State ex rel. Reynolds v. Miranda
83 N.M. 443, 493 P.2d 409 (1972)
Rule of Law:
In New Mexico, establishing water rights by appropriation for agricultural purposes requires not only an intent to apply water to beneficial use and actual application of the water, but also a physical, man-made diversion of the water.
Facts:
- A water course called the Abo Wash runs across Lorenzo Miranda’s property from east to west, originating approximately 18 miles from the Rio Grande River.
- Following certain rains, water would flow intermittently through the Abo Wash across Miranda's property and into the Rio Grande River.
- Historically, farmers turned their stock into the Abo Wash to graze on the tall, thick grass and cut and stored the grass for winter use.
- Sometime after World War I, a natural arroyo formed, diverting water from the Abo Wash and causing a decline in the irrigation of grassland.
- From that time until the present, the Abo Wash diminished as a source of pasture for stock.
- In 1969, Lorenzo Miranda filed a declaration of ownership of water rights, claiming perfection prior to 1907, and sought to drill two wells for irrigating his lands.
- Neither witnesses nor Lorenzo Miranda could offer evidence of any man-made diversion of waters from the Abo Wash by his predecessors in interest.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of New Mexico, ex rel. S. E. Reynolds, State Engineer, brought an action in the District Court of Socorro County, New Mexico, against Lorenzo Miranda, seeking a declaration that Miranda had no right to use water from the Rio Grande Underground Water Basin.
- The trial court, with agreement from both parties, determined the case would hinge on whether physical man-made efforts resulting in visible diversion of water are necessary to establish water rights.
- The State Engineer moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.
- Lorenzo Miranda appealed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a physical, man-made diversion of water required to establish water rights by appropriation for agricultural purposes in New Mexico?
Opinions:
Majority - Montoya
Yes, a physical, man-made diversion of water is required to establish water rights by appropriation for agricultural purposes in New Mexico. The court referenced the principle from Harkey v. Smith, which holds that appropriation requires taking or diversion of water with intent and actual application to beneficial use, and that intent, diversion, and use must coincide. While acknowledging Town of Genoa v. Westfall (Colorado) which suggested man-made diversion isn't always necessary if intent and beneficial use are present, the court distinguished Miranda’s claim. It reasoned that merely cutting grasses or grazing cattle in the wash was not sufficient to manifest an intent to appropriate the water itself for beneficial use; rather, these acts amounted to gratuitously reaping nature's bounty. The lack of any attempt by Miranda's predecessors to divert water back into the wash after the arroyo formed further supported this lack of intent to appropriate the water. The court explicitly adopted the rule from Walsh v. Wallace (Nevada) which held that an actual diversion with intent to apply to beneficial use, followed by application, is necessary. Therefore, the court concluded that man-made diversion, coupled with intent and beneficial use, is an essential element for claiming water rights by appropriation for agricultural purposes in New Mexico.
Concurring - McManus
Concurred with the majority opinion.
Concurring - Stephenson
Concurred with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and strengthens the requirements for establishing water rights under the prior appropriation doctrine in arid regions like New Mexico. By explicitly requiring a physical, man-made diversion, it sets a higher bar for appropriation, distinguishing between passive benefit from natural water flow and active, intentional control over a water source. This precedent prevents claims based solely on historical grazing or harvesting of naturally occurring vegetation, ensuring that water rights are tied to demonstrable acts of appropriation. It reinforces the principle that mere use of naturally available resources, without an overt act of taking control of the water itself, does not perfect a water right.
