Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />001.63() <br /> <br />i~~aj <br /> <br />This "administrative solution" was bovn of necessity rather <br />than by virtue of foresight. It came about in part because, at <br />the time serious surface water shortages began to develop, vast <br />amounts of junior-priority ground water uses had been initiated, <br /> <br />It is clear under the prior appropriation doctrine that even <br />a relatively senior appropriator may not change his point of <br />diversion if to do so will cause impairment of existing rights, <br />whether those existing rights are senior or junior. (N.M, Stat. <br />Ann, Sections 72-5-23 and 72-12-7 <1978>), <br /> <br />At least a partial solution to the dilemma grew out of what <br />is now described as the "Templeton Doctrine" in New Mexico, a <br />'i1~~l~1 concept arising out of the case of Templeton v, Pecos Valley <br />Artesian conservancy District, 65 N.M, 59, 332 P.2d. 465 (1958). <br />The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled for the first time that a <br />surface water appropriator whose water supply fails at his <br />surface point of diversion is entitled to follow his water to its <br />source in a related underground aquifer, The Court seemed to <br />have said that the adverse effects resulting from "following the <br />water to its source" do not constitute impairment, <br /> <br />Later decisions of the New Mexico Supreme Court in the cases <br /> <br /> <br />of Clodfelter v, Reynolds, 68 N,M, 61, 358 P,2d 626 (1961), and <br /> <br /> <br />Durand v, Reynolds, 75 N,M, 497, 406 P.2d 817 (1965), have <br /> <br /> <br />reaffirmed and perhaps extended the Templeton decision. In the <br /> <br /> <br />Clodfelter case, the court held that an application for permit to <br /> <br />21 <br />