that only water which has been put to beneficial use for irrigation purposes is appurtenant to the land. Id. ¶¶ 4, 11. {17} The Bassetts emphasize that in reaching that conclusion, this Court quoted a Utah case, which interpreted a Utah statute to determine that “a vested water right is considered appurtenant to the land conveyed only to the extent that it is used to the land’s benefit at the time of the conveyance.” Id. ¶ 8 (quoting Little v. Greene & Weed Inv., 839 P.2d 791, 796 (Utah 1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In KRM, this Court did not adopt the Utah rule requiring irrigation at the time of the conveyance. The Utah court established its rule based on established authority in Utah, which New Mexico does not share. See Stephens v. Burton, 546 P.2d 240, 242 (Utah 1976) (<HOLDING>). Our own case law indicates the opposite
holding that the amount of water rights appurtenant to the land is the amount that is being used thereon before and at the time of the sale holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount holding that the appropriation of the land is complete when the amount of damage awarded by the commissioners is paid and possession is taken holding that water stock sold appurtenant to land represents an interest in water which is a real properly right holding prejudgment interest is to be determined on the entire amount of compensatory damages and then reduced by the amount of interest which would have accrued at present value on the settlement amount determined before trial