Mathers v. Texaco, Inc.
New Mexico Supreme Court
77 N.M. 239, 421 P.2d 771 (1966)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
Texaco, Inc. (defendant) applied to New Mexico’s state engineer (defendant) to appropriate 700 acre-feet of water annually from the Lea County Underground Water Basin. The basin essentially had a net zero recharge, with the little water coming in from rainfall being offset by natural loss. Notwithstanding, New Mexico allowed groundwater mining from the basin—the withdrawal of groundwater in excess of the net recharge. The state engineer devised a plan to manage groundwater withdrawal for a set period (40 years) before the basin would be limited to some domestic uses but not agriculture. Under the plan, a certain amount of appropriation would be allowed annually. In response to Texaco’s application, the state engineer determined that 350 acre-feet per year of unappropriated groundwater was available and granted Texaco the right to appropriate that amount. W. E. Mathers and other water-right holders (plaintiffs) in the basin’s groundwater protested the decision to the New Mexico district court. The district court determined that any additional withdrawal of groundwater from the basin would negatively affect the existing water-rights holders because it would reduce the water table at a rate faster than the status quo. Therefore, the court reversed the state engineer’s decision. Texaco and the state engineer appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Oman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.