In Re: State Of NM, et al v. Aragon, et al

Filing 11303

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa denying 11297 Motion for Mandatory Pretrial Conference to Address Claims Based on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in the Rito de Tierra Amarilla Subsection of Section 7 of the Rio Chama stream System; and denying 11298 Motion for Mandatory Pretrial Conference to Address Objections to the State's Proposed Priority Dates and Irrigation Water Requirements in the Canjilon Creek Subsection of Section 3 of the Rio Chama Stream System. (jdm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.
State Engineer, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

69cv07941 MV/KK
Rio Chama Adjudication

v.
Section 3: Canjilon Creek
ROMAN ARAGON, et al.,
Section 7: Rito de Tierra Amarilla
Defendants.
Subfile Nos.: CHTA-003-0002
CHTA-003-0005
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCES
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the State of New Mexico’s (“State”) Motion for
Mandatory Pretrial Conference to Address Claims Based on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in
the Rito de Tierra Amarilla Subsection of Section 7 of the Rio Chama Stream System, Doc.
11297, filed November 9, 2017 (“Tierra Amarilla Motion”), and Motion for Mandatory Pretrial
Conference to Address Objections to the State’s Proposed Priority Dates and Irrigation Water
Requirements in the Canjilon Creek Subsection of Section 3 of the Rio Chama Stream System,
Doc. 11298, filed November 9, 2017 (“Canjilon Creek Motion”).
There are two outstanding claims of the right to use water based on the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo in the Tierra Amarilla Subsection of Section 7 of the Rio Chama Stream
System. The Court’s Notice and Order regarding Treaty-based claims states:
After the deadline for filing statements of Treaty-based claims has passed,
the State shall file a motion with a proposed order that addresses the following
matters:
a.

A proposed schedule for discovery including initial disclosures,
disclosure of expert testimony and reports, identification of lay
witnesses and exchange of exhibits;

b.

Scheduling of any anticipated dispositive motion; and

c.

Scheduling of a final pretrial conference and entry of a pretrial
order.

Doc. 11029 at 2, filed June 20, 2014. The deadline for filing Treaty-based claims has passed.
The State indicates that it “has attempted to confer with the Treaty claimants regarding a pretrial
order, but has been unsuccessful” and moves the Court to set a pretrial conference to discuss the
scheduling of pretrial disclosures, discovery, and motions. Tierra Amarilla Motion at 2. No
responses opposing the State’s Tierra Amarilla Motion for a pretrial conference have been filed.
The Court will deny the State’s Tierra Amarilla Motion for a pretrial conference. The State
shall, within 21 days of entry of this Order, file its proposed pretrial order addressing the matters
identified in the Court’s June 20, 2014, Notice and Order, quoted above, and serve a copy of this
Order and the State’s proposed pretrial order on Defendants Harry O. Martinez (Subfile No.
CHTA-003-0002) and Mario R. Martinez (Subfile No. CHTA-003-0005). Defendants Harry O.
Martinez and Mario R. Martinez shall have 14 days after service of a copy of this Order and the
State’s proposed pretrial order to file a response to the State’s proposed pretrial order.
There are three outstanding objections to the State’s proposed priority dates and irrigation
water requirements in the Canjilon Creek Subsection of Section 3 of the Rio Chama Stream
System. The Court’s Scheduling and Procedural Order for Determination of Priority Dates and
Irrigation Water Requirements in the Canjilon Subsection of Section 3 of the Rio Chama Stream
System states: “After the deadline has expired for filing protests to the proposed determination
of priority dates and irrigation water requirements, the State shall submit a proposed scheduling
and procedural order to address and resolve any objections that are filed with the Court.” Doc.
11030 at 6, filed June 20, 2014. The State indicates it “has attempted to confer with [the]
objectors regarding a pretrial order, but has not met with much success” and requests that the
2

Court set a pretrial conference “to discuss the scheduling of pretrial disclosures, discovery, and
motions.” Canjilon Creek Motion at 2. No responses opposing the State’s Canjilon Creek
Motion for a pretrial conference have been filed. The Court will deny the State’s Canjilon Creek
Motion for a pretrial conference. The State shall, within 21 days of entry of this order, file its
proposed pretrial order for resolving the objections, and serve a copy of this Order and the
State’s proposed pretrial order on Defendants Abelardo E. and Geraldine Garcia, the Associación
de Acéquias Norteñas de Rio Arriba and Five Member Acéquias, and Maria Celina Montano.
Defendants Abelardo E. and Geraldine Garcia, the Associación de Acéquias Norteñas de Rio
Arriba and Five Member Acéquias, and Maria Celina Montano shall have 14 days after service
of a copy of this Order and the State’s proposed pretrial order to file a response to the State’s
proposed pretrial order.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i)

the State of New Mexico’s Motion for Mandatory Pretrial Conference to Address Claims

Based on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in the Rito de Tierra Amarilla Subsection of Section
7 of the Rio Chama Stream System, Doc. 11297, filed November 9, 2017, is DENIED;
(ii)

the State of New Mexico’s Motion for Mandatory Pretrial Conference to Address

Objections to the State’s Proposed Priority Dates and Irrigation Water Requirements in the
Canjilon Creek Subsection of Section 3 of the Rio Chama Stream System, Doc. 11298, filed
November 9, 2017, is DENIED; and
(iii)

the State shall, within 21 days of entry of this Order, file its proposed pretrial orders and

serve a copy of this Order and its proposed pretrial orders on Defendants as described above;
Defendants shall have 14 days after service to file responses to the State’s proposed pretrial
orders. The State shall have 14 days after the filing of any responses to file replies.

3

______________________________________
KIRTAN KHALSA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4