## Facts

- Water-right holders owned valid, existing surface water rights appurtenant to specified lands to irrigate from the Rio Felix; ownership and validity of the rights were undisputed.
- River flow in the Rio Felix had decreased in recent years, leaving insufficient surface water to irrigate the appellees’ lands.
- The holders filed applications with the State Engineer on forms for appropriating underground water, but the parties agreed the applications effectively sought a change in point of diversion from the Rio Felix to wells in the Valley Fill within the Roswell Shallow Water Basin.
- The proposed wells were intended to supply, but not exceed, the quantity originally appropriated under the existing surface rights.
- The State Engineer denied the applications.
- The applicants appealed to the district court; the consolidated cases were tried, and the court entered findings and conclusions authorizing the change in point of diversion.
- The Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District and the State Engineer appealed the district court’s judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether holders of existing Rio Felix surface water rights may change the point and method of diversion to wells tapping groundwater in a hydraulically connected shallow basin, without creating a new appropriation.
2. Whether the change may be approved when supported by evidence that it will not impair existing rights and is not contrary to conservation of water or the public welfare under the water code.
3. What level of deference is owed on appeal to the district court’s fact findings on hydrologic connection and impairment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the district court’s judgment authorizing the change in point of diversion.
- The Court treated the applications as requests to change diversion points and methods, not as applications for new groundwater appropriations.
- The Court upheld the district court’s findings that the proposed pumping from the Valley Fill would not impair existing rights and satisfied statutory standards related to conservation and public welfare.
- The Court declined to disturb findings supported by substantial evidence, notwithstanding the State Engineer’s prior denial.

## Legal Principles

- A change in point and method of diversion may be approved when the applicant holds an existing valid right and seeks only to continue the historically appropriated quantity, rather than enlarge it.
- Diversion may be changed from a surface stream to wells drawing from hydrologically connected groundwater, so long as the change does not impair other valid existing rights and is not contrary to conservation of water or the public welfare.
- On appellate review, district court findings on technical questions such as hydrologic connection and impairment are upheld when supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court permitted surface-water right holders to substitute groundwater wells in a connected basin as a change in diversion to maintain their existing Rio Felix rights, where the record supported findings of no enlargement, no impairment of other rights, and compliance with conservation and public-welfare standards.


Templeton v. Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist., 332 P.2d 465 (N.M. 1958)