omitted). {21} Owners fail to meet their difficult burden in this case. Section 73-2-21(E) grants acequia commissioners the authority to deny approval of “change[s] in point of diversion or place or purpose of use of a water right served by the acequia” if the commissioners determine that the change “would be detrimental to the acequia ... or its members.” The deferential standard of review to be applied to such decisions helps assure that acequia commissioners, who have greater familiarity than does a district court with the unique needs of the acequia and its members, retain the power to decide whether such changes will harm the operation of the acequia or those who depend on it for access to their water rights. See Wilson v. Denver, 1998-NMSC-016, ¶43, 125 N.M. 308, 961 P.2d 153 (<HOLDING>). In light of what Owners concede is an
holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry holding that district court must conduct individualized assessment based on particular facts of each case holding that suspicion must be individualized recognizing that each ditch system is unique and has individualized needs recognizing each individual bankruptcy courts unique interest in interpreting and enforcing stay in pending cases