N.M. Const. art. XXI, § 9
This state and its people consent to all and singular the provisions of the said act of congress, approved June twentieth, nineteen hundred and ten, concerning the lands by said act granted or confirmed to this state, the terms and conditions upon which said grants and confirmations were made and the means and manner of enforcing such terms and conditions, all in every respect and particular as in said act provided.
"Act of congress". — This section refers to Enabling Act (June 20, 1910, 36 Stat. 557, ch. 310, §§ 2, 6 to 12, 18), which is set out in Pamphlet 3.
Cross references. — For provisions regarding administration and disposition of public lands, see N.M. Const., art. XIII.
Enabling Act part of New Mexico fundamental law. — Enabling Act became as much a part of New Mexico fundamental law as if it had been directly incorporated into New Mexico constitution, and provision forbidding donations or pledges of credit by state, except as otherwise permitted (N.M. Const., art. IX, § 14), allowed use of trust funds as required under Enabling Act. State ex rel. Interstate Stream Comm'n v. Reynolds, 1963-NMSC-023, 71 N.M. 389, 378 P.2d 622.
Constitutional amendment required to overcome Enabling Act provisions. — Not only must congress consent to diversion from their original objects and purposes of proceeds from lands granted by congress to state, but state constitution must be amended before such consent can be effectuated. Bryant v. Board of Loan Comm'rs, 1922-NMSC-069, 28 N.M. 319, 211 P. 597. See N.M. Const., art. XXI, § 10, on irrevocability of compact.
State accepts conditions on land grant trusts for miners' hospitals. — In this section New Mexico expressly accepted conditions imposed on land grant trusts for miners' hospitals for disabled miners. United States v. New Mexico, 536 F.2d 1324 (10th Cir. 1976).
Meaning of "dispose." — The use of the word "dispose" in Section 10 of the Enabling Act does not grant the land commissioner additional, residual authority to convey trust land beyond a sale or lease. State ex rel. King v. Lyons, 2011-NMSC-004, 149 N.M. 330, 248 P.3d 878.
Exchanges of land. — The Enabling Act does not permit exchanges of land unless they are in-kind sales. Exchanges of land for appraised monetary value are in-kind sales that are subject to the sales provisions of Section 10 of the Enabling Act, including public auction to the highest and best bidder. The Enabling Act does not authorize the land commissioner to exchange land with private parties without application of the sale provisions of Section 10 of the Enabling Act. State ex rel. King v. Lyons, 2011-NMSC-004, 149 N.M. 330, 248 P.3d 878.
Public auction. — The requirement of Section 10 of the Enabling Act that public land be sold at public auction to the highest and best bidder provides for objective selection of the winning bid, while ensuring that the sale is open to competitive bidding. Competition is the means and the essential element by which an auction achieves the primary goal of obtaining the best return for the seller. Bargaining and negotiation between buyers and seller or between buyers prior to sale negates the essence of what it means to have a public auction free and open to competition. State ex rel. King v. Lyons, 2011-NMSC-004, 149 N.M. 330, 248 P.3d 878.
Exchanges of land violated the Enabling Act. — Where private property owners applied to the land commissioner for exchanges of private land for state land; the private owners specified the land they desired to exchange for specific tracts of state land; the land commissioner appraised the exchange proposal for the land's values and the ability of the exchange to ameliorate management and access issues; the land commissioner negotiated with the private owners over an extensive period of time to plan a sale to meet the interests of the land commissioner and the private owners; the land commissioner's interest in the exchanges was to reduce "checkerboard" ownership of state land and to consolidate state land into larger, contiguous parcels to improve land management and reduce boundary and access issues; and after the parties had finalized their negotiations for the exchanges, the land commissioner published a notice of public auction offering the state land that had been agreed upon for exchange with the private owners, as a matter of law, the exchanges violated the requirement of Section 10 of the Enabling Act that state lands be sold or leased to the highest and best bidder at a public auction. State ex rel. King v. Lyons, 2011-NMSC-004, 149 N.M. 330, 248 P.3d 878.
State cannot give absolute right to renewal of land lease. — In view of the inhibitions of Enabling Act, § 10 (regarding trust lands), N.M. Const., art. XXI, § 10 (relating to irrevocability of compact), and this section, no absolute right exists to renewal of a state land lease. Ellison v. Ellison, 1944-NMSC-012, 48 N.M. 80, 146 P.2d 173.
State may give "preferred" right. — Statute (132-120, C.S. 1929, now repealed) giving absolute right to renewal of five-year grazing lease would be to that extent void, but "preferred" right of renewal may be given so long as it is not exclusive or absolute. State ex rel. McElroy v. Vesely, 1935-NMSC-096, 40 N.M. 19, 52 P.2d 1090.
State properly reserved mineral rights. — State, through commissioner of public lands, properly reserved minerals and mineral rights in selling and in issuing its patent to school and asylum lands granted to it by government, and patentee was not entitled to ejectment against state's lessee of oil and gas rights. Terry v. Midwest Ref. Co., 64 F.2d 428 (10th Cir., 1933), cert. denied, 290 U.S. 660, 54 S. Ct. 74, 78 L. Ed. 571 (1933). See N.M. Const., art. XXIV, § 1.
Improper to divert income from granted lands to unauthorized purposes. — Drainage law (Laws 1917, ch. 69, as amended by Laws 1919, ch. 87) which directed commissioner of public lands to issue proper vouchers for drainage assessments, payable out of income derived from granted state lands of class benefited, was unconstitutional since under Enabling Act, § 10, state has no power to improve granted lands at expense of the lands or income derived therefrom. Lake Arthur Drainage Dist. v. Field, 1921-NMSC-043, 27 N.M. 183, 199 P. 112.
It is breach of trust for commissioner to use funds derived from lands granted state for advertising resources and advantages of state, and he may be enjoined from so using the funds. Ervien v. United States, 251 U.S. 41, 40 S. Ct. 75, 64 L. Ed. 128 (1919).
Irrigation district has no clear legal right to draw on income from land granted by congress, the use of which was limited to establishment of reservoirs and hydraulic engineering, and mandamus directed to drawing of warrant thereon will be denied. Carson Reclamation Dist. v. Vigil, 1926-NMSC-019, 31 N.M. 402, 246 P. 907.
Laws 1951, ch. 181 (repealed) and ch. 227 (general appropriation bill), attempting diversion of trust funds derived from public lands to general fund for general purposes, were clearly unconstitutional and were mere nullities. State ex rel. Shepard v. Mechem, 1952-NMSC-105, 56 N.M. 762, 250 P.2d 897.
Proper for commissioner of public lands to bring mandamus proceeding. — Mandamus is available to enforce provisions of Enabling Act in view of acceptance of its provisions by adoption of this section and N.M. Const., art. XXI, § 10, and commissioner of public lands is proper party to bring proceeding to prevent alleged illegal diversion of trust funds. State ex rel. Shepard v. Mechem, 1952-NMSC-105, 56 N.M. 762, 250 P.2d 897.
Citizen may not sue to enjoin misapplication of proceeds. — Neither this section nor Enabling Act, § 10, give citizen right to sue to enjoin misapplication of proceeds of land grants. Asplund v. Hannett, 1926-NMSC-040, 31 N.M. 641, 249 P. 1074.
Enabling Act part of New Mexico fundamental law. — By this section state consented to all provisions of Enabling Act and by virtue thereof constitution of New Mexico is subject to provisions of that act in same manner that it is subject to provisions of constitution of United States. 1953 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 53-5788.
Title to national forest lands. — Title of state to Sections 2, 16, 32 and 36, on which there had been on June 20, 1910, a completed survey finally approved by secretary of the interior, was not lost by embracement of such sections within national forests, but such sections which were unsurveyed on said date may be withdrawn by federal government for national forests at any time prior to completing such survey. 1937 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 37-1832. See Enabling Act, § 6 (Pamphlet 3).
Improper to divert income from granted land to unauthorized purposes. — Lands granted to state of New Mexico by United States are held by state in trust for purposes of the grant and no other purposes; diversion of land grant trust moneys to any other purpose, however salutary, is unconstitutional. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 57-314.
Law reviews. — For note, "Administration of Grazing Lands in New Mexico: A Breach of Trust," see 15 Nat. Resources J. 581 (1975).