Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0018 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-26- <br /> <br />condItion, furnish or retain a supply of water <br />available for public use. Such a tr~ct Is not land <br />which "contains a spring or >later hole" In Its <br />natural condition, and It was not Intended to <br />withhold such land from acquisition by a person <br />who has, by his own efforts, provided artificial <br />means for collecting flood w~ters thereon.391 <br /> <br />A Solicitor's Opinion rendered six years later, however, held that the <br />1926 Order was applicable to an artlflcal Iy developed water source. <br />State of New Mexico 401 held that: <br /> <br />[T]he sprIngs and water holes wIthdrawn are, <br />as the regulations state, sprIngs and water holes <br />capable of providIng enough water for general use <br />for watering purposes. A water hole may be cr~d <br />by a f lClw_{r:om _a_.\':~I ,22-....f.!:9'!!..._a.2PI I n9-9J:_natuul <br />se'ep-;- and t~~.Jact _th,,!,J:!-2!'.as_..9i?ye 1,0ped_Qr <br />brought-Into beIng by huma~.ClgeQ~y, If rights <br />thereto-a'o-not"exls.t-'unde;. the laws of the state, <br />would not take It out of the letter or the spirit <br />of the order. [The 1926 Order Is] a continu- <br />Ing withdrawal and attaches to any lands that were <br />at the tIme of Its Issuance or subsequently became <br />of the character and status defined In the order.411 <br /> <br />Two years later, In Lee J. EsplIn. et al.,42/ the Solicitor held that <br />If the man-made water hole had been abandoned at the time of the 1926 <br />Order, then It was withdrawn thereby. On the other hand, If the ~ater <br />hole had not been abandoned by the original developer or his successors <br /> <br />39/ li. at p. 21 I. <br />40/ 55 I,D. 466 (1936). <br /> <br />41/ Id. at p, 467, 468. See discussion, Infra at pp. 32-33, of the Act <br />of June 16, 1934, 48 Stat.-g]7, 30 U.S.C. 5 229a; concerning water pro- <br />ducing 011 and gas wells. Even though State of New Mexico dealt wIth such <br />a wel I, It does not appear that the requirements of that Act were met <br />In that case. Therefore, the decision rested solely on the effect of <br />the 1926 Order, and the Solicitor did not rely on, or even cite, the <br />1934 Act In reaching his conclusion. <br /> <br />42/ 56 I.D. 325 (1938); see also M-36625 dated August 28, 1961. <br />