N.M. Stat. » Chapter 73 — Special Districts
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 73-2-63 (2026)

[Change in place of diversion; permit unnecessary.]

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

It shall not be necessary for the officers of public community acequias established and in operation prior to March 19, 1907, to make any application to, or obtain any permit from, the state engineer or the board of water commissioners in order to change the place of diversion; provided that by such change no increase in the amount of water appropriated shall be made beyond the amount to which the acequia was formerly entitled.

History: Laws 1912, ch. 26, § 1; Code 1915, § 5771; C.S. 1929, § 151-441; 1941 Comp., § 77-1459; 1953 Comp., § 75-14-60.

ANNOTATIONS

Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.

Compiler’s notes. — Laws 1923, ch. 28, § 4, compiled as 72-2-11 NMSA 1978, abolished the board of water commissioners and provided for the transfer of the board's records to the state engineer.

Cross references. — For general requirement that changing point of diversion be approved by state engineer, see 72-5-24 NMSA 1978.

For the state engineer, see 72-2-11 NMSA 1978.

Generally as to regulation by state engineer. — Prior existing right to change place of diversion is not subject to regulation by state engineer under Laws 1907, ch. 49 (now Section 72-5-24 NMSA 1978). Pueblo of Isleta v. Tondre, 1913-NMSC-067, 18 N.M. 388, 137 P. 86 (decided under law prior to enactment of this section).

Approval of change in acequia necessary once water rights adjudicated. — If the water rights of an acequia have been adjudicated, then the state engineer must approve any change in amount or location of diversion, regardless of whether or not it is a community acequia. Honey Boy Haven, Inc. v. Roybal, 1978-NMSC-088, 92 N.M. 603, 592 P.2d 959.

Change in place of diversion contemplated by section is one in which exigencies require immediate reconstruction. Honey Boy Haven, Inc. v. Roybal, 1978-NMSC-088, 92 N.M. 603, 592 P.2d 959.

Law reviews. — For comment on Mathers v. Texaco, Inc., 77 N.M. 239, 421 P.2d 771 (1966), see 7 Nat. Resources J. 433 (1967). For article, "Water Rights Problems in the Upper Rio Grande Watershed and Adjoining Areas," see 11 Nat. Resources J. 48 (1971).

For article, "New Mexico Water Law: An Overview and Discussion of Current Issues," see 22 Nat. Resources J. 1045 (1982).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2016–2016 · leading case: State Eng'r of New Mexico v. Diamond K Bar Ranch, LLC, 2016 NMSC 036 (N.M. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Eng'r of New Mexico v. Diamond K Bar Ranch, LLC, 2016 NMSC 036 (N.M. 2016). · cites it 2× “But even for an existing community ditch, this exemption does not extend to changes in the amount of water appropriated or the location of use.”
State Eng'r v. Diamond K Bar Ranch, LLC, 2016 NMSC 36 (N.M. 2016). · cites it 2× “But even for an existing community ditch, this exemption does not extend to changes in the amount of water appropriated or the location of use.”
N.M. Stat. § 73-2-63(1912): 1 case
State Eng'r of New Mexico v. Diamond K Bar Ranch, LLC, 2016 NMSC 036 (N.M. 2016). “But even for an existing community ditch, this exemption does not extend to changes in the amount of water appropriated or the location of use.”
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.