Herrington v. State of New Mexico ex rel. Office of the State Engineer
New Mexico Supreme Court
139 N.M. 368, 133 P.3d 258 (2006)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
Ellis and Laverne Herrington (plaintiffs) had a long-standing surface-water right in the Rio de Arenas Valley. However, groundwater wells established by junior water-rights holders in an aquifer that fed the basin surface waters diminished the Herringtons’ ability to draw their allocated water. Therefore, the Herringtons applied to the state engineer, John D’Antonio (defendant), to drill a well to supplement their surface-water right with groundwater. D’Antonio denied the application because the Herringtons would be appropriating water from a deeper aquifer that did not feed the surface waters they used. Their appropriation would also impair others’ water rights. The Herringtons appealed to the New Mexico district court, arguing that the underlying aquifers were not separate and ultimately fed the surface water flow. The district court agreed that the groundwater wells had impeded the Herringtons’ water right but held that because the Herringtons’ proposed well would reach an aquifer that did not feed the affected surface-water flow, they were not entitled to the supplemental well. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Herringtons appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bosson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.