Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. D'Antonio
249 P.3d 932
N.M. Ct. App.2010Background
- Legislature enacted 72-2-9.1 to require priority administration and guide the State Engineer's authority.
- State Engineer promulgated Active Water Resource Management regulations, including 19.25.13.27 and 19.25.13.30, to administer water right priorities.
- District court struck down portions of the AWRM regulations for exceeding statutory authority and due process concerns.
- Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and New Mexico Mining Association challenged the regulations; D'Antonio defended them.
- Court of Appeals held 19.25.13.27(B), (C), (D), and (F) exceed authority and separated priority administration from adjudication licenses, limiting application to court adjudication decrees and licenses.
- Court did not address 19.25.13.30 NMAC and affirmed partial district-court limitations on 19.25.13.27.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 19.25.13.27 exceeds legislative delegation | Tri-State argues statute authorizes priority administration under existing authority. | D'Antonio contends regulations reflect proper executive authority under 72-2-9.1. | 19.25.13.27 exceeds authority; limited to decrees and licenses. |
| Whether evidence other than adjudication decrees/licenses may support priority determinations | Tri-State contends broader evidentiary bases are permissible under the statute. | D'Antonio maintains wider evidence is within administrative authority under 72-2-9.1. | Not permissible; only adjudication decrees and licenses may be used. |
| Separation of powers concerns with the validation of the regulations | Tri-State asserts regulation expansion violates separation of powers. | D'Antonio argues broad delegation complies with legislative intent. | Regulations exceed legislative authority; improper separation of powers. |
| Whether subfile orders or offers of judgment may be used to determine administrable rights | Tri-State contends these precede inter se adjudication and should be usable. | D'Antonio argues only decrees and licenses are authoritative. | Subfile orders and offers of judgment cannot be used to determine priority under 19.25.13.27. |
| Whether 19.25.13.27 can be read in harmony with existing Water Code provisions | Tri-State asserts compatibility with historic adjudication framework. | D'Antonio asserts statute supports current delegated authority. | Statutory framework does not support expanded authority; regulation invalid as to priority determinations outside adjudication/licenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Reynolds v. Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District, 99 N.M. 699 (1983) (expedited inter se priority administration requires due process; no admin of junior rights against senior rights without contest)
- Templeton v. Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District, 65 N.M. 59 (1958) (consider prior appropriations to determine unappropriated water and impairment)
- El Paso & R.R. Co. v. Dist. Court of Fifth Judicial Dist., 36 N.M. 94 (1931) (jurisdiction limited to statutory authority; avoid broader agency power)
- State ex rel. Office of State Eng'r v. Lewis, 2007-NMCA-008 (2006) (water resource management approach discussed; adjudicatory framework favored)
- City of Roswell v. Smith, 2006-NMCA-040 (2006) (legislature could have extended authority; court reads statutes harmoniously)
- Ryan v. Gonzales, 114 N.M. 346 (1992) (legislative findings receive deference but constitutional issues controlled)
- In re Petition of PNM Gas Servs., 2000-NMSC-012 (2000) (statutory interpretation; legislature knowledge of existing law presumed)