2020 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 73 - Special Districts
Article 18 - Conservancy Districts; Reclamation Contracts
Section 73-18-2 - Additional powers; duties of board; contract indebtedness a general obligation.
A. Any district, in addition to all other powers heretofore conferred by law upon districts, is empowered to cooperate with the United States under the reclamation law and in the exercise of such power may enter into a reclamation contract or contracts for the purpose of the construction of irrigation works, including ancillary works and drainage works to maintain the irrigability of lands within any such district; for the purchase, extension, operation or maintenance of constructed works; for the assumption as principal or guarantor of indebtedness to the United States on account of the cost of construction or operation and maintenance of irrigation, drainage and ancillary works; for rental of water or otherwise securing a water supply for district lands; for acceptance of appointment or designation of the district as fiscal agent of the United States to make collections of monies for or on behalf of the United States in connection with any federal reclamation project, or for all or any one or more of said purposes; and all payments to become due to the United States under any reclamation contract heretofore or hereafter entered into between a district and the United States shall be paid by revenue derived from an annual assessment upon the real property of the district and all the real property in the district shall be and remain liable to be assessed for such payments until fully made. It shall be the duty of the board of a contracting district, notwithstanding any other provision of the Conservancy Act, to make and establish all levies, assessments, tolls or charges to meet each year the contract indebtedness and obligation as the same may be provided for in any reclamation contract heretofore or hereafter entered into by a contracting district and to do any and all acts necessary to carry out the provisions of any such reclamation contract.
B. A contracting district:
(1) may convey to the United States land or water rights or any interest therein, either without monetary consideration therefor or in partial consideration of the privileges derived from a reclamation contract or for other consideration;
(2) may, and if so agreed in a reclamation contract shall, withhold water from lands which under the terms of the reclamation law, a reclamation contract or rules and regulations thereunder are not entitled to receive water, and from water users or the lands of water users delinquent in the payment of any assessment, toll, rental or other charge, but this remedy shall be in addition to all other remedies available for the enforcement of a reclamation contract or collection of assessments, tolls, rentals or other charges; and
(3) may accept the provisions of any existing or future act of congress applicable to such district.
C. The board of directors of any contracting district is hereby vested with all powers necessary and requisite for the accomplishment of the purposes for which the district is organized and for which the reclamation contract has been entered into by the district, and capable of being delegated to it by the legislature of the state of New Mexico; and no enumeration of particular powers in the Conservancy Act or in this act granted shall be construed to impair any general grant of power herein contained, nor to limit any such grant to power or powers of the same class or classes as those so enumerated.
History: Laws 1939, ch. 148, § 2; 1941 Comp., § 77-3102; 1953 Comp., § 75-32-2.
ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 1939, ch. 148, contained no effective date provision, but was enacted at a session which adjourned on March 11, 1939. See N.M. Const., art. IV, § 23.
Compiler's notes. — For the meaning of "this act" and "Conservancy Act", see the compiler's notes to 73-18-1 NMSA 1978.
For the reclamation law, which includes the act of congress of June 17, 1902 and all acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, see 43 U.S.C. § 371 et seq.
Constitutionality of reclamation contract. — A provision of a reclamation contract allowing a reclamation district to enter into a lawful contract with the United States for the improvement of the district and the increase of its water supply does not violate N.M. Const., art II, §§ 4 and 18. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391.
Adoption of reclamation statutes by reference to the title of the federal Reclamation Act is not violative of N.M. Const., art. IV, § 18, where these reclamation statutes are not a necessary part of the act in which they are adopted. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391.
Illegal provision. — A provision of a reclamation contract which provides that, "Should any assessment or assessments required by the terms of this contract and levied against any tract of land or water user in the district be judicially determined to be irregular or void or the district or its officers be enjoined or restrained from making or collecting any assessment upon said land as provided for herein, then such tract or water user shall have no right to any of the benefits of this contract and no water made available through the works constructed or rehabilitated by the United States hereunder shall be delivered to or for such tract of land or water user," is an express provision that the secretary of the interior may override the decision of the conservancy court, or any other court, and enforce his mandate whether legal or illegal, regardless even of what the supreme court of the United States might say, and is illegal. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391.
Making secretary of interior final arbiter not illegal. — The provision of a reclamation contract making the secretary of interior the final arbiter of disputed facts is improvident, but it is not illegal. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391.
Reclamation contract does not lack mutuality although the United States is not bound to do or perform any act to carry out the terms of said contract other than to take possession, at its discretion, of the property of the district and operate it in whole or in part in its discretion unless and until the congress of the United States appropriates or makes available funds for the United States to carry out the improvements mentioned and described in said contract, and the district is obligated without any consideration to transfer all of its property and the management thereof to the United States. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391.
No authority to barter vested water rights. — A conservancy district does not have the authority to barter away the vested water rights of the landowners who have applied them to beneficial use. The waters are appurtenant to the land and the district stores and delivers them to the users. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391.
Power to compel district to make assessment. — For money lawfully expended for the district, or operation and maintenance charges lawfully made, the secretary of interior can compel the district to make assessment; but this must be made by the conservancy district following a hearing at which the water owner may have his day in court. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391 (1953).
Valid existing water rights recognized. — The federal Reclamation Act, as well as the federal Flood Control Act of 1948, under topic "Rio Grande Basin," provides for the recognition of valid existing water rights, as does this article (now Sections 73-18-1 to 73-18-24 NMSA 1978). Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391 (1953).
Excess acreage limitation is not confiscation of water user's land. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391 (1953).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 45 Am. Jur. 2d Irrigation §§ 62, 88.
52A C.J.S. Levees and Flood Control § 24; 94 C.J.S. Waters §§ 316, 321.
