adverse possession would defeat the requirements established by the legislature to protect water rights from being impaired. See, e.g., NMSA 1978, § 72-5-6 (1985); § 72-5-23; and NMSA 1978, § 72-12-13 (1965) (providing that it is the State Engineer’s duty to make findings that a proposed appropriation or change to an existing water right does not impair existing rights, is not contrary to conservation, and will not be detrimental to the public welfare). In enacting the water code, our legislature recognized the importance of state supervision of the appropriation of waters, as well as the fact that such supervision could not be effective, nor intelligently exercised, without accurate and complete information about proposed appropriations. See, e.g., NMSA 1978, § 72-5-5.1 (1985) (<HOLDING>); § 72-12-3 (requiring application to the State
holding that waters in utah are of two classes private and public and title to public waters is in the public all are equal owners that is have coequal rights therein recognizing the importance of public welfare and conservation of water in administering its public waters holding that the waters of the state are a public asset and noting that this court has previously determined that public land public revenue a municipallyowned utility and wild salmon are all public assets that cannot be appropriated by initiative footnotes omitted recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding that water conservation district elections and the public trust doctrine were two subjects improperly grouped under the general category of water