Bounds v. State
252 P.3d 708
N.M. Ct. App.2010Background
- Bounds challenges the DWS as facially unconstitutional because permits issue upon application without prior water availability or impairment review in a fully appropriated basin.
- The DWS moved domestic-well rights to stand-alone sections 72-12-1.1 to -1.3 in 2003, allowing automatic permit issuance for domestic use on filing.
- The Upper Mimbres Basin is fully adjudicated with no unappropriated water; senior rights exist and are potentially impaired by new domestic withdrawals.
- The district court held the DWS unconstitutional as an impermissible exception to the priority doctrine and ordered uniform administration of domestic-well permits.
- The court of appeals reverses, holding the priority doctrine is broad and that the Legislature may create exceptions; the State Engineer administers priority and may curtail junior rights to protect senior rights.
- Regulations and orders (Priority Admin. Order No. 177, 19.25.13 and related rules) contemplate priority administration and enforcement, including domestic-well management areas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the DWS facially violate the priority doctrine of the NM Constitution? | Bounds argues the DWS creates per se impairment of senior rights. | DWS is a constitutionally permissible exception allowing domestic use despite fully appropriated basin. | No; DWS not facially unconstitutional. |
| May the Legislature constitutionally enact and maintain a domestic-well exception to the priority administration framework? | Bounds contends the Legislature cannot carve out such an exception. | Legislature can create exceptions and rely on the State Engineer to balance priorities. | Yes; Legislature may enact exceptions while protecting senior rights. |
| Is the district court’s approach to the DWS consistent with proper statutory interpretation and standard of review? | Bounds asserts district court correctly struck DWS as unconstitutional. | Court should uphold statutory enactment if reasonably interpretable. | Appellate review de novo; statute presumed valid and construed to uphold constitutionality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lion’s Gate Water v. D’Antonio, 147 N.M. 523, 226 P.3d 622 (2009-NMSC-057) (state engineer may reject applications when no unappropriated water is available; priority administration not dictated rigidly by doctrine)
- Montgomery v. Lomos Altos, Inc., 150 P.3d 971 (2007-NMSC-002) (impairment of rights generally case-specific; no bright-line impairment rule)
- Herrington v. State ex rel. Office of State Eng’r, 139 N.M. 368, 133 P.3d 258 (2006-NMSC-014) (Templeton/impact on senior rights; relationships to domestic wells noted)
- Reynolds v. City of Albuquerque, 379 P.2d 73 (1962) (recognizes that surface waters fully appropriated; implications for groundwater withdrawals)
- Lanigan v. Town of Gallup, 131 P. 997 (1913) (self-executing constitutional provisions require legislative action for enforcement)