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

• Appellants sought to change the points of diversion and types of use of water on their property, involving two ditches, Ditch W and the Tony Griego Ditch, and a pond for recreational fishing. The State Engineer granted permits for these changes, which were contested by Protestants on grounds of inadequate notice and potential impairment to existing water rights, among other issues.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Rio Arriba County, Daniel A. Sanchez, District Judge, which upheld the State Engineer's approval of two permits for changing points of diversion and types of water use filed by the Applicants.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that the notice published regarding the permit applications was inadequate and that the district court's findings—that the permits did not impair existing water rights, were not contrary to water conservation, and were not detrimental to the public welfare—were not supported by sufficient evidence.
• Appellee (State Engineer): Contended that the notice was adequate under the relaxed rules applicable and that the district court's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the published notice for the permit applications was adequate.
• Whether the district court's findings that the permits did not impair existing water rights, were not contrary to water conservation, and were not detrimental to the public welfare were supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's approval of the permits.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Cynthia A. Fry concurring, found that the notice published was adequate to inform the average citizen of the general purpose of the permits sought. The court also held that the district court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony and conditions imposed on the permits to ensure they would not impair existing water rights, be contrary to water conservation, or be detrimental to the public welfare. The court addressed various arguments by the Protestants, including statutory notice, historic supply, impairment, conservation, public welfare, and the ability to irrigate from Ditch W, finding in each case that the appellants' arguments did not prevail. The court declined to address certain issues it found were not preserved for appeal.