Chapter 72, Article 16 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Arroyo Flood Control Act".
History: 1953 Comp., § 75-36-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 311, § 1; 2018, ch. 79, §
101.
ANNOTATIONS
Cross references. — For municipalities, authority to protect against flood, see Chapter
3, Article 41 NMSA 1978.
For flood control generally, see Chapter 4, Article 50 NMSA 1978.
For applicability of conservancy districts act, see 73-14-2 NMSA 1978.
The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, changed "This act" to "Chapter 72,
Article 16 NMSA 1978".
This act does not deprive owners of their property without due process of law, nor
does it deny them the equal protection of the law. Albuquerque Metro. Arroyo Flood
Control Auth. v. Swinburne, 1964-NMSC-206, 74 N.M. 487, 394 P.2d 998.
Boundaries of flood control authority were not arbitrarily and capriciously fixed by
the legislature nor does this act contravene the due process clause. Albuquerque Metro.
Arroyo Flood Control Auth. v. Swinburne, 1964-NMSC-206, 74 N.M. 487, 394 P.2d 998.
Fact some residents receive more benefit than others. — Under this section, the
fact that there may be residents or property owners in some portions of the area who
receive a greater benefit than others, or that some actually receive no benefit from the
improvements and are in no apparent danger of damage from floods, cannot stand in
the way of a general governmental policy declared by the legislature in the interest of
the public welfare and benefit. Albuquerque Metro. Arroyo Flood Control Auth. v.
Swinburne, 1964-NMSC-206, 74 N.M. 487, 394 P.2d 998.
Law reviews. — For article, "Existing Legislation and Proposed Model Flood Plain
Ordinance for New Mexico Municipalities," see 9 Nat. Resources J. 629 (1969).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 50 Am. Jur. 2d Levees and Flood
Control §§ 1, 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1958–1971 · leading case:
Lyle v. Luna, 338 P.2d 1060 (N.M. 1959).
Lyle v. Luna, 338 P.2d 1060 (N.M. 1959).
· cites it 6× “§ 72-16-1 et seq.] and “(C) All other just, proper and equitable relief.”
Chavez v. Comm'r of Revenue, 476 P.2d 67 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 3× “Insofar as the Emergency School Tax Act [§§ 72-16-1 through 72-16-47, N.M.S.A.1953, as amended, (Repealed effective July 1, 1966)], is concerned, the Commissioner takes the position that the rent received by the taxpayer from the lessee Railway was income received by a hotel or…”
Bureau of Revenue v. Dale J. Bellamah Corp., 474 P.2d 499 (N.M. 1970).
· cites it 3× “Bellamah Corporation and Dale Bellamah Equipment Corporation to recover tax assessments- due under the Emergency School Tax Act- (§§ 72-16-1 through 72-16-47, N.M.S.A:, 1953 Comp, [since repealed]) for the period from November 1, 1959 to December 15, 1964, on gross receipts from…”
Besser Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, 394 P.2d 141 (N.M. 1964).
“to the provisions of the New Mexico School Tax Law, Sections 72-16-1 to 72-16-47, inclusive, N.”
Edmunds v. Bureau of Revenue, 330 P.2d 131 (N.M. 1958).
“Appellant, a resident retailer of chemicals, sold certain chemical reagents for use in processing uranium ore to a large mill in Grants, New Mexico, and he came under the provisions of the Emergency School Tax Act, § 72-16-1 et seq., N.M.S.A.1953, which was enacted as chapter…”
United States v. Bureau of Revenue of State of New Mexico, 217 F. Supp. 849 (D.N.M. 1963).
“1953, §§ 72-16-1 to 72-16-47, hereinafter referred to as the act, be construed as not to apply to sales of uranium made to the Commission; that if the provisions of the act do apply to such sales, it be adjudicated as unconstitutional and void for the reason that it…”
Dikewood Corp. v. Bureau of Revenue, 390 P.2d 661 (N.M. 1964).
“It was further alleged that appellant also received from the United States government other sums to cover an alleged sales tax liability owed to the state of New Mexico, under §§ 72-16-1 et seq., N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., as amended by the Laws of 1957 and 1959, which sums appellant…”
United States v. Bureau of Revenue, 364 P.2d 356 (N.M. 1961).
“Chief Justice This is an action by the United States of America and Acoma Corporation against the Bureau of Revenue of the State of New Mexico, Commissioner of Revenue, and the Director of School Tax Division, Bureau of Revenue, seeking a declaratory judgment that neither the…”
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.