New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 72-6-4 (2026)

Lessee's application

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Prior to his use of such water, the lessee shall apply to the state engineer requesting approval for the use and location of use to which such water will be put. The engineer shall prescribe the form of such application and may require any information pertinent to the matter.

History: 1953 Comp., § 75-40-4, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 100, § 4.

ANNOTATIONS

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

State engineer is without statutory or regulatory authority to issue preliminary approvals of proposed leases of water rights. — The legislature has provided standards that the state engineer must follow when considering the approval of proposed leases of water rights and has provided a step by step process of the administrative procedures that a lease application is subject to, including the incorporation of procedural requirements to add public notice and specific timelines to the state engineer’s review of these applications, and therefore where the state engineer has approved temporary changes in water use leases on a "preliminary" basis prior to or without a hearing, this practice is without statutory authority. Moreover, state engineer regulations explicitly prohibit changes to point of diversion, place of use, or purpose of use prior to use by a lessee without the opportunity for objections to be considered in a hearing first. The law does not allow for the state engineer to circumvent procedures and protections clearly defined in statute, even if temporary in nature. 2023 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 23-01.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 93 C.J.S. Waters § 180.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1962–1975 · leading case: Gen. Tel. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 367 P.2d 711 (N.M. 1962).
Gen. Tel. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 367 P.2d 711 (N.M. 1962). · cites it 4× “The assessment and valuation of appellee’s properties was made pursuant to § 72-6-4, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., which provides: “72-6-4.”
Halliburton Co. v. Prop. Appraisal Dep't, 542 P.2d 56 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 8× “PAD asserts the classification has a reasonable basis because “imposition of tax on the inventories of the contractors referred to in Section 72-6-4 (A) (1) (c), supra, is susceptible to better procedure in order to obtain uniformity and equality in the valuation and assessment…”
Sandia Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Kleinheim, 391 P.2d 324 (N.M. 1964). “For the year 1961 the state tax commission determined the actual value of the shares of capital stock of plaintiff and certified the same to the local assessor of Bernalillo County, as required by § 72-6-4, N.M.S.A.1953. The value certified was determined in accordance with §…”
Int'l Minerals & Chem. Corp. (IMC) v. Prop. Appraisal Dep't, 492 P.2d 1265 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971). “Pursuant to § 72-6-4(1) (c), the Department shall determine the “actual value” of mineral property as defined in § 72-6-7 and § 72-6-7.”
N.M. Stat. § 72-6-4(1): 1 case
Int'l Minerals & Chem. Corp. (IMC) v. Prop. Appraisal Dep't, 492 P.2d 1265 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971). “Pursuant to § 72-6-4(1) (c), the Department shall determine the “actual value” of mineral property as defined in § 72-6-7 and § 72-6-7.”
N.M. Stat. § 72-6-4(5): 1 case
Gen. Tel. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 367 P.2d 711 (N.M. 1962). “The assessment and valuation of appellee’s properties was made pursuant to § 72-6-4, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., which provides: “72-6-4.”
N.M. Stat. § 72-6-4(A): 1 case
Halliburton Co. v. Prop. Appraisal Dep't, 542 P.2d 56 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975). “PAD asserts the classification has a reasonable basis because “imposition of tax on the inventories of the contractors referred to in Section 72-6-4 (A) (1) (c), supra, is susceptible to better procedure in order to obtain uniformity and equality in the valuation and assessment…”
N.M. Stat. § 72-6-4(A)(1): 1 case
Halliburton Co. v. Prop. Appraisal Dep't, 542 P.2d 56 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975). “PAD asserts the classification has a reasonable basis because “imposition of tax on the inventories of the contractors referred to in Section 72-6-4 (A) (1) (c), supra, is susceptible to better procedure in order to obtain uniformity and equality in the valuation and assessment…”
N.M. Stat. § 72-6-4(A)(1)(c): 1 case
Halliburton Co. v. Prop. Appraisal Dep't, 542 P.2d 56 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975). “PAD asserts the classification has a reasonable basis because “imposition of tax on the inventories of the contractors referred to in Section 72-6-4 (A) (1) (c), supra, is susceptible to better procedure in order to obtain uniformity and equality in the valuation and assessment…”
N.M. Stat. § 72-6-4(A)(l)(c): 1 case
Halliburton Co. v. Prop. Appraisal Dep't, 542 P.2d 56 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975). “PAD asserts the classification has a reasonable basis because “imposition of tax on the inventories of the contractors referred to in Section 72-6-4 (A) (1) (c), supra, is susceptible to better procedure in order to obtain uniformity and equality in the valuation and assessment…”
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.