PUB00160 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I, . commerce." EI Paso 11, 597 F.Supp. at 703. Despite this, it ended its assessme t by . declaring them impermissible because they were not even-handed: Under S.B. 295 no permit to transfer a water right or drill a domestic well may be granted if the use of the water is (1) out-of-state and (2) contrary to the conservation of water and public welfare of the citizens of New Mexico. In-state, no permit to transfer a water right or drill a domestic well can be denied on the ground that it would be contrary to the conservation of water or detrimental to the public welfare. These factors are irrelevant with regard to in-state transfers and domestic wells. There is no legitimate reason to deny interstate transfers and domestic wells if detrimental to those interests yet permit intrastate transfers and domestic wells when they are detrimental to them. It follows that the State Engineer may not consider the six factors listed at S 72-12B-l D when acting on applications for interstate transfers and domestic wells. Id. at 704. The EI Paso 11 court then turned to H.B. 12, which placed a moratori m on issuing any new or pending permits to appropriate water hydrologically related to t e Rio Grande below Elephant Butte Reservoir. New Mexico insisted that since the moratorium applied to in-state and out-of-state appropriations equally, it was nondiscriminatorf. "A state statute, however, may be invalid because of its protectionist purpose as well as its discriminatory effect." Id. at 707. See Bacchus Imports, Ltd., v. Dias, 468 U.S. 26 ,270 (1984). The court found this purpose through an examination of the circums ances surrounding H.B. 12, id. at 704-6 and a skeptical reading of New Mexico's proffered motives, id. at 706-7. Thus, the effects of H.B. 12 "on interstate commerce a e not incidental; they are calculated," id. at 707, and the moratorium was unconstitutional. Implications of Svorhase for States' Control Over Their Water Resources Despite the welter of ambiguous - not to say obscure - acts of balanci g and counterbalancing contained in Sporhase and EI Paso 11, several things are cle r: I) Sporhase depends for its holding on Hughes, Toomer, and Seacoast Products, an 2) EI Paso 11 depends for its holding on Sporhase. The reason this is important here 's that Hughes, Toomer, and Seacoast Products deal with fish and wildlife, not with grou d (or, for that matter, surface) water. In writing the Sporhase opinion, Justice Stevens imply assumed that a state's control over its fish and wildlife was constrained by the Co erce . . 12