Tri-State Generation & Transmission. Ass'n. v. D'Antonio
289 P.3d 1232
N.M.2012Background
- Legislation (2003) enacted NMSA 1978, §72-2-9.1 to authorize priority administration and expedited water marketing/leasing.
- Legislation directed the State Engineer to adopt rules for priority administration that avoid interfering with adjudications and protect water rights.
- State Engineer issued Active Water Resource Management (AWRM) regulations creating water districts, water masters, and a priority system based on administrable water rights.
- AWRM uses a hierarchy of evidence to determine administrable water rights, including decrees, subfile orders, offers of judgment, surveys, licenses, permits, and best available evidence.
- Tri-State challenged AWRM on statutory interpretation, separation of powers, due process, and vagueness; district court struck parts; Court of Appeals partly reversed.
- This Court reverses, holding 72-2-9.1 provides new regulatory authority and that AWRM is constitutional on separation of powers, due process, and vagueness grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §72-2-9.1 authorize AWRM? | Tri-State: §72-2-9.1 does not confer new authority. | D’Antonio: §72-2-9.1 provides new regulatory authority. | Yes, §72-2-9.1 conveys new regulatory authority. |
| Does AWRM conflict with judicial adjudication? | Tri-State: AWRM usurps judiciary via administrative priority. | D’Antonio: Legislature allowed administrative priority outside adjudication. | No, AWRM does not violate separation of powers. |
| Does AWRM violate due process by depriving rights without inter se adjudication? | Tri-State: priority administration harms water owners without due process. | D’Antonio: State may regulate under prior appropriation without full adjudication. | No, due process not violated. |
| Is the term “best available evidence” in hierarchy of evidence unconstitutionally vague? | Tri-State: vague and open-ended. | D’Antonio: adequate notice and defined evidentiary hierarchy. | Not unconstitutionally vague. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLean v. Reynolds, 62 N.M. 264 (1957 NM) (administration of water rights within police power; regulation not confiscation)
- Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy Dist. v. State ex rel. Reynolds, 99 N.M. 699 (1983 NM) (administration can occur prior to final decree; adjudication statutes govern final rights)
- Bokum Res. Corp. v. N.M. Water Quality Control Comm’n, 93 N.M. 546 (1979 NM) (vagueness in defining toxic pollutants; need for explicit standards)
- Segotta v. State, 100 N.M. 498 (1983 NM) (upheld non-criminal discretion to consider mitigating factors; sufficient notice)
- Holguin v. Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist., 91 N.M. 398 (1979 NM) (water rights ownership; state regulates use; public trust)