Upon the adjudication of the rights to the use of the waters of a stream system, a certified copy of the decree shall be prepared and filed in the office of the state engineer by the clerk of the court, at the cost of the parties. Such decree shall in every case declare, as to the water right adjudged to each party, the priority, amount, purpose, periods and place of use, and as to water used for irrigation, except as otherwise provided in this article, the specific tracts of land to which it shall be appurtenant, together with such other conditions as may be necessary to define the right and its priority.

History: Laws 1907, ch. 49, § 23; Code 1915, § 5677; C.S. 1929, § 151-128; 1941 Comp., § 77-408; 1953 Comp., § 75-4-8.

Compiler's notes. — The 1915 Code substituted "this article" for "this act." For meaning of "this article," see compiler's note to 72-4-17 NMSA 1978. For meaning of "this act," see compiler's notes to 72-4-15 NMSA 1978.

Cross references. — For the state engineer, see 72-2-1 NMSA 1978.

Authority to approve water resource management plan. — A district court has the authority under this section to approve a water resource management plan that is authorized by Section 72-1-2.4 NMSA 1978. State ex rel. State Eng'r v. Lewis, 2007-NMCA-008, 141 N.M. 1, 150 P.3d 375.

Only courts have power and authority to adjudicate water rights. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Lewis, 1973-NMSC-035, 84 N.M. 768, 508 P.2d 577.

Adjudication of water rights. — Service of decision denying protest upon attorney rather than on protestant, where protestant's well was mentioned in application to change use of existing rights, did not adjudicate protestant's rights to the well. Garbagni v. Metro. Inv., Inc., 1990-NMCA-070, 110 N.M. 436, 796 P.2d 1132.

Requirements for decree. — No decree as required by this section, declaring priority, amount, purpose, periods and place of use, and specific tracts of land to which right is appurtenant, together with other necessary conditions can be entered until hydrographic surveys have been completed and all parties impleaded, at which time further hearing to determine relative rights of parties, toward each other, will be held. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Sharp, 1959-NMSC-080, 66 N.M. 192, 344 P.2d 943.

Step by step procedure encompassing entire basin and all matters required to be decreed by this section is substantial compliance with requirements of adjudication statutes, and reasonable and practical way to accomplish desired purposes. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Sharp, 1959-NMSC-080, 66 N.M. 192, 344 P.2d 943.

Single, final hearing and comprehensive decree not needed for administration of water rights. — There can be no administration of junior water rights as against senior water rights until the parties have had an opportunity to contest priorities inter se. Such an administration, however, need not wait until the court holds a single, final hearing and enters a comprehensive decree fixing all the conflicting priorities. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist., 1983-NMSC-044, 99 N.M. 699, 663 P.2d 358.

Interim administration of junior water uses of stream system constitutional. — In a suit to adjudicate rights to the surface and ground waters of an entire stream system, an order permitting the court to enjoin junior water users to show cause in individual proceedings why their uses should not be enjoined pursuant to N.M. Const., art. XVI, § 2, such injunctions being subject to the right of each user to contest inter se the rights adjudicated for use through and by means of a senior irrigation project, and also subject to the right of each user to establish that his use of the public waters of the stream system should not be terminated to satisfy the senior rights adjudicated for use through the project, and appointing the state engineer as an interim watermaster to administer such orders of injunction as may be entered by the court in the proceedings which will be held pursuant to the order, does not violate rights to due process. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist., 1983-NMSC-044, 99 N.M. 699, 663 P.2d 358.

Decree conforming to statute. — Despite allegations that trial court improperly adjudicated city's rights according to well capacity and rights of adverse party according to amount of water applied to beneficial use, where maximum amount of water which could be withdrawn from basin was fixed by decree as was purpose, period and place of use, rights decreed conformed with requirements of this section. State ex rel. State Eng'r v. Crider, 1967-NMSC-133, 78 N.M. 312, 431 P.2d 45.

Effect of federal decree. — Where bill and decree in suit brought in federal court indicated that suit was brought to adjudicate rights (if any) of all parties thereto to use of water flowing in Pecos river stream system, federal court decree was res judicata as between parties to federal suit and their privies, despite fact that stipulation between certain parties and plaintiff's predecessor in title had not been signed by defendants or their predecessors. Bounds v. Carner, 1949-NMSC-008, 53 N.M. 234, 205 P.2d 216, distinguished, Cartwright v. Public Serv. Co., 1958-NMSC-134, 66 N.M. 64, 343 P.2d 654, overruled on other grounds, State ex rel. Martinez v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47.

Defendant public service company and intervener town of Las Vegas were not barred from pleading as a defense the doctrine of pueblo rights, in suit by Galinas River water users seeking damages and injunction against company's use of water, and apportionment thereof, by alleged res judicata effect of previous decree in federal court, where that court had specifically provided that its decree would affect only the property and rights of those specifically named in the decree. Cartwright v. Public Serv. Co., 1958-NMSC-134, 66 N.M. 64, 343 P.2d 654, see now State ex rel. Martinez v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47.

District court has jurisdiction over claims related to the enforcement of a valid court decree. — Where plaintiff filed a complaint in the district court, seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and monetary damages, alleging that she is entitled to the use of water appurtenant to over 40 acres of land from the Rio Puerco de Chama based upon a decree issued by the district court in Rio Arriba county in 1962, and where the district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the federal district court adjudicating all water rights of the Rio Chama stream system, which includes the Rio Puerco de Chama, has exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, because plaintiff's complaint does not call of an adjudication of water rights to the entire system, but concerns the enforcement of an existing and valid court decree; once a stream system has been adjudicated or partially adjudicated and a decree issued, jurisdiction over claims related to the enforcement of the decree, as opposed to claims seeking an adjudication of the water rights to be decreed, properly rests with the district court. Lujan v. Acequia Mesa Del Medio, 2019-NMCA-017, cert. granted.

Priority in underground water right. — Landowner who lawfully began developing underground water right and completed it with reasonable diligence acquired water right with priority date as initiation of his work even though lands involved were placed within declared artesian basin before work was finished and water put to beneficial use. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Mendenhall, 1961-NMSC-083, 68 N.M. 467, 362 P.2d 998.

Law reviews. — For article, "Water Rights Problems in the Upper Rio Grande Watershed and Adjoining Areas," see 11 Nat. Resources J. 48 (1971).

For comment, "Indian Pueblo Water Rights Not Subject to State Law Prior Appropriation," see 17 Nat. Resources J. 341 (1977).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 78 Am. Jur. 2d Waters § 258.

93 C.J.S. Waters § 203.