effective July 1, 2026.)
The Carlsbad brine well remediation authority is terminated on July 1, 2025 pursuant
to the Sunset Act [12-9-11 through 12-9-21 NMSA 1978]. The authority shall continue to
operate according to the provisions of Sections 75-11-1 and 75-11-2 NMSA 1978 until
July 1, 2026. Effective July 1, 2026, Sections 75-11-1 and 75-11-2 NMSA 1978 are
repealed.
History: Laws 2017, ch. 11, § 3; 2017, ch. 118, § 3; 2018, ch. 26, § 3.
ANNOTATIONS
The 2018 amendment, effective February 28, 2018, changed the termination, operation
and repeal dates for the Carlsbad brine well remediation authority; in the first sentence,
after "remediation", deleted "advisory", and after "July 1", changed "2029" to "2025"; in
the second sentence, deleted "advisory", changed "this act" to "Sections 75-11-1 and
75-11-2 NMSA 1978", and after "July 1", changed "2030" to "2026"; and in the third
sentence, after "July 1", changed "2030" to "2026", and changed "this act is" to
"Sections 75-11-1 and 75-11-2 NMSA 1978 are".
ARTICLE 12
Legacy Funds
Notes of Decisions
City of Albuquerque v. Reynolds, 379 P.2d 73 (N.M. 1962).
· cites it 4× “Any interested person is afforded an opportunity to file a protest to the granting of the application and, if one or more protests are filed, a hearing is held after which the statute, § 75-11-3, supra, as it existed when these applications were filed, provided in pertinent…”
Mathers v. Texaco, Inc., 421 P.2d 771 (N.M. 1966).
· cites it 4× “Section 75-11-3, N.M.S.A.1953, provides in part that: “ * * * the state engineer shall, if he finds that there are in such underground stream, channel, artesian basin, reservoir or lake, unappropriated waters, or that the proposed appropriation would not impair existing water…”
Templeton v. Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist., 332 P.2d 465 (N.M. 1958).
· cites it 2× “Section 75-11-3 of the Statutes of New Mexico, 1953 Compilation, provides for tfie granting of permits by the State Engineer for the appropriation of underground waters.”
City of Hobbs v. State Ex Rel. Reynolds, 476 P.2d 500 (N.M. 1970).
· cites it 5× “Plaintiffs protested the applications, and subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to determine whether the State Engineer had jurisdiction to adjudicate said applications, by reason of § 75-11-3, N.M.S.A.1953, as amended in 1967.”
City of Roswell v. Berry, 452 P.2d 179 (N.M. 1969).
· cites it 2× “The statute on original applications to appropriate underground water is § 75-11-3, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 11, pt.”
Coldwater Cattle Co. v. Portales Valley Proj., Inc., 428 P.2d 15 (N.M. 1967).
· cites it 2× “The owner of a water right may drill and use a supplemental well upon making application but prior to the publication and hearing set out in section 75-11-3 New Mexico Statutes Annotated, 1953 Compilation, if: (1) The supplemental well is drilled into the same and only the same…”
Tevis v. McCrary, 381 P.2d 208 (N.M. 1963).
· cites it 3× “Respondent argues that the right to protest provided by § 75-11-3, N.M.S.A. 1953, and the appeal from the state engineer’s decision authorized by § 75-11-10, N.”
Fellows v. Shultz, 469 P.2d 141 (N.M. 1970).
“Our reasoning applies equally to all of the amended portion of § 2 of that act (§ 75-11-3, N.M.S.A.1953, Application for use of underground water — Publication of notice — Permit—Hearing.”
Paschall v. Paschall, 442 P.2d 569 (N.M. 1968).
“Seven permits were granted, and five of these were drilled with water obtained so as to perfect the water rights. One well had been leased for a period of time at $400.”
McBee v. Reynolds, 399 P.2d 110 (N.M. 1965).
“Assuming that the state engineer has the duty to supervise the apportionment of underground water “according to the licenses issued by him and his predecessors and the adjudications of the courts” as provided in § 75-2-9, N.”
Reynolds v. Wiggins, 397 P.2d 469 (N.M. 1964).
· cites it 2× “” An examination of § 75-11-3, N.M.S.A. 1953, convinces us that it requires the state engineer to issue a permit to appropriate from an underground source if either, (1) there is unappropriated water, or (2) the proposed appropriation will not impair existing rights from such…”
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.