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 City of Santa Fe enacted an ordinance in 1999 restricting the drilling of domestic water wells within 200 feet of a water distribution main. In 2001, the New Mexico Legislature required municipalities to file such ordinances with the Office of the State Engineer (OSE). The Plaintiff, who obtained a well permit from the OSE in 2003, was informed by the City of its additional permit requirement. The Plaintiff challenged the City's authority to enforce the ordinance, arguing that the City had not complied with the statutory filing requirement (paras 1, 3-4).

Procedural History

• Stennis v. City of Santa Fe, 2006-NMCA-125: The Court of Appeals upheld the City's authority to regulate domestic wells and found no evidence of statutory non-compliance.
• Stennis v. City of Santa Fe, 2008-NMSC-008: The Supreme Court held that the Plaintiff could challenge the ordinance via declaratory judgment and remanded the case to determine whether the City had filed the ordinance with the OSE as required by law.
• District Court, post-remand: The District Court found that the City had not filed the ordinance with the OSE but concluded that substantial compliance through actual notice to the OSE was sufficient.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the City failed to comply with the statutory requirement to file the ordinance with the OSE and that actual notice or substantial compliance was insufficient under the law (para 8).
• Defendant-Appellee (City of Santa Fe): Contended that substantial compliance with the filing requirement, through actual notice to the OSE, was sufficient to meet the statutory intent (paras 7-8).

Legal Issues

• Does Section 3-53-1.1(D) of the New Mexico Statutes allow for substantial compliance with the requirement to file municipal ordinances with the OSE?
• Did the City of Santa Fe comply with the statutory filing requirement under Section 3-53-1.1(D)?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that Section 3-53-1.1(D) requires strict compliance and does not permit substantial compliance (paras 2, 17).

Reasons

Per Kennedy J. (Robles and Vanzi JJ. concurring):

• The Court emphasized the plain language of Section 3-53-1.1(D), which mandates that municipalities "shall file" their ordinances with the OSE. The statutory language is clear and unambiguous, requiring strict compliance (paras 9-11).
• The Court rejected the City's argument for substantial compliance, noting that the Legislature explicitly required filing and did not provide for alternative methods of compliance, such as actual notice (paras 11, 14).
• The Court highlighted the Supreme Court's prior interpretation of Section 3-53-1.1(D), which also emphasized the mandatory nature of the filing requirement (paras 15-16).
• The Court concluded that the City's failure to file the ordinance with the OSE rendered it non-compliant with the statute, and the Plaintiff was not subject to the City's regulation of her well (paras 17-18).