Lujan v. Acequia Mesa Del Medio

550 P.3d 861

2024-NMCA-043

Corlinda H. LUJAN, Ida M. Lujan, and Pablo Lujan, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.ACEQUIA MESA DEL MEDIO, a New Mexico Community Ditch Association; Teodoro (Ted) Chacon, Individually and as Mayordomo of Acequia Mesa del Medio; Jose Leandro Martinez; Magdalena L. Martinez; Richard (Ricky) Martinez, Individually and as President of Acequia Mesa del Medio; Steven D. Salazar, Individually and as Treasurer of Acequia Mesa del Medio; Luis Tobias (Toby) Velasquez, Individually and as Secretary of Acequia Mesa del Medio, Defendants-Appellees,andElise P. Bensen; Helen M. Chacon; Henry Chacon; Connie Garcia; Estella Garcia; Richard Garcia; Mary Ann J. Gonzales-Lujan, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Angie M. Romero, Deceased; Levi Herrera; Tomasita (Tommie) Herrera; Rose Lovato; Patsy Lucero-Maestas; Ida Madrid; Ron R. Maestas; Belarmino Martinez; Gloria Martinez; Consuelo V. Medina; Frank Medina; Annette Morfin; Benito Morfin; Joaquin Morfin; Leonard Morfin; Cleotilde Salazar; Leo Salazar; Maria Elena Salazar; Santana Salazar; Elaine Valdez; Larry Manuel Valdez; Mark W. Valdez; Sandra Valdez; Valdez, Inc., a New Mexico corporation; Gabriel A. Velasquez; Rudy Ben Velasquez, Jr.; Tomas A. Velasquez, Jr.; Wayne D. Velasquez; and Samuel H. Young, Defendants.

No. A-1-CA-40325

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Filing Date: March 5, 2024

Certiorari Denied, May 16, 2024, No. S-1-SC-40370

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, Francis J. Mathew, District Court Judge

Montgomery & Andrews, P.A., Randy S. Bartell, Santa Fe, NM, Ida M. Luján, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellants

Humphrey & Odd, P.C., Mary E. Humphrey, Connie Odd, El Prado, NM, for Appellees Acequia Mesa del Medio and Teodoro (Ted) Chacon, Richard (Ricky) Martinez, Steven D. Salazar, and Luis Tobias (Toby) Velasquez

Peter B. Shoenfeld, P.A., Peter B. Shoenfeld, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellees Jose Leandro Martinez and Magdalena Martinez

New Mexico Legal Aid, David Benavides, Matthew Baca, Santa Fe, NM, for Amicus Curiae New Mexico Acequia Association

OPINION

IVES, Judge.

{1} This appeal pertains to a dispute about the rights that several landowners have to irrigate their properties with water from the Acequia Mesa del Medio (the Acequia) and the role of the governing body of the Acequia, Defendant-Appellee Acequia Mesa del Medio (AMM), in the distribution of water to those landowners. The district court ruled against Plaintiffs-Appellants Corlinda Lujan, Ida Lujan, and Pablo Lujan and in favor of AMM and Defendants-Appellees Jose Leandro Martinez and Magdalena Martinez. The court concluded that AMM had the authority to distribute water to its members based on custom; the Lujans owned only a portion of a decreed water right rather than the entire right; the Lujans failed to show that they had a constitutionally protected property interest that supported their due process claim; and the Lujans must pay AMM’s expert costs and attorney’s fees.

{2} The central issues in this appeal involve the relationship between two distinct rights associated with acéquias: an irrigation water right, which is the right to use water to irrigate, see Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n, Inc. v. D’Antonio, 2012-NMSC-039, ¶ 41, 289 P.3d 1232, and a ditch right, which includes, as primarily relevant here, the right to take water from the ditch for a certain period of time. See Bounds v. Hamlett, 2011-NMCA-078, ¶ 4, 150 N.M. 389, 258 P.3d 1181 (stating that "the amount of time during a water cycle that an individual water user may take water from the ditch" is a ditch right). "New Mexico cases have long recognized that ditch rights and water rights are distinct, are derived from different sources, and are governed by different rules of law." Olson v. H & B Properties, Inc., 1994-NMSC-100, ¶ 10, 118 N.M. 495, 882 P.2d 536. We conclude that the district court correctly distinguished between the two rights and correctly rejected the Lujans’ arguments about the relationship between the two rights under the facts of this case. We also conclude that the court did not err as to the Lujans’ due process claim, expert costs, or attorney’s fees. We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

{3} This case is complex both legally and historically. Legally, it is situated within a niche—acéquia and community ditch governance—of a specialized area—water law. Historically, it involves families and neighbors whose dynamics began roiling several decades ago. We summarize the relevant history here, discussing in turn land ownership and water right ownership, ditch right ownership, and the current proceeding.¹ When necessary for context, we include brief summaries of the relevant law.

I. Land and Water Right Ownership

[1] {4} It is important to trace land ownership because "[i]rrigation water rights are appurtenant to the land, meaning that any conveyance of the land will carry the water right with it unless the water right is expressly reserved by the grantor." Walker v. United States, 2007-NMSC-038, ¶ 23, 142 N.M. 45, 162 P.3d 882. Corlinda, the Martinezes, and the heirs of Froilan Chacon² all own some land irrigated with water from the Acequia that was originally part of Jose One-simo Lujan, Senior’s (Jose Sr.’s) 160-acre homestead. Jose Onesimo Lujan, Junior (Jose Jr.), received 114 acres of the homestead in several conveyances in the 1940s and 50s, and after Jose Jr. passed away in 1961, his surviving spouse, Corlinda, inherited those acres. The Martinezes’ predecessor-in-interest, Fabian Lujan, received a separate 34 acres in the 1950s and subsequently conveyed 28 of those acres to the Martinezes in 1964. Froilan Chacon received 6 acres of the homestead in the 1940s.

{5} Of the 142 acres owned by the Martinezes and Corlinda, only 42.2 have an appurtenant water right. The water rights on the Acequia vested after a district court completed a special proceeding termed an "adjudication," in which it determined all water rights on the Rio Puerco de Chama, the body of water that supplies the Acequia. See NMSA 1978, § 72-4-17 (1965) (outlining the adjudication process). In the adjudication, which is known as the Chacon Adjudication, a district court issued a decree—the Chacon Decree—in 1962.³ Chacon v. Chacon, Rio Arriba County Cause No. 4922. The Lujans and the Martinezes were not parties to the Chacon Adjudication, yet the Chacon court decreed an irrigation water right to "Jose Onisimo Lujan and wife Corlinda Lujan."⁴ The Chacon Decree court identified the specific tracts of land that had appurtenant rights to take water from the Acequia for irrigation. An owner or prior owner’s name was used as a shorthand to label the tracts of land identified on a map showing the acreage with appurtenant water rights. The 42.2 acres of land at issue in this case to which the water rights were appurtenant were identified by a legal description and correlating map.⁵

{6} The Chacon Decree further identified all water rights in the Decree as "appurtenant to the lands … as set forth in … th[e] Decree," and the Decree states and such appurtenant water rights may be severed hereafter from said lands, only in accord with" New Mexico law. The Chacon Decree did not adjudicate the land ownership of the appurtenant acres; instead it assumed "for the purpose of th[e] Decree that each party claimant … is the owner of the respective tract or tracts of land." (Emphasis added.) The Chacon court did not decide who owned the tracts identified on the map as having appurtenant water rights; land title questions were left open, to be resolved based on state law and, if necessary, by state courts.

{7} Of the homestead’s 114 acres owned by Corlinda, approximately 20 are among the acres identified by the Chacon court as having appurtenant water rights. Neither the Martinezes nor their predecessor-in-interest were claimants in the Chacon court proceeding, so they are not identified by name, but the Martinezes currently own some acres identified by the Chacon court as having appurtenant water rights to irrigate from the Acequia.

II. Ditch Right Ownership and the Derecho System

{8} It is undisputed that Corlinda and Jose Leandro have ditch rights in the Acequia. As discussed previously, a ditch right includes, in relevant part, the right to take water from the ditch for a certain period of time. The dispute here pertains to how AMM distributes water to the holders of ditch rights—how it assigns a particular time period for taking water from the Acequia to each member of AMM.

{9} By statute and under a 1968 stipulation in the Chacon Adjudication, AMM, as the community acéquia association for this Acequia, see NMSA 1978, § 73-2-28 (2001), has the discretion, with certain limitations discussed below, to adopt "customs, rules and regulations" regarding the distribution of water to those entitled to water from the Acequia. See NMSA 1978, § 72-9-2 (1907). AMM adopted a distribution system that it terms the "derecho system," under which AMM determines the date and amount of time that each holder of a ditch right—each parciante—may take water from the Acequia during each irrigation cycle of roughly three weeks. These determinations are set forth in an irrigation schedule.

{10} Currently, Corlinda and Jose Leandro may take water for twenty-four and eighteen hours per cycle, respectively. Every parciante’s irrigation time on the Acequia derives from one of the original parciante’s derechos. For example, the derechos for Corlinda, Jose Leandro, and the heirs of Froilan Chacon each derive from and are fractions of Jose Sr.’s derecho. Jose Sr. could take water from the Acequia for forty-eight hours per cycle; when added together, the irrigation time of Corlinda, Jose Leandro, and the heirs of Froilan Chacon total forty-eight hours.⁶

{11} Corlinda’s irrigation time and Jose Leandro’s irrigation time have varied over the years. From 1984 to 2012, Corlinda received forty-two hours of irrigation time, and Jose Leandro was not...