## Facts

- Ellis B. and Laverne Herrington held an adjudicated pre-1907 senior surface-water right to divert water from the Rio de Arenas to irrigate approximately 18.42 acres.
- Over time, junior-priority groundwater pumping in the basin allegedly reduced the surface flows available to satisfy the Herringtons’ senior surface right.
- The Herringtons applied to the Office of the State Engineer for a supplemental well to offset the reduced surface supply, invoking the Templeton doctrine.
- The State Engineer denied the application, concluding the proposed well would draw from a deeper aquifer insufficiently connected to the surface flow at issue and could impair other water rights.
- The district court agreed that junior groundwater pumping had reduced the Herringtons’ surface supply but affirmed denial because the proposed well allegedly would not replace the specific source feeding the affected surface flow.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed under its understanding of Templeton.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the Templeton doctrine and distinguish Templeton wells from statutory transfers of water rights.

## Issues

1. When may a senior surface-water right holder obtain a supplemental (Templeton) well to compensate for depletion of surface flows caused by junior groundwater pumping?
2. Whether the Herringtons’ application should be analyzed under the Templeton doctrine rather than as a statutory transfer or other type of permit request subject to different standards.
3. Whether the State Engineer and lower courts applied an overly narrow Templeton framework by resolving the application based on an incomplete hydrologic and legal analysis.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and district court and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held that the Templeton doctrine was misapplied or unduly narrowed in evaluating the Herringtons’ request.
- The Court directed the district court on remand to apply a clarified Templeton framework and to address unresolved factual and legal questions, including the relevant hydrologic connections.

## Legal Principles

- A Templeton supplemental well is an equitable remedy tied to protection of a senior surface-water right when junior groundwater pumping intercepts water that would otherwise contribute to the senior’s surface supply.
- Templeton relief requires a demonstrated hydrologic relationship between the groundwater being pumped (or proposed to be pumped) and the surface flows supporting the senior right; the nature and degree of connection are fact-dependent.
- Templeton wells are distinct from statutory transfers (e.g., changes in point of diversion or other statutory mechanisms) and should not be analyzed by collapsing the equitable Templeton inquiry into the statutory transfer framework.
- When the hydrologic record is unclear, categorical denial based on an assumed lack of connection is improper; further fact-finding and application of the correct doctrine may be required.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court required reconsideration of the Herringtons’ supplemental-well request under a clarified Templeton doctrine, emphasizing the need for careful, fact-based analysis of hydrologic connection and for maintaining the doctrinal distinction between Templeton relief and statutory transfer standards.


Herrington v. State ex rel. Off. of the State Eng’r, 139 N.M. 368, 133 P.3d 258 (N.M. 2006)