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 case concerns a challenge to the validity of certain provisions of the Active Water Resource Management (AWRM) regulations promulgated by the New Mexico State Engineer. These regulations were designed to administer water rights by determining and enforcing priority during water shortages. The dispute arose over whether the State Engineer exceeded his statutory authority and violated constitutional principles, including separation of powers and due process, in implementing these regulations (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Socorro County, Matthew G. Reynolds, District Judge: The district court struck down portions of the AWRM regulations, finding that they impermissibly expanded the State Engineer’s statutory authority and violated due process protections. The court limited the application of the regulations to court adjudication decrees and licenses issued by the State Engineer but allowed the use of subfile orders and offers of judgment in adjudications (paras 1, 2, and 29).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State Engineer): Argued that the AWRM regulations were consistent with the authority granted by the Legislature under Section 72-2-9.1 of the New Mexico Water Code. The State Engineer contended that the regulations were necessary to address the urgent need for water administration and that they complied with constitutional requirements (paras 15, 24-25).
- Appellees (Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. and New Mexico Mining Association): Asserted that the AWRM regulations exceeded the State Engineer’s statutory authority and violated the separation of powers doctrine. They argued that the regulations improperly allowed the State Engineer to determine water right priorities without the due process protections afforded by court adjudications (paras 1, 29-30).
Legal Issues
- Did the State Engineer exceed the statutory authority granted by the Legislature in promulgating the AWRM regulations?
- Do the AWRM regulations violate the separation of powers doctrine under the New Mexico Constitution?
- Do the AWRM regulations violate due process protections?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision. It held that portions of the AWRM regulations exceeded the State Engineer’s statutory authority and violated the separation of powers doctrine. The court limited the application of the regulations to court adjudication decrees and licenses issued by the State Engineer, excluding subfile orders and offers of judgment (paras 37-38).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Fry CJ. and Garcia J. concurring):
The court found that the State Engineer’s authority is limited to what is expressly granted or necessarily implied by the Legislature. The enabling statutes, including Section 72-2-9.1, did not grant the State Engineer the authority to determine water right priorities for curtailment purposes based on evidence other than court adjudication decrees and licenses (paras 7-8, 18-20).
The court emphasized that the historical framework of New Mexico water law requires priority determinations to be made through adjudication or licensing processes, which include procedural safeguards such as notice, hearings, and opportunities for objection. The AWRM regulations improperly allowed the State Engineer to rely on other forms of evidence, such as subfile orders, offers of judgment, hydrographic surveys, and permits, which lack these procedural protections (paras 19, 23, 30).
The court also held that the regulations violated the separation of powers doctrine by allowing the State Engineer to unilaterally determine water right priorities, a function traditionally reserved for the judiciary. The Legislature did not clearly and explicitly delegate this authority to the State Engineer (paras 26-28).
Regarding due process, the court declined to address the issue in detail, as its ruling on the State Engineer’s lack of authority rendered the application of the regulations speculative (para 36).