New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 19-3-13 (2026)
[Right to appropriate and stock range on public domain;
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
conditions.]
Any person, company or corporation that may appropriate and stock a range upon
the public domain of the United States, or otherwise, with cattle shall be deemed to be
in possession thereof: provided, that such person, company or corporation shall lawfully
possess or occupy, or be the lawful owner or possessor of sufficient living, permanent
water upon such range for the proper maintenance of such cattle.
History: Laws 1889, ch. 61, § 1; C.L. 1897, § 127; Code 1915, § 4628; C.S. 1929, §
111-101; 1941 Comp., § 8-313; 1953 Comp., § 7-3-13.
ANNOTATIONS
Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not
part of the law.
Effect of water rights. — New Mexico does not recognize a limited livestock forage
right implicit in a vested water right or a limited livestock forage right implicit in a right-of-
way for the maintenance and enjoyment of a vested water right. Walker v. United
States, 2007-NMSC-038, 142 N.M. 45, 162 P.3d 882.
Implied license to graze. — There is an implied license on the part of the government
to all of the people to graze their animals upon the public domain without compensation.
Yates v. White, 1925-NMSC-012, 30 N.M. 420, 235 P. 437; Hill v. Winkler, 1915-NMSC-
077, 21 N.M. 5, 151 P. 1014, explained in Vanderford v. Wagner, 1918-NMSC-099, 24
N.M. 467, 174 P. 426, distinguished in Johnson v. Hickel, 1923-NMSC-002, 28 N.M.
349, 212 P. 338.
Grazing on unenclosed land not enjoinable. — Since attempt on the part of the
legislature to grant the exclusive right or occupancy upon part of a public domain would
be clearly within the prohibition of the act of congress of February 25, 1885, and invalid,
defendant cannot be restrained by injunction from permitting his animals to graze on
unenclosed lands of plaintiff. Yates v. White, 1925-NMSC-012, 30 N.M. 420, 235 P.
437; Hill v. Winkler, 1915-NMSC-077, 21 N.M. 5, 151 P. 1014, explained in Vanderford
v. Wagner, 1918-NMSC-099, 24 N.M. 467, 174 P. 426, distinguished in Johnson v.
Hickel, 1923-NMSC-002, 28 N.M. 349, 212 P. 338.
Removal contract void. — Contract to remove one's animals from an illegal enclosure
upon the public domain, and to keep them out, is void. Yates v. White, 1925-NMSC-
012, 30 N.M. 420, 235 P. 437.
Grazing cattle on federal public lands. — While 19-3-1 NMSA 1978 and this section
purport to grant "possessory" interests in public domain lands that may be enforceable
against non-federal claimants, no New Mexico statute grants (nor could it grant) a
property interest in federal lands that may be enforced against the United States.
Diamond Bar Cattle Co. v. United States, 168 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 1999).
Possessory rights. — One having appropriated and stocked range with cattle, and
being the owner of permanent water for use upon said range for maintenance of cattle
thereon, has possessory rights in said public lands, which he has the right to protect.
First State Bank v. McNew, 1928-NMSC-040, 33 N.M. 414, 269 P. 56, overruled by
Walker v. U.S., 2007-NMSC-038, 142. N.M. 45, 162 P.3d 882..
Effect of water rights. — One who owns all of the waters on his range has the right to
the exclusive enjoyment of the license to graze these lands as against all others who
did not develop other waters upon the same. Yates v. White, 1925-NMSC-012, 30 N.M.
420, 235 P. 437; Hill v. Winkler, 1915-NMSC-077, 21 N.M. 5, 151 P. 1014, explained in
Vanderford v. Wagner, 1918-NMSC-099, 24 N.M. 467, 174 P. 426, distinguished in
Johnson v. Hickel, 1923-NMSC-002, 28 N.M. 349, 212 P. 338.
Law reviews. — For article, "Attachment in New Mexico - Part II," see 2 Nat.
Resources J. 75 (1962).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 63A Am. Jur. 2d Public Lands §§ 22 to
36.
Trespassing or intruding livestock, liability for personal injury or death caused by, 49
A.L.R.4th 710.
73A C.J.S. Public Lands §§ 19 to 23.Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1999–2010 · leading case: Walker v. United States, 162 P.3d 882 (N.M. 2007).
Walker v. United States, 162 P.3d 882 (N.M. 2007). “{10} The Walkers’ state law argument can be broken down into three parts: (1) the state law requirement that a water right must be put to beneficial use to avoid abandonment; (2) a specific state statute of ancient origin, NMSA 1978, § 19-3-13 (1953); and (3) New Mexico case…”
Walker v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 685 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “at 891 (citing N.M. Stat. Ann. § 19-3-13 ). The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico also held that “beneficial use” does not give “rise to a right to continue a particular beneficial use on the particular land upon which a water right is initially established,” observing…”
Walker v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 222 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “1014 (1915), and the effect of what is now N.M. Stat. § 19-3-13 (1978)). In fact, every similar attempt to extend the Mining Act of 1866 beyond the recognition of vested water rights and ditch rights-of-way to the recognition of private property interests, such as grazing…”
Diamond Bar Cattle Co. v. United States, 168 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 1999). “Plaintiffs premise their alleged rights upon N.M. Stat. Ann. § 19-3-13 : Any person, company or corporation that may appropriate and stock a range upon the public domain of the United States, or otherwise, with cattle shall be deemed to be in possession thereof: provided, that…”
Sacramento Grazing Ass'n v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 175 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “N.M. Stat. Ann. § 19-3-13 . . The Water Canyon exclosures shown in Court Exhibit A were constructed after USFS issued the AOP for the Sacramento Allotment on January 17, 2006.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.