AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Storm Ditch, a community acequia, attempted to protest an application by the estate of Alfred McTeigue and the City of Ruidoso Downs for the transfer of water rights from the acequia two years after the deadline for filing protests had passed. The application sought to transfer water rights to the City of Ruidoso Downs. The Applicants published notice of the application in a local newspaper, as required by statute, but did not initially submit an affidavit from Storm Ditch's commissioners stating that the acequia had not adopted any requirements for approval of water rights transfers. Storm Ditch argued that it did not receive proper notice of the application and that the notice given was insufficient, leading to its late protest and motions to intervene and request for a hearing before the State Engineer (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Storm Ditch: Argued that it did not receive proper notice of the application for water rights transfer, contending that notice by publication was insufficient and that it was entitled to actual notice. Asserted that the Applicants' failure to comply with affidavit requirements resulted in a lack of constitutionally required notice, affecting its interests directly (paras 5-6).
• Applicants (Estate of Alfred McTeigue and City of Ruidoso Downs): Contended that notice by publication was sufficient and proper under the statute. Argued that Storm Ditch's protest was untimely and that the procedural requirements for notice had been met (para 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether Storm Ditch received proper notice of the application for the transfer of water rights, thereby justifying its late protest and requests for intervention and a hearing (para 13).
• Whether Storm Ditch was entitled to a hearing before the State Engineer and, subsequently, had standing to appeal the denial of its motions to intervene and request for a hearing (para 28).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the denial of Storm Ditch’s motions to intervene in the application process, its request for a hearing before the State Engineer, and its petition for mandamus (para 36).

Reasons

• Majority Opinion (Cynthia A. Fry, Judge; concurred by Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge): Concluded that notice by publication was sufficient and proper notice to Storm Ditch and that its protest came too late. Found that Storm Ditch was not entitled to heightened notice beyond the statutory notice by publication. Determined that Storm Ditch had, in fact, received actual notice through a telephone call to one of its commissioners before the protest deadline. Held that Storm Ditch was not entitled to a hearing under Section 72-2-16 because it failed to file a timely protest, thereby waiving its right to a hearing (paras 13-35).
  Dissenting Opinion (Timothy L. Garcia, Judge): Argued that the State Engineer was statutorily required to reject the original application due to the Applicants' failure to comply with statutory obligations, including the submission of an affidavit. Believed that the application should have been rejected and returned for correction and refiling, making the issues of notice and publication moot for a defective application (paras 38-39).