substantive question of whether the survey plat accomplishes a subdivision of land within the meaning of the NMSDA. See Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 78 N.M. 398, 402, 432 P.2d 109, 113 (1967) (observing that a power conferred by statute implies those further powers necessary to carry out the power expressly granted). In carrying out the statutory duty under Section 47-6-6, a county clerk is not bound by a surveyor’s certification and may look to the face of the survey or to other documents in the county clerk’s records in determining whether a survey plat certified as a boundary survey plat in fact accomplishes a division of land within the meaning of the NMSDA. See Eldorado Utils., Inc. v. State ex rel. D’Antonio, 2005-NMCA-041, ¶¶ 12-13, 137 N.M. 268, 110 P.3d 76 (<HOLDING>). {15} We see no reason why a county clerk, in
holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area holding that article x  2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially recognizing that water rights constitute a real property interest recognizing a presumption that the issuance of a permit by the state engineer allowing recognized irrigation water rights to be shifted to other users works as severance of those water rights from the land holding that the state engineer has discretion to refuse to accept for filing amended declarations of water rights pertaining to water rights that are not vested and that the state engineer may rely on information contained in his own records in exercising this discretion