This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) filed a declaration with the State Engineer claiming a water right to use 650 gallons per minute from the Gallup Underground Water Basin for uranium processing. UNC later applied to transfer this water right to adjacent wells for use in a proposed uranium mine operated by Hydro Resources Incorporated (HRI). The State Engineer denied the application after a hearing.
Procedural History
- State Engineer Hearing: Denied UNC's application to transfer its water right.
- District Court: Dismissed UNC's de novo appeal on the grounds of mootness.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (UNC): Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal without the full administrative record, the appeal was not moot, and the State Engineer's decision should be reversed on the merits.
- Respondent (State Engineer): Asserted that the appeal was moot because HRI planned to obtain water from another source, making the approval of UNC's application unnecessary.
Legal Issues
- Did the district court lack jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal due to the absence of the full administrative record?
- Was the appeal moot because HRI intended to use an alternative water source?
- Should the State Engineer's decision be reversed on the merits?
Disposition
- The district court's dismissal of the appeal was reversed.
- The case was remanded to the district court for a review on the merits of the State Engineer's ruling.
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Bivins and Apodaca JJ. concurring):
-
Jurisdiction: The absence of the administrative record did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction because the record was not necessary to rule on the mootness issue. Section 72-7-2 governs the State Engineer's duties after jurisdiction is established and is not jurisdictional in nature.
-
Mootness: The State Engineer failed to meet its burden of proving mootness. The affidavits provided by the State Engineer did not establish that HRI's alternative water source was approved or sufficient to meet its needs. Additionally, there was no evidence that UNC's appeal would have been untimely for HRI to utilize the G-190 water right.
-
Merits: The court declined to reverse the State Engineer's decision on the merits because the full administrative record was not available, and factual issues remained unresolved.
The court remanded the case to the district court for a review on the merits after the administrative record is made available.