State ex rel. Office of State Eng'r v. Garcia

1

STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARGIE GARCIA, OSCAR V. BUTLER, ROSE MARIE ARISPE BUTLER, and SAMMIE SINGH, Defendants-Appellants, And ELEPHANT BUTTE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

No. A-1-CA-36269

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

April 25, 2023

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DONA ANA COUNTY James J. Wechsler District Court Judge

Nathaniel Chakeres, General Counsel Richard A. Allen, Special Assistant Attorney General Sonny Swazo, Special Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee

Robert Simon Albuquerque, NM for Appellants

Barncastle Law Firm Samantha R. Barncastle Las Cruces, NM for Defendant Elephant Butte Irrigation District

Environment and Natural Resources Division John L. Smeltzer, Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC for Defendant United States of America

MEMORANDUM OPINION

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

{¶1} Defendants-Appellants Margie Garcia, et al. (Appellants) appeal from the district court's order dismissing Appellants' claims to water rights in the Lower Rio Grande stream system, asserting multiple errors by the district court. After due consideration of the issues presented, we affirm.^[1]

DISCUSSION

{¶2} This appeal arises out of an expedited inter se proceeding in the course of a statutory general adjudication of stream system water rights in the Lower Rio Grande Basin (the Lower Rio Grande Adjudication). See NMSA 1978, § 72-4-17 (1965) ("In any suit for the determination of a right to use the waters of any stream system, all those whose claim to the use of such waters are of record and all other claimants . . . shall be made parties."). At issue here is the district court's granting of a joint motion filed by the State of New Mexico, the United States of America, and the Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) to dismiss Appellants' claims to water rights derivative of the Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Company (the Company). New Mexico appellate courts, as well as federal courts, have previously heard numerous appeals related to this matter. See United States v. Rio Grande Dam &Irrigation Co. (Rio Grande Dam II), 1906-NMSC-013, ¶ 3, 13 N.M. 386, 85 P. 393, aff'd, Rio Grande Dam &Irrigation Co. v. United States (Rio Grande Dam III), 215 U.S. 266 (1909); Boyd v. United States (Boyd I), No. 96-476L, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 21, 1997); Boyd Estate ex rel. Boyd v. United States (Boyd Estate), 2015-NMCA-018, 344 P.3d 1013; State ex rel. Off. of State Eng 'r v. Boyd (BoydII), A-1-CA-36291, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. June 24, 2021) (nonprecedential). While such previous cases provide ample background on the complex historical context of the relevant proceedings below, we supply a brief explanation of the Company's involvement in the Lower Rio Grande Adjudication, and, crucially, the manner in which Appellants claim their interests derive therefrom.

{¶3} The origins of this appeal, as well as those previously heard by this Court, date back to the 1890s. As explained in Boyd Estate:

In 1891, an Act of Congress (the 1891 Act) granted rights of way through public lands to irrigation companies. The Company was formed in 1893 to build a network of dams, canals, and reservoirs for irrigation of the area surrounding the Lower Rio Grande. In 1895, the Company received permits from the Secretary of the Interior and began work on the irrigation project.

2015-NMCA-018, ¶ 2 (citations omitted). The Company completed a portion of the intended irrigation project by constructing two diversion dams and one canal but did not complete the full scope of the project, including a dam and reservoir intended for construction at Elephant Butte (the Elephant Butte portion). The United States filed suit against the Company in 1897 to enjoin further work on the Elephant Butte portion of the intended irrigation project claiming that the project interfered with the navigability of the river, and the territorial district court issued a temporary injunction in response. United States v. Rio Grande Dam &Irrigation Co. (Rio Grande Dam I), 174 U.S. 690, 696-98 (1899). As litigation related to that temporary injunction wended through the courts, including the United States Supreme Court, the United States filed a supplemental complaint with the district court (the 1903 district court) this time alleging that the Company had forfeited its right-of-way by failing to complete the full scope of the intended irrigation projects within the time frame set forth by the 1891 Act. Boyd Estate, 2015-NMCA-018, ¶ 5; see Rio Grande Dam III, 215 U.S. at 268. "The Company failed to respond to the supplemental complaint and the [1903] district court entered a default judgment [(the forfeiture judgment)], finding that the Company had forfeited its rights to complete the [full scope of the intended irrigation] project and permanently enjoined the Company from attempting to complete the project." Boyd Estate, 2015-NMCA-018, ¶ 5.

{¶4} Thereafter, in protest of the forfeiture judgment, the Company presented an affidavit from a Company stockholder named Dr. Nathan Boyd (Dr. Boyd), who asserted that he had not received personal service of the supplemental complaint. See Rio Grande Dam II, 1906-NMSC-013, ¶¶ 6-7. The Company argued that because Dr. Boyd had not received personal service, the Company had not been provided proper notice of the proceedings. See id. ¶¶ 7, 11, 40. The Territorial Supreme Court held that the lack of personal service was "immaterial," because Dr. Boyd was a party to the litigation in his capacity "as a director . . . or other officer" of the Company, and service was properly made on the Company's attorneys. Id. ¶ 44.

{¶5} Over a century later, James Scott Boyd, on behalf of Dr. Boyd's estate (the Boyd Estate), intervened in the present general stream adjudication to assert ownership-as a successor in interest of Dr. Boyd-of allegedly extant private water rights of the Company, which the district court ultimately dismissed on the grounds that (1) the Boyd Estate failed to state a cognizable water rights claim; and (2) the Boyd Estate's claims were barred by res judicata principles. See Boyd Estate, 2015-NMCA-018, ¶¶ 1, 7. We affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Boyd Estate's claim, holding that the Boyd Estate's claim that the Company's original water rights remained extant was unfounded, given that the Company had failed to "diligently carry out its [intended] project to completion." Id. ¶¶ 17, 27. We further held that the Boyd Estate was bound by the forfeiture judgment as a matter of res judicata, based on Dr. Boyd's claim that he was a successor in interest to the Company's water rights, which therefore "put[] him in privity with the Company." Id. ¶ 26.

{¶6} Following our decision in Boyd Estate, Appellants in the instant case moved for an expedited inter se proceeding to resolve their own claims to water rights derivative of the Company. Appellants alleged the following facts: sometime before 1893, Appellants' predecessors in interest-farmers who settled the Lower Rio Grande before 1893 (the pre-1893 farmers)-acquired water rights by constructing diversion dams and community irrigation ditches. In 1897-the same year in which the Company was enjoined from completing further work on the Elephant Butte portion of the intended irrigation project-the pre-1893 farmers entered an agreement with the Company to connect their ditches to the Company's already-constructed canal. As a result of connection with the Company's canal, Appellants claimed that the pre-1893 farmers acquired a shared property interest in the Company's work in the form of reciprocal easements or servitudes, as well as by tenancy in common. Appellants further claimed that the Company did not complete the Elephant Butte portion of the irrigation project due to "improper litigation" and "interference and seizure by trespass by the [United States]," and that the rights of the Company "still exist[] and [are presently] held by the Boyd family," with whom Appellants are "interlinked." The State of New Mexico, the United States of America, and EBID filed a joint motion under Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA to dismiss Appellants' claims on the grounds that they failed to state a basis for a water right under New Mexico law. In its order granting the motion and dismissing Appellants' claims, the district court found that Appellants' claims were precluded by res judicata, in light of both the forfeiture judgment entered by the 1903 district court and our ruling in Boyd Estate. The district court further found that the pre-1893 farmers never acquired property interests in the form of either easements or servitudes in any works of the Company and were not tenants in common therewith under New Mexico law.

{¶7} Appellants' principal argument on appeal is that the district court erred in dismissing Appellants' claims under res judicata principles. Indeed, despite such claims having been previously litigated, Appellants argue again that the forfeiture judgment is void because the 1903 district court lacked jurisdiction and the district court erred in disallowing Appellants "the opportunity to collaterally attack" the forfeiture judgment by reasserting allegations of fraud on the court. Appellants contend as well that the district court erred in declining to determine Appellants' claims to additional water rights acquired directly by the pre-1893 farmers-separate from any rights allegedly derived from...