AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Defendant was found to have illegally diverted surface water from the Arroyo de los Frijoles into two unauthorized ponds on his property near Abiquiu, New Mexico. Despite multiple notices from the Office of the State Engineer (OSE) to obtain a permit or remove the ponds, the Defendant failed to comply, leading to the issuance of a compliance order requiring the ponds to be drained and filled with compacted earth (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• OSE Hearing Examiner, April 24, 2006: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, affirming the compliance order due to the Defendant’s failure to participate in the administrative process (paras 4-5).
• District Court, June 8, 2006: Denied the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, reversed the OSE hearing examiner’s decision, and remanded the case for a comprehensive administrative hearing, citing the Defendant’s right to a hearing under NMSA 1978, § 72-2-16 (paras 5-6).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff (State Engineer of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant waived his right to a hearing by failing to participate in the administrative process and that the OSE hearing examiner’s summary judgment order finalized the compliance order without requiring express approval from the State Engineer (paras 7-10, 12-13).
• Defendant (Seledon Garcia): Contended that he was entitled to a comprehensive administrative hearing under NMSA 1978, § 72-2-16, and that the compliance order could not be finalized without the State Engineer’s express approval (paras 7-8, 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant had an absolute statutory right to a comprehensive administrative hearing before the compliance order could become final and enforceable.
• Whether the OSE hearing examiner’s grant of summary judgment finalized the compliance order without requiring express approval from the State Engineer.
• Whether the OSE hearing examiner acted within his discretion in granting summary judgment as a sanction for the Defendant’s failure to participate in the administrative process.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision and held that the Defendant waived his right to a hearing through inaction, the compliance order was properly finalized by the OSE hearing examiner, and the grant of summary judgment was appropriate (para 19).

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Alarid and Fry JJ. concurring):

• Statutory Right to a Hearing: The Court held that the right to a hearing under NMSA 1978, § 72-2-16 is procedural and not absolute. The Defendant waived this right by failing to comply with the scheduling order, respond to the motion for summary judgment, or request a post-decision hearing (paras 7-10).
• Finality of the Compliance Order: The Court interpreted 19.25.2.32 NMAC to allow OSE hearing examiners to finalize compliance orders without express approval from the State Engineer when a party fails to participate in the administrative process. The regulation’s language and context supported this interpretation (paras 12-15).
• Summary Judgment as a Sanction: The Court found that the OSE hearing examiner acted within his discretion in granting summary judgment due to the Defendant’s willful non-participation. The decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious and served to protect the administrative process from undue delay (paras 16-18).