## Facts

- Competing applicants sought permits to appropriate La Plata River water for irrigation in San Juan County under the 1907 water code.
- Hinderlider filed first (Oct. 1, 1907) to appropriate 200 second-feet, construct a storage reservoir (about 12,406 acre-feet), and irrigate about 14,000 acres.
- Young & Norton filed later (Dec. 20, 1907) for a smaller reservoir (about 10,149 acre-feet) to irrigate about 5,000 acres, overlapping much of the same land described in Hinderlider’s plan.
- The territorial engineer initially approved Hinderlider’s application.
- After notice and a formal protest by Young & Norton, the engineer held a hearing and reversed course: he rejected Hinderlider’s application and approved Young & Norton’s.
- In reversing, the engineer relied on findings including: (i) Hinderlider’s plan included irrigating lands owned by others (including Young & Norton), (ii) Young & Norton resided on the land while Hinderlider did not, (iii) Hinderlider’s per-acre costs were about double, and (iv) the available river supply was sufficient for only about 5,000–6,000 acres.
- Hinderlider appealed to the Board of Water Commissioners, which ruled the engineer could deny a permit as contrary to “public interest” only when public health or safety was threatened; it reversed and approved Hinderlider’s application.
- The district court affirmed the Board’s approval, and Young & Norton appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory authority to deny a water-appropriation permit as “contrary to the public interest” is limited to threats to public health or safety.
2. Whether comparative economic and feasibility factors (including higher per-acre cost and an assertedly inadequate water supply for a large project) may be considered in deciding between competing applications, and whether cost per acre is decisive.

## Decision

- The court held the engineer’s authority to reject an application as contrary to the “public interest” is not confined to cases involving threats to public health or safety.
- The court held that a project’s higher cost per acre, standing alone, is not conclusive grounds for rejection.
- The court concluded the record was not sufficiently developed to decide which competing project should be approved under the proper standard.
- The court remanded for additional fact-finding through the water commissioners and territorial engineer (or by agreement of counsel or other means) necessary to reach a satisfactory decision.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory “public interest” standard in water-appropriation permitting authorizes consideration of broader public welfare concerns beyond physical health and safety.
- Public-interest review may include feasibility and reliability of the proposed supply and the likely success of the proposed irrigation enterprise, especially where competing applications cannot both be fully served.
- Comparative economic evidence is relevant, but no single factor—such as per-acre cost—automatically determines which project serves the public interest.
- Where administrative decisionmaking turns on incomplete factual development, remand for further findings is appropriate before a final selection between competing appropriations.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a narrow reading of “public interest” that would confine permit denials to health or safety risks, clarified that cost per acre is not dispositive, and remanded for further factual development to determine which competing La Plata River appropriation better serves the public interest.


Young & Norton v. Hinderlider, 15 N.M. 666, 110 P. 1045 (N.M. Terr. 1910)