WildEarth Guardians v. Blaine

WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TOM BLAINE, in his capacity as New Mexico State Engineer, Respondent-Appellee,andMIDDLE RIO GRANDE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, and U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, Real Parties in Interest.

No. A-1-CA-37737

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

April 15, 2020

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY

Francis J. Mathew, District Judge

Samantha Ruscavage-Barz

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

Gregory C. Ridgley, Special Assistant Attorney General

Maureen C. Dolan, Special Assistant Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

Law & Resource Planning Associates

Charles T. DuMars

Tanya L. Scott

Albuquerque, NM

for Real Party In Interest

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VARGAS, Judge.

{1} Petitioner has appealed from an order denying its petition for writ of mandamus. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Petitioner has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.

{2} The relevant background has previously been set forth. We will avoid undue reiteration here and instead focus on the content of the memorandum in opposition.

{3} First, Petitioner asserts that the district court's denial of its petition for writ of mandamus should be reviewed de novo, because questions of statutory interpretation are presented. [MIO 2-3] We disagree. "Generally, the grant or denial of a petition for writ of mandamus is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." State ex rel. Stapleton v. Skandera, 2015-NMCA-044, ¶ 5, 346 P.3d 1191. Although pure questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo, see id., "where, as here, the district court exercised its discretion to deny the writ petition for prudential reasons . . . we review the denial for an abuse of discretion." Fastbucks of Roswell, N.M., LLC v. King, 2013-NMCA-008, ¶ 7, 294 P.3d 1287. "A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is contrary to logic and reason, or if it exceeds the bounds of reason, all the circumstances before it being considered." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). For the reasons set forth at greater length in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we are not persuaded that this district court abused its discretion in this case.

{4} We understand Petitioner to suggest that concerns relative to the scope and nature of the authority of multiple federal and state governmental entities over the water rights and permits at issue should be disregarded, on grounds that those concerns were raised by only one of the parties, [MIO 3] and on grounds that those concerns are "extraneous" to the issue or issues that Petitioner seeks to narrowly define. [MIO 4-5] We disagree. The district court's apparent recognition of the complexity of the situation was prudent, provident, and entirely permissible. See generally id. (recognizing that the district courts may exercise their discretion to deny mandamus relief for prudential reasons).

{5} Petitioner also continues to argue that the specific statutory provision invoked should be understood to establish a clear and undisputable duty on the part of the State Engineer. [MIO 6-12] Petitioner offers a plausible interpretation of the specific regulatory provision at issue; however, that is not the only possible interpretation. As described in the notice of proposed summary disposition, the relevant statutory and regulatoryprovisions are susceptible to one or more alternative interpretations which would permit the Office of the State Engineer to elect among a variety of options, apparently at his discretion. [CN 4-6] A mandamus action is not appropriate under such circumstances. See generally Schein v. N. Rio Arriba Elec. Coop., 1997-NMSC-011, ¶ 22, 122 N.M. 800, 932 P.2d 490 ("Relevant rights and duties must be established before a writ of mandamus can issue."); El Dorado at Santa Fe, Inc. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 1976-NMSC-029, ¶ 5, 89 N.M. 313, 551 P.2d 1360 (holding that mandamus is not appropriate to "direct the performance of the particular act from among two or more allowed alternatives"); Mimbres Valley Irrigation Co. v. Salopek, 2006-NMCA-093, ¶ 19, 140 N.M. 168, 140 P.3d 1117 ("[M]andamus is only appropriate to compel an official to perform a duty if the duty is clear and indisputable."); Brantley Farms v. Carlsbad Irrigation Dist., 1998-NMCA-023, ¶ 23, 124 N.M. 698, 954 P.2d 763 ("Mandamus does not issue to control a discretionary duty.").

{6} To be clear, we do not take a position on the proper interpretation or application of the various statutory and regulatory provisions that bear upon the underlying matter. We merely conclude...