302 P.3d 405
N.M.2013Background
- Moongate held a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CCN) from the PRC in 1983 (extended in 1984) to provide water outside Las Cruces’ city limits.
- Las Cruces annexed three tracts within Moongate’s certificated area and committed to provide water there despite Moongate’s CCN.
- Moongate sued seeking injunction, declaratory judgment of exclusive rights, and compensation for inverse condemnation and regulatory taking.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for Moongate on the takings counts, later trial on damages found no damages.
- Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s exclusive-rights finding; this Court granted certiorari.
- This Court addresses (a) whether Moongate has exclusive rights in the certificated area and (b) whether Las Cruces’ actions constituted a taking necessitating compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moongate’s CCN grants exclusive rights in the certificated area against Las Cruces. | Moongate argues CCN creates exclusive service rights and L.C. cannot override via non-PUA municipality. | Las Cruces is not subject to the PUA and may compete within the certificated area without violating Moongate’s rights. | No; CCN does not preclude Las Cruces from competing in the certificated area. |
| Whether Las Cruces’ intrusion into the certificated area constitutes a compensable taking. | Moongate contends intrusion damages or takes its exclusive rights requiring compensation. | Moongate failed to prove tangible loss or infrastructure in the annexed area. | No; absence of tangible loss, such as infrastructure or customers, means no taking. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Jackson v. Creston Hills, Inc., 172 So. 2d 215 (Miss. 1965) (taking occurred where municipality invaded certificated territory with infrastructure)
- Delmarva Power & Light Co. v. City of Seaford, 575 A.2d 1089 (Del. 1990) (taking of customer accounts requires just compensation)
- Thunder Mountain Water Co. v. Bd. of Educ., 161 P.3d 869 (N.M. 2007) (takings protections under state/federal constitutions apply to water utilities)
- Morningstar Water Users Ass’n v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 120 N.M. 579 (N.M. 1995) (municipality not subject to PUA; intruding municipal action not protected by PUA)
- Doña Ana Muncipal Domestic Water Consumers Ass’n v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 139 P.3d 166 (N.M. 2006) (PUA framework; municipalities generally outside PUA unless specific exceptions)