2020 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 73 - Special Districts
Article 14 - Conservancy Districts; Definitions; Organization and Management
Section 73-14-4 - Jurisdiction of the conservancy court.

A. The conservancy court is hereby vested with jurisdiction, power and authority, when the conditions stated in Section 202 [73-14-5 NMSA 1978] are found to exist, to establish conservancy districts for all or any of the following purposes:

(1) preventing floods;

(2) regulating stream channels by changing, widening or deepening the same;

(3) regulating the flow of streams;

(4) diverting, controlling or in whole or in part eliminating watercourses;

(5) reclaiming, draining or filling wet and overflowed lands;

(6) of providing for irrigation where it may be needed and otherwise benefiting and developing agricultural lands or lands susceptible of irrigation or agricultural development;

(7) protecting public and private property from inundation.

Incident to the foregoing purposes and to enable their accomplishment, any district so established shall have the power to straighten, widen, deepen, divert or change the course or terminus of any natural or artificial watercourse; drainage, irrigation or community ditches, or acequias; to build reservoirs, canals, drainage, irrigation or community ditches or acequias, levees, walls, embankments, bridges or dams; to drain, reclaim or fill low lands and lands subject to overflow; to make improvements, to remove and to regulate and prescribe the location of improvements upon land; to maintain, operate and repair any of the construction herein named; to sink wells, to purchase, develop and reclaim waters for the purpose of using, distributing, selling or leasing the same; to construct, operate, lease and control plants for the generation, distribution, sale, lease and use of electric energy; to construct, maintain and operate irrigation and drainage works or systems, necessary to maintain the irrigability of lands within the district, or to purchase, extend, improve, operate and maintain constructed works; to cooperate and contract with the federal or any state government or agent or department thereof; to promote the agricultural resources and marketing facilities of the district; to levy assessments, issue bonds and make appropriations of money, and to do all things necessary to effectuate and fulfill the purposes of this act; and such powers shall also be appraised as herein provided.

B. The conservancy court shall thereafter, for all purposes of this act, except as heretofore or hereinafter otherwise provided, maintain and have original and exclusive jurisdiction coextensive with the boundaries of said district, and of lands and other property proposed to be included in said district or affected by said district, without regard to the usual limits of its jurisdiction.

C. No judge of such court wherein such petition is filed or other judge exercising administrative or judicial functions under the provisions of this act shall be disqualified to perform any duty imposed by this act by reason of ownership of property within any district or proposed district, or by reason of ownership of any property that may be benefited, taxed or assessed therein.

History: Laws 1927, ch. 45, § 201; C.S. 1929, § 30-201; 1941 Comp., § 77-2704; 1953 Comp., § 75-28-4.

Compiler's notes. — For meaning of "this act", see compiler's notes to 73-14-3 NMSA 1978..

Cross references. — For definition of conservancy court, see 73-14-3 NMSA 1978.

For establishment of guaranty fund, see 73-16-41 to 73-16-49 NMSA 1978.

Constitutionality of powers and duties conferred. — Powers and duties conferred upon the district court by this act (Laws 1927, ch. 45) are essentially judicial and do not violate N.M. Const., art. III, § 1. Gutierrez v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1929-NMSC-071, 34 N.M. 346, 282 P. 1, cert. denied, 280 U.S. 610, 50 S. Ct. 158, 74 L. Ed. 653 (1930).

The Conservancy Act (Laws 1927, ch. 45) is not unconstitutional under contention that under it the individual petitioners, by fixing the boundaries of the district are empowered to determine whether or not the property included will be benefited, thereby causing an unlawful delegation to them of the legislative power, as the petitioners must allege and the conservancy court must find that the property described in the petition will be benefited, not merely some of the property described. In re Arch Hurley Conservancy Dist., 1948-NMSC-001, 52 N.M. 34, 191 P.2d 338.

This act (Laws 1927, ch. 45) does not create a new court in violation of N.M. Const., art. VI, § 1. Gutierrez v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1929-NMSC-071, 34 N.M. 346, 282 P. 1, cert. denied, 280 U.S. 610, 50 S. Ct. 158, 74 L. Ed. 653 (1930).

Other provisions not made unconstitutional. — This section does not of itself make the Conservancy Act (Laws 1927, ch. 45) unconstitutional under N.M. Const., art. VI, § 18. Gutierrez v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1929-NMSC-071, 34 N.M. 346, 282 P. 1, cert. denied, 280 U.S. 610, 50 S. Ct. 158, 74 L. Ed. 653 (1930).

Scope of discretion to form districts. — A water conservancy district is a quasi-municipal corporation, the formation of which is a legislative function, and for which the Conservancy Act (Laws 1927, ch. 45) has set up certain standards and requirements and has delegated to the district court the ministerial and judicial task of determining whether these standards have been met in a given case; but the court does not have and could not constitutionally have been invested with a general discretion for the formation of whatever districts the court deemed to be in the public interest. Rancho Del Rio Grande Conservancy Dist. v. Tres Rios Ass'n, 1975-NMSC-024, 87 N.M. 482, 535 P.2d 1333.

Powers not to be expanded beyond language. — Formation of a water conservancy district is a statutory proceeding and the powers conferred may not be expanded by inference or construction beyond the language of the statute. Rancho Del Rio Grande Conservancy Dist. v. Tres Rios Ass'n, 1975-NMSC-024, 87 N.M. 482, 535 P.2d 1333.

Jurisdiction not exclusive to determine collectibility of assessments. — There is a supportable inference in the Conservancy Act (Laws 1927, ch. 45) itself that the conservancy court does not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the collectibility of assessments in the provision that the county treasurer is relieved of his statutory duty to collect them if their collection has been enjoined by order of court of competent jurisdiction. Tondre v. Garcia, 1941-NMSC-042, 45 N.M. 433, 116 P.2d 584.

Jurisdiction to issue injunction. — Injunction to restrain county treasurer from refusing to accept payment of county and state taxes unless taxpayers paid all conservancy district assessments against the lands need not be brought in conservancy court. Tondre v. Garcia, 1941-NMSC-042, 45 N.M. 433, 116 P.2d 584.

Jurisdiction to prevent wrongs. — Jurisdiction of a district court other than the conservancy court to prevent wrongs may not be successfully challenged merely because such district may be incidentally interested in the outcome of the litigation. This is not the kind of a case that is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the conservancy court. Tondre v. Garcia, 1941-NMSC-042, 45 N.M. 433, 116 P.2d 584.

Law reviews. — For note, "County Regulation of Land Use and Development," see 9 Nat. Resources J. 266 (1969).

For article, "Existing Legislation and Proposed Model Flood Plain Ordinance for New Mexico Municipalities," see 9 Nat. Resources J. 629 (1969).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 94 C.J.S. Waters § 321.