applied to the proposed transfers at issue, not the more deferential<br />
standard found in Section 73-2-21(E). The Court disagreed and found that the legislature<br />
<strong>Middle</strong> <strong>Rio</strong> <strong>Grande</strong> <strong>Regional</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> 2017 34