## Facts

- The State of New Mexico, through the Attorney General and styled on the relation of the State Engineer, sued three landowners (Dority, Wiley, and Lanning) in Chaves County.
- The suits sought to enjoin irrigation uses of groundwater from the Roswell Artesian Basin and the overlying valley fill where the uses were not covered by permits under New Mexico’s underground-water appropriation statutes.
- The relevant waters included (1) artesian water between confining strata and (2) shallow groundwater in the valley fill above the artesian basin.
- Large acreages in the area were irrigated from these sources, and the State alleged the supply required administrative control to prevent unauthorized use and depletion.
- Dority and Lanning had permits for some lands but were alleged to be irrigating additional acreage without authorization; Wiley was alleged to be irrigating without any permit for the disputed acreage.
- The defendants admitted they were using and intended to continue using the groundwater for the challenged acreages unless enjoined.
- The defendants primarily contended that statutes declaring these underground waters public and conditioning use on permits were unconstitutional as to landowners’ asserted right to pump groundwater beneath their lands.

## Issues

1. Whether the action was properly brought in the name of the State when captioned on the relation of the State Engineer, and whether the State Engineer’s involvement affected the Attorney General’s authority to sue.
2. Whether statutes declaring artesian and shallow groundwater public and subject to appropriation through a permit system violate constitutional protections (including takings and due process/equal protection theories) by restricting landowners’ asserted common-law right to pump percolating groundwater.
3. If the statutory scheme is valid, whether defendants’ unpermitted irrigation uses could be enjoined.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s injunctions against each defendant.
- The court held the State was the real party in interest and that the “on the relation of” wording was surplusage that did not defeat the action.
- The court upheld the constitutionality of the groundwater statutes requiring permits for beneficial use.
- The court concluded defendants had no vested right to continue the admitted unpermitted uses and could be enjoined from irrigating acreage not covered by permits.

## Legal Principles

- The State, acting through the Attorney General, may sue to enforce statutory limits on groundwater use; unnecessary “relator” language does not negate state authority where the State is the real party in interest.
- The Legislature may declare specified underground waters public and subject them to an appropriation-and-permit system as a regulatory measure for a scarce resource.
- Land ownership does not, by itself, confer an absolute constitutional right to pump and apply groundwater for irrigation free from statutory regulation.
- Requiring permits and administering priority-based appropriative rights can be a valid, non-confiscatory regulation rather than an unconstitutional taking, so long as the scheme is reasonable and applied on equal terms.

## Conclusion

The court sustained New Mexico’s statutory regime treating key groundwater sources as public and requiring permits for irrigation, and it affirmed injunctions preventing landowners from continuing admitted irrigation uses on acreage not authorized by permits.


State ex rel. Bliss v. Dority, 225 P.2d 1007 (N.M. 1950)