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

• Petitioners, consisting of nonprofit organizations and corporations, challenged a series of regulations promulgated by the New Mexico State Game Commission. These regulations allowed landowners to close public access to segments of public water flowing over private property by obtaining a certificate. The regulations were based on the premise that since the landowner owns the bed beneath the public water, they could exclude the public from accessing the water if it involves walking or wading on the privately owned bed (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners: Argued that the regulations violate Article XVI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution by impermissibly interfering with the public’s constitutional right to use public water. They contended that the Commission lacks the authority under Section 17-4-6(C) to promulgate the Regulations (para 7).
• Respondent (New Mexico State Game Commission): Conceded that the Regulations conflict with Article XVI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution (para 7).
• Intervenors-Respondents: Argued that the Regulations do not privatize or close public waters but express the existing right to exclude trespassers on privately owned riverbeds. They contended that mandamus should be denied because the Regulations are constitutional (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the right to recreate and fish in public water also allows the public the right to touch the privately owned beds below those waters (para 1).
• Whether the Regulations promulgated by the New Mexico State Game Commission are constitutional (para 2).
• Whether the Commission had the legislative authority to promulgate the Regulations under Section 17-4-6(C) (para 35).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico issued a writ of mandamus and an order directing the Commission to withdraw the Regulations as void and unconstitutional (para 3).

Reasons

• VIGIL, Justice, for a unanimous Court:
  The Court concluded that the public’s right to use public water flowing over private property includes the right to touch the privately owned beds below those waters, based on Article XVI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution and precedent set in State ex rel. State Game Commission v. Red River Valley Co. (paras 1, 14-15).
  The Court found the Regulations unconstitutional as they infringed on the public’s right to use public water and determined that the Commission lacked legislative authority to promulgate the Regulations under Section 17-4-6(C) (paras 22-24, 32-33).
  The Court reasoned that the Regulations’ basis on navigability for closing public access was irrelevant to the scope of the right of the public to use public waters under Article XVI, Section 2. It emphasized that the public’s easement includes fishing and recreation, and such use may involve touching the beds beneath public water, which is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of these activities (paras 12, 19-20, 23-24, 28-31).
  The Court also addressed Intervenors’ argument regarding judicial taking, clarifying that Article XVI, Section 2 is declaratory of prior existing law, and thus, the public’s easement in public waters was always recognized under Spanish, Mexican, and early American sovereignty. Therefore, any title held by Intervenors was already subject to the public’s easement in public waters (paras 39-41).