December 15, 2022- Aquifer Science, LLC v. Scott A. Verhines, No. A-1-CA-39080

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication
with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly
in Odyssey.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO	1
Opinion Number:	2
Filing Date: December 15, 2022	3
No. A-1-CA-39080	4
AQUIFER SCIENCE, LLC,	5
Applicant-Appellant/Appellant,	6
v.	7
SCOTT A. VERHINES, New Mexico State	8
Engineer,	9
Appellee/Appellee,	10
and	11
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO; HERMOSILLA	12
ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION;	13
INTERMOUNTAIN CONSERVATION TRUST;	14
OLD SANDIA PARK SERVICE COOPERATIVE;	15
PONDEROSA RANCH ESTATES LANDOWNERS,	16
INC.; SAN PEDRO CREEK ESTATES	17
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; WILDFLOWER	18
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION; CHARLOTTE	19
ABBINK; RUSSELL ABBINK; REBECCA	20
ALZHEIMER; ROSEMARY AMSPAUGH; ROD	21
BAKER; STEVAN BARON; CARYL BARON;	22
SCOTT BARRON; DAVID A. BENSON; NANCY	23
C. BENSON; PHYLLIS BERGMAN; RONALD P.	24
BOHANNAN; THOMAS P. BOYCE; NATHANEAL	25
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 12/15/2022 10:19 AM

BROWN; CAROLYN K. BRYAN; GEORGE T.	1
BRYAN; PEGGY M. BRYAN; DEE BUTLER;	2
WILLIAM I. BUTLER JR.; DON CAIN; MARIE	3
CAIN; MIKE CAMP; JACK CAMPBELL; DON	4
CARNICOM; MINA CARNICOM; MARGARET M.	5
CARROLL; TOM CHRISTENSEN; MICHAEL	6
COOK; JOSEPH A. COOPER; KATHY G. COOPER;	7
BETH CORWIN; MARIA V. CUNNINGHAM; JOEL	8
DARNOLD; LISA DARNOLD; BARBARA DAVID;	9
RICHARD DAVIS; DARIELLE DEXHEIMBER;	10
RICHARD A. DUNN; SUSAN GIAMBATTISTA;	11
DALE W. GUNN; MARK GUNTER; JAMES T.	12
HANLON; KATHLEEN A. HANLON; REBECCA S.	13
HARTLEY; KAREN C. HAWORTH; MICHAEL D.	14
HAWORTH; JOHN F. HAYES; LYNN HENRICKSON;	15
BARBARA S. HERRINGTON; JOANNE HILTON;	16
DAVID J. HOLCOMB; BRADLEY C. HOSMER;	17
ZITA HOSMER; TRACEE HUDSON; LARRY ILFELD;	18
CURTIS JOHNSON; PATTI JONES; REESE JONES;	19
DALE KENNEDY; CHARLES KING; ARNOLD G.	20
KLEIN; THEODORE I. LAMBERT; MARY A. LARAIA;	21
MARLYS LESLEY; PATRICK LESLEY; NANCY A.	22
LOGAN; ROBERT M. LOPEZ; FRANCES LUSSO;	23
JAMES E. MALLINSON; MARILYN H. MALLINSON;	24
MARK MANZUTTO; RONALD E. MASSIE; BARBARA	25
MCCARTY; RONALD MCCARTY; KATHY MCCOY;	26
ARJAN MELWANI; SHARMILA MELWANI; PAULA	27
MICHEL; TOM MICHEL; JAMES MILDREN; VENESEE	28
MILDREN; DOROTHY MITCHELL; KERRY MOLNAR;	29
PETER MOLNAR; ANDREW J. MOONEY; CLIFFORD	30
D. MORRIS; GAYLE J. MORRIS; LORNA MORROW;	31
PAUL MORROW; JIM MULLANY; MARJORIE	32
MULLANY; G. MARK NAYLOR; TINA NENOFF; ERIN	33
O'NEIL; JACK O'NEIL; JACQUELINE ORR; JOHN ORR;	34
JERRY PAGE; KAREN PAGE a/k/a KAREN WALKER;	35

ANDREE PEEK; DOUG PEEK; HANS PETERSEN; MARK	1
PICKERING; SUSAN PICKERING; SYLVIA PIERCE;	2
RICHARD RAGLE; DAN R. RICHEY; JUDITH B. RICHEY;	3
KATRINA RIVERS; DAVID J. ROESCH; DOUG SALMI;	4
KAREN SALMI; CAROL SANDERS-REED; JOHN N.	5
SANDERS-REED; REBECCA SCHNELKER; JILL	6
SCHUMACHER; DONNA SCHUYLER; RICHARD	7
SCHUYLER; JULIE LYNCH SEIMERS; BARRY	8
SILBAUGH; CAROLYN J. SIMMONS; JERRY A.	9
SIMMONS; SUE ANN SLATES; ANTOINETTE SMITH;	10
ROBERT SMITH; VERA SPRUNT; ELAINE M. STEPHENS;	11
ANNE STRADER; JO ELISE TABACCHI; MARGARET	12
BURGES TAYLOR; ROBERT K. TAYLOR; JONATHAN	13
THOMAS; DAVID E. THOMPSON; BRIAN TYREE;	14
OVIDIU VIORICA; BIRUTE WATSON; SAUL BARRY WAX;	15
DAVID WEAVER; ALBERT WEBB; DENISE WEBB;	16
ANGELA WELFORD; DAVID W. WENTWORTH; JEANNE	17
S. WENTWORTH; TIM WILLIS; JANET WINCHESTER-	18
SILBAUGH; JAN WISTE; CAROL J. WOOD; JAMES A.	19
WOOD; JAN WRIGHT; and MARY ANN ZANNER,	20
Protestants-Appellees/Appellees.	21
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY	22
Clay Campbell, District Judge	23
Hinkle Shanor LLP	24
Julie A. Sakura	25
Dioscoro A. Blanco	26
Santa Fe, NM	27
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.	28
Edward Ricco	29
Albuquerque, NM	30
for Appellant	31

Jalbright Law, LLC	1
Jeffrey H. Albright	2
Albuquerque, NM	3
for Appellee County of Bernalillo	4
Paul Hultin	5
Santa Fe, NM	6
New Mexico Environmental Law Center	7
Maslyn Locke	8
Santa Fe, NM	9
Durham, Pittard & Spalding, LLP	10
Caren I. Friedman	11
Rosalind B. Bienvenu	12
Justin R. Kaufman	13
Santa Fe, NM	14
for Appellees San Pedro Creek Estates Homeowners Association, Old Sandia Park	15
Service 	Cooperative, 	Rosemary 	Amspaugh, 	Caryl 	Baron, 	Phyllis 	Bergman,	16
Nathaneal Brown, Anne Strader, Carolyn K. Bryan, Margaret M. Carroll, Tom	17
Christensen, Joanne Hilton, Beth Corwin, Richard Davis, Barbara Davis, Barbara S.	18
Herrington, David J. Holcomb, Kathy McCoy, Dale Kennedy, Charles King, Karen	19
Salmi, Marlyss Lesley, Frances Lusso, David Weaver, Jim Mullany, Marjorie	20
Mullany, Jerry Page, Ricard Ragle, Doug Salmi, Carol Sanders-Reed, Julie Lynch	21
Seimers, Barry Silbaugh, Janet Winchester-Silbaugh, Carolyn J. Simmons, Jerry A.	22
Simmons, Sue Ann Slates, Robert Smith, Antoinette Smith, and Jan Wiste	23

OPINION	1
BUSTAMANTE, Judge, retired, sitting by designation.	2
{1} 	Appellant Aquifer Science, LLC (Aquifer Science) appeals the district court’s	3
judgment denying its request to appropriate water from the Sandia Underground	4
Water Basin (Sandia Basin). Aquifer Science argues that (1) the district court’s	5
analysis of impairment to existing water rights was incomplete under guidelines	6
promulgated 	by 	the 	State 	Engineer 	(the 	Guidelines) 1 and 	not 	supported 	by	7
substantial evidence; (2) the district court applied an unduly strict interpretation of	8
the concept of “conservation of water” as used in NMSA 1978, Section 72-12-3(E)	9
(2001, amended 2019); 2 and (3) the district court improperly required Aquifer	10
Science to obtain land-use authorization for the entire project as a condition for	11
approval of its request to appropriate water.	12
{2} 	Aquifer Science also appeals the district court’s order granting costs to certain	13
protesting parties as the prevailing parties below, arguing that (1) the cost bill	14
submitted did not comply with the requirements of Rule 1-054(D)(4) NMRA; (2)	15
the district court abused its discretion when it did not provide Aquifer Science	16
1 The district court’s determination and the parties’ arguments regarding
impairment are based on the Guidelines. See Tom Morrison, N.M. Office of the State
Engineer, Guidelines for the Assessment of Drawdown Estimates, Hydrology Bureau
Report 06-01 at 1-3 (2006).
2 All references to Section 72-12-3 in this opinion are to the 2001 version of
the statute.

2
additional time to lodge specific objections to the bill of costs; and (3) as a matter of	1
law, post-judgment interest cannot be imposed on an award of costs. We affirm.	2
BACKGROUND	3
{3} 	Aquifer Science is a Nevada-based limited liability company formed to obtain	4
water for the Campbell Ranch Master Plan Project (Master Plan). The Master Plan	5
is spread among Bernalillo County, Sandoval County, and Santa Fe County, north	6
of the Town of Edgewood (Edgewood). The Master Plan envisions a multiple use	7
development consisting of four villages with residential, commercial, and resort	8
elements, including two golf courses and some 3,000 acres of open space. Edgewood	9
has approved the Master Plan and annexed Villages 2, 3, and 4. Edgewood did not	10
annex Village 1 located on the west side of Highway 14. As a result, Village 1	11
remains subject to the planning jurisdiction of Bernalillo County. Bernalillo County	12
has neither approved the Master Plan nor annexed Village 1.	13
{4} 	Aquifer Science filed its first application with the State Engineer in June 2009	14
seeking a permit to appropriate 1,500 acre-feet per year (afy) of ground water on	15
25,000 acres of land. In September 2011, Aquifer Science amended its application	16
to reduce its request to 1,010 afy of water. In March 2013, Aquifer Science amended	17
its application to reduce the geographic area of use down to approximately 8,000	18
acres of land. And, in June 2013, it again amended its application to reduce its	19
requested appropriation to 717 afy. Following a two-week hearing, the State	20

3
Engineer denied the application because there was no unappropriated groundwater	1
in the Sandia Basin to satisfy Aquifer Science’s request. After the application was	2
denied, Aquifer Science filed a de novo appeal in the district court pursuant to	3
NMSA 1978, Section 72-7-1(E) (1971).	4
{5} 	The district court allowed Aquifer Science to amend its application to further	5
reduce its requested appropriation to 350 afy (the Application). Aquifer Science	6
requested the amendment because it had acquired other permitted water. Following	7
the amendment, the State Engineer reversed its position and aligned itself with	8
Aquifer Science’s position on all of the issues. Despite the State Engineer’s change	9
of position, the Application was opposed by several parties, including individuals	10
and 	entities 	represented 	by 	the 	New 	Mexico 	Environmental 	Law 	Center	11
(collectively, 	Protestants), 	Bernalillo 	County, 	and 	numerous 	pro 	se 	parties.	12
Following a two-week bench trial, the district court denied the Application. The	13
district 	court 	determined 	that, 	although 	there 	was 	water 	to 	appropriate, 	the	14
Application 	was 	denied 	“as 	being 	inconsistent 	with 	applicable 	principles 	of	15
conservation and because the magnitude of the likely impairment to existing water	16
rights [was] significant.”	17
{6} 	Protestants filed a bill of costs to which Aquifer Science objected. After a	18
hearing on the objections and other matters, the district court substantially granted	19

4
the costs requested by Protestants, and granted post-judgment interest on the award	1
of costs.	2
DISCUSSION	3
{7} 	We 	start 	by 	addressing 	Aquifer 	Science’s 	arguments 	relating 	to 	the	4
Application and then turn to issues regarding costs.	5
I. 	Aquifer Science’s Application for the Appropriation of Water Rights in	6
the Sandia Basin	7
{8} 	“The unappropriated water of every natural stream, perennial or torrential,	8
within the state of New Mexico, is hereby declared to belong to the public,” and our	9
public waters are “subject to appropriation for beneficial use” in accordance with	10
state 	law. 	N.M. 	Const. 	art. 	XVI, 	§§ 	2, 	3. 	Our 	Legislature 	has 	enacted 	a	11
comprehensive Water Code governing the appropriation of water. NMSA 1978,	12
§§ 72-1-1 to 72-20-103 (1876, as amended through 2021). Section 72-1-2 provides	13
that “[b]eneficial use [of water] shall be the basis, the measure and the limit of the	14
right to the use of water.” See § 72-12-2 (stating the same for underground waters).	15
{9} 	The 	State 	Engineer 	exercises 	administrative 	control 	over 	a 	particular	16
groundwater basin by declaring it and defining its boundaries. Section 72-12-1.	17
Because the Sandia Basin is a declared basin, Aquifer Science had to apply for a	18
permit to appropriate water. See §§ 72-12-20, -3(A). In determining whether to issue	19
a permit, the State Engineer considers an applicant’s application and grants it if it	20
“finds that there are . . . unappropriated waters” and that the proposed appropriation	21

5
(1) “would not impair existing water rights from the source,” (2) “is not contrary to	1
conservation of water within the state,” and (3) “is not detrimental to the public	2
welfare of the state.” Section 72-12-3(E). At issue in this appeal are the first and	3
second factors—impairment and conservation.	4
A. 	Impairment	5
{10} 	“In order to evaluate impairment of existing rights, the [s]tate [e]ngineer must	6
assess whether the contemplated action will have an adverse effect on any prior	7
appropriation.” Tri-State Generation v. D’Antonio, 2011-NMCA-015, ¶ 13, 149	8
N.M. 394, 249 P.3d 932, rev’d on other grounds, 2012-NMSC-039, 289 P.3d 1232.	9
Citing Montgomery v. Lomos Altos, Inc., 2007-NMSC-002, ¶ 21, 141 N.M. 21, 150	10
P.3d 971, the district court appropriately noted that “[w]hether an application	11
impairs existing water rights is a fact driven inquiry.” In Montgomery, our Supreme	12
Court emphasized that it had not and would not attempt to formulate a per se	13
definition of impairment of existing water rights. Id. ¶¶ 21-24. Rather, it reaffirmed	14
that 	“the 	individual 	facts 	of 	each 	case 	may require 	different 	resolutions 	of	15
impairment questions.” Id. ¶ 24. As such, in some circumstances, lowering of the	16
water table would not necessarily result in an impairment. Id. ¶ 22. In other	17
situations, a de minimis depletion might give rise to a finding of impairment. Id.	18
{11} 	The district court and our Supreme Court could also have noted that the fact	19
driven nature of the inquiry is necessitated by the circumstance that the State	20

6
Engineer has not promulgated any rules or regulations regarding impairment and	1
there is no statutory definition of impairment. Nonetheless, the State Engineer does	2
not approach impairment analysis in a vacuum. It first issued a set of guideline	3
documents to direct the impairment assessment in 2006—the Guidelines. The State	4
Engineer issued updated guidelines in 2016 and 2017, but the Guidelines were used	5
in this case because they were in existence when the Application was first filed. Tom	6
Morrison, N.M. Office of the State Engineer, Guidelines for the Assessment of	7
Drawdown Estimates, Hydrology Bureau Report 16-03 (2016); Tom Morrison,	8
N.M. Office of the State Engineer, Guidelines for the Assessment of Drawdown	9
Estimates, Hydrology Bureau Report 05-17 (2017).	10
{12} 	In relevant part, the Guidelines provide criteria for evaluating, typically over	11
a forty-year period, the physical and economic impacts of a groundwater application	12
on existing wells. Morrison, supra, at 1-4. The purpose of the Guidelines “is to	13
provide guidelines for the assessment of degree of hardship that will result from	14
drawdown caused by a proposed groundwater diversion.” Id. at 1 (footnote omitted).	15
The Guidelines acknowledge that diversions will generally cause some degree of	16
water level decline, but will result in a material physical hardship when they affect	17
the ability of nearby wells to produce the quantity of water required for their uses.	18
Id. The Guidelines note that “[f]lexibility in applying the guidelines is necessary due	19
to unique well characteristics and hydrologic conditions.” Id. Aquifer Science’s and	20

7
the State Engineer’s experts both agreed that the Guidelines give decision makers	1
flexibility, discretion, and the ability to make judgment calls in applying their	2
concepts.	3
{13} 	To analyze whether a new diversion may result in a hardship—or its synonym,	4
impairment—the Guidelines first suggest selecting “the allowable water level	5
decline existing wells may tolerate.” Id. The Guidelines then suggest estimating the	6
“pumping water level at which the required well yield cannot be physically	7
sustained.” Id. This estimate is determined by “well construction, aquifer conditions,	8
and pump characteristics.” Id. “By comparing the total [estimated] drawdown to	9
allowable drawdowns, an assessment of the degree of impact is made.” Id. “Physical	10
hardship is the loss of the required well yield due to excessive water level decline.”	11
Id. at 3.	12
{14} 	As 	of 	2006 	the 	State 	Engineer 	had 	selected 	presumptive 	drawdown	13
allowances for a few of the declared basins in the state. Id. at 4-5. For example, a	14
drawdown allowance of ten feet was selected for thick alluvial aquifers, such as the	15
Middle Rio Grande Basin. Id. at 4. The Guidelines state that the same ten-foot	16
allowance “may be selected . . . for wells in other basins with similar hydrologic	17
conditions.” Id. A four-foot drawdown allowance was selected for the Estancia and	18
Tularosa areas. Id. In comparison, a two-foot drawdown allowance was permitted	19

8
for thin alluvial aquifers, such as basins in southeastern New Mexico. Id. at 4-5. The	1
State Engineer has not adopted a drawdown allowance for the Sandia Basin. See id.	2
{15} 	The experts for Aquifer Science, the State Engineer, and Protestants all agreed	3
the Sandia Basin is not a thick alluvial aquifer. Despite this, the experts for Aquifer	4
Science and the State Engineer applied the ten-foot drawdown allowance for a thick	5
alluvial aquifer and, based on that standard, opined that only eleven or twelve wells	6
would be impacted by Aquifer Science’s proposed pumping. See id. at 4. The district	7
court rejected that approach and, agreeing with Protestants’ expert, determined that	8
the Application would impair as many as 100 wells. This determination led the	9
district court to conclude that the “Application is denied because the magnitude of	10
the impairment to existing water rights is significant.”	11
{16} 	On appeal, Aquifer Science makes two arguments regarding impairment.	12
First, it asserts that the district court did not conduct a full analysis of impairment to	13
existing water rights under the Guidelines because it failed to consider whether the	14
Sandia Basin had “similar hydrologic conditions” to a basin with a thick alluvial	15
aquifer. See id. Second, it obliquely asserts that substantial evidence does not support	16
the district court’s finding that, based on the 2006 Guidelines, up to 100 wells would	17
be impaired by the Application. We address each of Aquifer Science’s arguments	18
regarding impairment in turn.	19

9
1. 	Aquifer Science’s Argument Regarding the District Court’s Failure to	1
Assess Whether the Sandia Basin Has Similar Hydrologic Conditions to	2
the Middle Rio Grande Basin Was Not Preserved	3
{17} 	Aquifer Science argues that though the parties agreed the Sandia Basin is not	4
a thick alluvial aquifer, the district court erred in not analyzing whether it has	5
“similar hydrologic conditions” to a thick alluvial basin when deciding which	6
drawdown allowance to use to assess impairment. See id.	7
{18} 	Aquifer Science candidly admits that it did not preserve this argument. But, it	8
argues an exception to the preservation requirement applies because the district court	9
was aware that the Guidelines allow the use of the same drawdown allowance for	10
thick alluvial aquifers and aquifers with “similar hydrologic conditions.” See id.	11
Aquifer Science points us to an exchange during the testimony of Protestants’ expert	12
to illustrate its contention. The expert was asked to read from the Guidelines. The	13
expert misread the second sentence of the material, and the district court pointed out	14
that he had elided the word “hydrologic” in the phrase “[t]his administrative	15
drawdown allowance may be selected for wells within the [Middle Rio Grande	16
Basin] or for wells in other basins with similar hydrologic conditions.” Id. Aquifer	17
Science relies on State v. Conn, 1992-NMCA-052, ¶ 11, 115 N.M. 101, 847 P.2d	18
746, for the proposition that it is not necessary to call the district court’s attention to	19
a point when the record indicates that the court already was aware of it. We disagree.	20

10
{19} 	Aquifer Science all but ignores the nature and extent of its failure to preserve	1
the argument it makes on appeal. It faults the district court for failing to undertake a	2
technical, fact intensive inquiry even though Aquifer Science’s requested findings	3
of fact and conclusions of law do not mention or refer to the concept of “similar	4
hydrologic conditions.” In addition, Aquifer Science’s requested findings of fact do	5
not refer to any testimony explaining in context why the Sandia Basin has “similar	6
hydrologic conditions.” This basic failure to explicate a technically difficult concept,	7
coupled with a failure to request a finding on what was clearly a fundamental issue	8
in the case, is of a different order than the simple failure to be more specific in the	9
evidentiary objection discussed in Conn. See id. Because the issue involves a	10
fundamental matter pivotal to Aquifer Science’s theory of its case, preservation	11
concepts require a showing “that appellant fairly invoked a ruling of the [district]	12
court on the same grounds argued in the appellate court.” Benz v. Town Ctr. Land,	13
LLC, 2013-NMCA-111, ¶ 24, 314 P.3d 688 (internal quotation marks and citation	14
omitted); see Rule 12-321(A) NMRA.	15
{20} 	Based on our review, the district court was not sufficiently alerted to the fact	16
that Aquifer Science or the State Engineer believed the Sandia Basin had similar	17
hydrologic conditions to a thick alluvial aquifer. The State Engineer argued that	18
although the Sandia Basin does not have a thick alluvial aquifer, it was appropriate	19
to 	apply 	the 	ten-foot 	allowance 	because 	“the 	basin 	is 	not 	closed 	to 	new	20

11
appropriations and because the best aquifer exists at depths of a thousand feet and	1
wells have been successfully deepened in the basin.” This argument did not invoke	2
the “similar hydrologic conditions” language from the Guidelines, nor does the	3
context express that the Sandia Basin has similar hydrologic conditions to a thick	4
alluvial aquifer such that the ten-foot drawdown allowance should be applied. See	5
Morrison, supra, at 4. And, neither Aquifer Science nor the State Engineer filed a	6
motion 	for 	reconsideration 	after 	receiving 	the 	district 	court’s 	findings 	and	7
conclusions. Thus, the district court was never alerted to the assertion that the ten-	8
foot drawdown allowance was based on this reasoning, Protestants and the other	9
parties were not provided a fair opportunity to respond, and this Court has an	10
insufficient record to review the issue. The issue was not preserved, and we decline	11
to address Aquifer Science’s argument.	12
2. 	The District Court’s Determination That as Many as 100 Wells Would	13
Be Impaired Is Supported by Substantial Evidence	14
{21} 	As noted above, Aquifer Science asserts, as part of its argument concerning	15
similar hydrologic conditions, that there is no evidence to support the district court’s	16
determination that “the Application will impair as many as 100 wells.” Though made	17
as part of the unpreserved argument we have refused to address, the assertion, which	18
was preserved, can be seen to stand on its own. We, thus, opt to address it.	19
{22} 	Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would find	20
adequate to support a conclusion. State ex rel. King v. B & B Inv. Grp., Inc., 2014-	21

12
NMSC-024, ¶ 12, 329 P.3d 658. “When considering a claim of insufficiency of the	1
evidence, the appellate court resolves all disputes of facts in favor of the successful	2
party and indulges all reasonable inferences in support of the prevailing party.” N.M.	3
Mil. Inst. v. NMMI Alumni Ass’n, Inc., 2019-NMCA-008, ¶ 19, 458 P.3d 434	4
(alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).	5
{23} 	The district court rejected Aquifer Science’s and the State Engineer’s experts’	6
decision to apply a ten-foot drawdown allowance to assess impairment. Citing the	7
testimony of Protestants’ expert, Paul Davis, the district court’s finding of fact No.	8
193 specifically notes that “as many as 100 wells would be identified as impaired”	9
under the Guidelines “by eliminating use of the 10-foot drawdown.”	10
{24} 	The gist of Mr. Davis’s testimony was that—accepting Aquifer Science’s	11
pumping test and its drawdown model in toto, and applying the Guidelines	12
consistently—100 domestic wells would be impaired. Mr. Davis testified that the	13
Sandia Basin was not a thick alluvial basin and as such it was improper to apply the	14
ten-foot drawdown allowance applicable to basins such as the Middle Rio Grande.	15
By eliminating the ten-foot allowance as a criteria and including wells that were	16
likely to fail even without the Application’s proposed pumping, the number of wells	17
impacted rose to approximately 100 as depicted on Protestants’ Exhibit 93.	18
{25} 	The district court was presented with divergent expert opinions as to how the	19
Guidelines should be applied in the context of the Sandia Basin. The experts’	20

13
opinions were all received into evidence without objection. As the fact-finder, the	1
district court was free to resolve conflicts in the evidence and choose among the	2
various opinions offered. See Las Cruces Pro. Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces,	3
1997-NMCA-044, ¶ 12, 123 N.M 329, 940 P.2d 177; Skeen v. Boyles, 2009-NMCA-	4
080, ¶ 37, 146 N.M. 627, 213 P.3d 531. We will not reweigh the evidence nor	5
substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.	6
{26} 	Aquifer Science emphasizes that in conclusion of law No. 21, the district court	7
stated that “[t]he correct application of the . . . Guidelines requires an allowable 40-	8
year drawdown of two feet.” Aquifer Science correctly points out that Mr. Davis did	9
not apply the two-foot drawdown allowance for thin alluvial formations to support	10
his 	opinion 	because, 	he 	testified, 	the 	Sandia 	Basin 	is 	not 	alluvial. 	See	11
Morrison, supra, at 4-5 (noting the two-foot drawdown applies to basins with thin	12
alluvial aquifers). To that extent, the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Davis used	13
a two-foot drawdown allowance is incorrect. The question is whether that error	14
undermines the district court’s reliance on Mr. Davis’s opinion and its rejection of	15
the other expert’s testimony. We conclude that it does not.	16
{27} 	Recognizing the primacy of the fact-finder with regard to determining the	17
operative factual context of matters before it, appellate courts construe findings of	18
the district court so as to uphold a judgment rather than to reverse it. Bishop v.	19
Evangelical Good Samaritan Soc’y, 2009-NMSC-036, ¶ 25, 146 N.M. 473, 212 P.3d	20

14
361. In keeping with appellate courts’ preference to indulge all reasonable inferences	1
in support of the district court’s decision, this Court adheres to the concept that	2
specific findings of fact supported by substantial evidence will prevail over any	3
inconsistent 	conclusions 	of 	law. 	Roybal 	v. 	Chavez 	Concrete 	& 	Excavation	4
Contractors, Inc., 1985-NMCA-020, ¶¶ 8-9, 102 N.M. 428, 696 P.2d 1021; In Re	5
Will of Carson, 1974-NMSC-097, ¶¶ 7-8, 87 N.M. 43, 529 P.2d 269.	6
{28} 	In cases such as Roybal and Carson, the disagreement between the findings	7
of fact and conclusions of law required reversal to conform the conclusion to the	8
accepted facts. Roybal, 1985-NMCA-020, ¶¶ 8-9; Carson, 1974-NMSC-097, ¶¶ 7-	9
8. In Roybal, for example, this Court reversed after the district court granted greater	10
compensation than was supported by its findings concerning the extent of the	11
worker’s injuries. 1985-NMCA-020, ¶¶ 10-12. Reversal is not required here because	12
Mr. Davis’s opinion that 100 wells would be impaired is not dependent on applying	13
a two-foot drawdown allowance. The district court’s inclusion of a two-foot	14
allowance is thus surplusage, which can be excised without altering the fundamental	15
agreement between the district court’s decision and the testimony it credited.	16
B. 	Conservation	17
{29} 	Aquifer Science argues that the district court adopted an unduly strict	18
interpretation of Section 72-12-3(E) when it concluded that the Application “is not	19
consistent with conservation.” Aquifer Science again alerts us to a potential	20

15
preservation problem with this issue by noting that the arguments made on appeal	1
can be seen as “more developed . . . than that presented to the district court.” Our	2
review of the record confirms that construction of Section 72-12-3(E) below was not	3
the focus of the parties’ attention prior to the district court’s entry of its findings of	4
fact and conclusions of law. And, similar to the impairment issue, Aquifer Science	5
did not file a motion to reconsider after it received the district court’s ruling. In this	6
instance, however, we agree that the lack of argument below should not prevent us	7
from addressing the issue, both because management of New Mexico’s water is	8
increasingly a matter of general public interest, see Rule 12-321(B)(2)(a), and	9
because construction of the statute is not a fact-dependent inquiry. In addition, given	10
that there are no New Mexico cases discussing the conservation prong of Section	11
72-12-3(E), we deem it appropriate to provide guidance as to its meaning and	12
application.	13
{30} 	Construction of statutes presents a legal question that we review de novo.	14
Cooper v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 2002-NMSC-020, ¶ 16, 132 N.M. 382, 49 P.3d 61.	15
{31} 	Aquifer Science starts its argument by noting that the district 	court’s	16
conclusion of law No. 45 denied the Application because “it is not consistent with	17
conservation,” while Section 72-12-3(E) requires that Aquifer Science demonstrate	18
that its request “is not contrary to conservation of water within the state.” Aquifer	19
Science asserts that the district court’s “erroneous phrasing of the relevant inquiry”	20

16
indicates a basic misunderstanding of the statutory standard in that it imposed an	1
affirmative burden of proof not found in the statute. Aquifer Science then undertakes	2
to construe the statute, and applying its interpretation of the statute, reviews the	3
evidence it submitted at trial to demonstrate how it met its burden.	4
{32} 	We first consider whether the district court’s terminology is substantively	5
significant. We then proceed to construe Section 72-12-3(E). Finally, we review the	6
evidence to determine whether it supports the district court’s decision.	7
1. 	The District Court’s Choice of Terminology Was Not Erroneous	8
{33} 	Aquifer Science ascribes more import to the district court’s choice of words	9
in its conclusion of law No. 45 than it merits. We conclude that, in context, the phrase	10
“not consistent with conservation” is no more than a synonym for the statutory	11
phrase “not contrary to conservation of water.” See id. First, we note that the district	12
court quoted the statutory language in its conclusion of law No. 7. It was thus clearly	13
aware of the statute and its requirements.	14
{34} 	Second, the parties themselves did not use the statutory phrase. For example,	15
in its post-trial proposed conclusions of law, Aquifer Science asked the district court	16
to conclude that approval of the Application was “contingent upon determinations	17
regarding whether . . . the [A]pplication [would] . . . be contrary to the conservation	18
of water in the state.” Aquifer Science’s phrasing of its burden matches the phrasing	19
used by the State Engineer during its proceedings. It is also the phrasing used by	20

17
Aquifer Science in its motion to establish the nature and scope of de novo appeal.	1
And, the district court adopted the phrasing in its letter order granting Aquifer	2
Science’s motion.	3
{35} 	Third, we agree with Protestants that Aquifer Science’s argument amounts to	4
no more than semantic gymnastics. Framed in the negative, Section 72-12-3(E)	5
allows an application to be granted if it is not contrary to conservation. As Protestants	6
note, “a court could conclude that an application . . . is ‘not not contrary to	7
conversation,’ or, to avoid the double negative, it is contrary to conservation.” Being	8
contrary to conservation is functionally synonymous with the district court’s phrase	9
“not consistent with conservation.” Stated more simply, the district court’s mere	10
usage of nonidentical terminology as that found in the statutory phrase does not	11
suggest its misunderstanding of the applicable standard. Cf. Wild Horse Observer’s	12
Ass’n, Inc. v. N.M. Livestock Bd., 2022-NMCA-061, ¶ 34, 519 P.3d. 74 (stating that	13
a district court’s use of “differing descriptive nomenclature” did not “render[] its	14
injunction impracticable to implement”).	15
{36} 	Appellate courts operate under a presumption of correctness of the district	16
court’s rulings. Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100,	17
¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6, 800 P.2d 1063. “[T]he burden is on the appellant to clearly	18
demonstrate that the district court erred.” Corona v. Corona, 2014-NMCA-071,	19
¶ 26, 329 P.3d 701. The foregoing analysis demonstrates that Aquifer Science has	20

18
failed to demonstrate that the district court misunderstood the statutory standard it	1
was applying.	2
2. 	Aquifer Science’s Interpretation of Section 72-12-3(E) Is Not Workable	3
{37} 	Ostensibly using a plain language approach to statutory interpretation,	4
Aquifer Science construes Section 72-12-3(E) to mean that “an application to	5
appropriate groundwater is ‘not contrary to conservation’ as long as the proposed	6
use is beneficial and no more water is appropriated than is needed to achieve the	7
beneficial purpose.” It arrives at this interpretation by combining language from	8
cases addressing issues unrelated to the concerns of conservation with a dictionary	9
definition of the word “conserve.” The result is a standard that could improperly	10
prevent the State Engineer and the courts from considering evidence other than an	11
applicant’s best efforts evidence.	12
{38} 	First, Aquifer Science quotes from State ex rel. Reynolds v. South Springs Co.,	13
1969-NMSC-023, ¶ 15, 80 N.M. 144, 452 P.2d 478, to the effect that New Mexico’s	14
water laws are “intended to encourage use and discourage nonuse or waste.”	15
Reynolds, in turn, cited Yeo v. Tweedy, 1929-NMSC-033, 34 N.M. 611, 286 P. 970,	16
for the proposition. Reynolds, 1969-NMSC-023, ¶ 15. Neither case involved an issue	17
remotely related to the concept of conservation under Section 72-12-3(E). Yeo	18
addressed the constitutionality of a newly enacted statute that declared underground	19
waters to be public waters subject to the jurisdiction of the state engineer. 1929-	20

19
NMSC-033, 	¶¶ 	1, 	4, 	6. 	Reynolds 	addressed 	the 	contours 	of 	common 	law	1
abandonment of water rights and the statutory concept of forfeiture of water rights.	2
1969-NMSC-023, ¶¶ 3-4. Any general statements about the purpose of New	3
Mexico’s water laws found in those cases provides no guidance as to how	4
conservation should be assessed under Section 72-12-3(E). This is particularly true	5
given that the language making conservation part of the calculus for approving	6
applications to divert groundwater did not appear in New Mexico’s water law	7
statutes until 1983, fourteen years after Reynolds and nearly fifty-five years after	8
Yeo. Compare 1983 N.M. Laws, ch. 2, § 2, with 1977 N.M. Laws, ch. 134, § 3, and	9
1967 N.M. Laws, ch. 308, § 2, and NMSA 1953, § 75-11-3 (1931, amended 1971)	10
(recompiled as § 72-12-3).	11
{39} 	Second, the definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary and Webster’s Third	12
New International Dictionary of the word “conserve” that Aquifer Science relies on	13
are similarly too limited to provide a reliable guide to what the statutory term	14
“conservation” might mean. Aquifer Science emphasizes the concepts of minimizing	15
use and preventing waste from the portions of the definitions it cites. But as with	16
most complex words, meaning is context dependent. Recognizing this, the full	17
definition of “conserve” given by Black’s Law Dictionary is: “1. To take care of; to	18
care for. 2. To protect from change, destruction, or depletion. 3. To reduce or	19
minimize the use of.” Conserve, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). The full	20

20
definition of “conservation” given by Black’s Law Dictionary is: “The supervision,	1
management, and maintenance of natural resources such as animals, plants, forests,	2
etc., to prevent them from being spoiled or destroyed; the protection, improvement,	3
and use of natural resources in a way that ensures the highest social as well as	4
economic benefits.” Conservation, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). The	5
pertinent definition of “conserve” given in Webster’s Third New International	6
Dictionary is: “1: to keep in a safe or sound state (as by deliberate planned, or	7
intelligent care): preserve from change or destruction: save.” Conserve, Webster’s	8
Third New Int’l Dictionary (Unabridged ed. 2002). And, it’s pertinent portion of the	9
definition of “conservation” is: “1: deliberate, planned, or thoughtful preserving,	10
guarding, or protecting: a keeping in a safe or entire state: . . . 2: care or keeping and	11
supervision of something by a governmental authority or by a private association or	12
business: as a: planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation,	13
destruction, or neglect . . . b: the wise utilization of a natural product esp[ecially] by	14
a manufacturer so as to prevent waste and insure future use of resources that have	15
been depleted.”	16
{40} 	These fuller definitions include concepts of not just of minimal use and	17
prevention of waste, but broader concerns for planned management of and caring for	18
resources to prevent exploitation, destruction, and depletion. These broader concerns	19
would be obvious additions to any definition of conservation as applied to water in	20

21
New Mexico. Aquifer Science does not acknowledge these aspects of the concept of	1
conservation and, thus, its approach to the construction of Section 72-12-3(E) is too	2
narrow—and, frankly, too self-serving—to credit.	3
{41} 	Aquifer 	Science’s 	approach 	would 	not 	allow 	a 	full 	explication 	and	4
consideration of facts. Its argument here demonstrates that. Aquifer Science	5
acknowledges that evidence contrary to its position—which the district court	6
credited and relied on—was admitted without objection at the trial below, but asserts	7
in effect that such evidence is irrelevant because it proved that the Master Plan	8
incorporated the most water-wise ideas and performance standards available. That	9
incorporation by itself, it asserts, fulfilled its burden of proof regardless of the	10
contrary evidence. This assertion highlights why Aquifer Science’s proposed	11
construction of the statute is not workable. Accepting its approach would improperly	12
restrict the type of evidence the State Engineer and the district courts would be able	13
to rely on.	14
{42} 	Also, as we noted above, Section 72-1-2 and Section 72-12-2 already provide	15
that “beneficial use” is “the basis, the measure and the limit of the right to the use of	16
water,” Aquifer Science’s construction of the phrase “not contrary to conservation”	17
to 	simply 	mean 	“beneficial 	use” 	would 	make 	the 	conservation 	provision	18
superfluous—contrary to our rules of statutory construction. See Am. Fed’n of State,	19
Cnty. & Mun. Emps. v. City of Albuquerque, 2013-NMCA-063, ¶ 5, 304 P.3d 443	20

22
(“Statutes must also be construed so that no part of the statute is rendered surplusage	1
or superfluous.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).	2
{43} 	Yet another indication that Aquifer Science’s construction is not workable is	3
the effect it could have on appellate review of district court decisions. The normal	4
standard of review counsels appellate courts to defer to the trier of fact and its	5
resolution of conflicts in testimony. Sunnyland Farms, Inc. v. Cent. N.M. Elec.	6
Coop., Inc., 2013-NMSC-017, ¶ 37, 301 P.3d 387; Buckingham v. Ryan, 1998-	7
NMCA-012, ¶ 10, 124 N.M. 498, 953 P.2d 33. Aquifer Science tries to avoid this	8
standard of review by asserting that, having met its burden of proof, the contrary	9
evidence admitted at trial can simply be ignored. The argument is novel, but we see	10
no reason to skew the norms of appellate review in this context. Reviewing the	11
evidence as presented in Aquifer Science’s briefing makes it clear that there is	12
substantial evidence to support the district court’s decision—the matter we turn to	13
next.	14
{44} 	We will not attempt to formulate a definition of “conservation of water”	15
ourselves. Just as our Supreme Court refused to state a bright line rule with regard	16
to the assessment of impairment in Section 72-12-3(E), we conclude that such an	17
effort with respect to “conservation of water” would be similarly difficult and could	18
lead to “severe complications.” See Montgomery, 2007-NMSC-002, ¶ 21 (quoting	19
Mathers v. Texaco, Inc., 1966-NMSC-226, ¶ 16, 77 N.M. 239, 421 P.2d 771). Just	20

23
like the evaluation of impairment, assessment of conservation is of necessity a matter	1
best dealt with on a case-by-case basis, applying the various features of the concept	2
of conservation as needed under the set of facts presented in each case.	3
3. 	The District Court’s Decision That the Application Was Contrary to the	4
Conservation of Water Is Affirmed	5
{45} 	As noted by Aquifer Science, the district court credited it for its efforts to	6
forecast and reduce water usage under the Master Plan. But the inquiry does not end	7
there. As Aquifer Science admits, the district court also recognized the limits of	8
Aquifer Science’s model. It should be emphasized that Aquifer Science does not	9
challenge the admissibility of the evidence the district court relied on, including, for	10
example, the extensive evidence regarding the potential effects of climate change on	11
the Master Plan’s water use projections. Aquifer Science did not offer any evidence	12
to rebut Protestants’ climate change expert. And, Aquifer Science does not question	13
the accuracy or validity of the district court’s concerns and observations in this	14
regard. It simply argues that Protestants cannot overcome its basic showing that the	15
Master Plan incorporates the latest standards for methods of reduction of water use.	16
{46} 	The district court found that the predicted higher temperatures and severe	17
droughts were likely to have a negative effect on the supply of water in the next fifty	18
years. The district court also found that Aquifer Science did not consider the impacts	19
of climate change in its analysis. These findings are supported by the testimony of	20
an Aquifer Science’s expert witness who admitted that he did “not directly” consider	21

24
climate change in any of his assumptions about evapotranspiration. The State	1
Engineer’s expert testified that the State Engineer does not consider climate change	2
when deciding whether to grant an application. Another of Aquifer Science’s expert	3
witnesses agreed that the State Engineer does not have any procedures to consider	4
climate change in its evaluation of applications. The same witness opined that it	5
would not be prudent for the State Engineer to consider climate change in its	6
evaluation. The district court’s finding of fact that Aquifer Science did not consider	7
climate change in preparing its water demand or hydrologic analyses is supported	8
by substantial evidence.	9
{47} 	Despite this, as a matter of judicial caution, we opt not to rely on the finding	10
regarding climate change as a basis for affirming the district court’s decision	11
regarding conservation. Our decision provides the State Engineer and the Legislature	12
the opportunity to provide guidance regarding climate change and conservation	13
before it is judicially imposed. Further, we can affirm the conclusion that the	14
Application is contrary to conservation of water without relying on this evidence.	15
We explain.	16
{48} 	While Aquifer Science’s projected per capita water use meets the State	17
Engineer’s Conservation Guide for Public Utilities (Conservation Guide), the	18
district court identified a real concern that there is no way to actually enforce usage	19
limits or compliance with the Master Plan. The State Engineer does not enforce the	20

25
Conservation Guide nor does it deal with building permits. The district court foresaw	1
concerns about Edgewood’s ability to enforce the water use limits also. The district	2
court also found that the Master Plan does not include a per capita cap on usage and	3
Aquifer Science did not offer to condition its permit on imposition of a cap. The	4
district court also found that the Master Plan allows the use of independent wells and	5
septic 	systems, 	exacerbating 	control 	of 	usage 	and 	potentially 	reducing 	the	6
availability of effluent to offset potable water requirements.	7
{49} 	The district court found that Aquifer Science’s water use projections—in	8
particular with regard to the use of effluent to replenish lost flow in the San Pedro	9
Creek—are dependent on a full build-out of the Master Plan. Without a full build-	10
out of Village 1, available effluent would be reduced by 70.7 afy. The predicted	11
reduction in San Pedro Creek flow is 102 afy. The district court was appropriately	12
concerned about the effect of not building Village 1 on water usage and effluent	13
production. But approval and build-out of Village 1 is “uncertain” and “speculative”	14
given the fact that that portion of the Master Plan is under the jurisdiction of	15
Bernalillo County, thus without such approval the predicted effluent reduction could	16
be higher and thus contrary to the conservation of water.	17
{50} 	Finally, the district court found that the planned golf courses would require	18
100 afy of pumped potable water for eleven-plus years into the Master Plan timeline.	19
The district court concluded that this amount of water for golf courses was not	20

26
consistent with conservation. Given the consistent general decline of well water	1
levels 	in 	the Sandia Basin—as 	shown by the Bernalillo 	County monitoring	2
program—this conclusion is a reasonable distillation of the evidence the district	3
court considered.	4
{51} 	Based on these considerations, the district 	court’s decision concerning	5
conservation is supported by the evidence. We will not reweigh the evidence, nor	6
will we ignore it as Aquifer Science suggests we do.	7
C. 	The District Court Did Not Require Aquifer Science to Demonstrate It	8
Had Land Use Authorization	9
{52} 	Aquifer Science argues that the district court improperly required it to show	10
it had land use authorization for its entire project, in adding a new requirement to	11
Section 72-12-3(E). We disagree.	12
{53} 	Aquifer Science relies on finding of fact No. 30 and conclusions of law Nos.	13
26 and 31 to make its point. Finding of fact No. 30 merely—and accurately—notes	14
that Village 1 was not annexed by Edgewood, and is under the jurisdiction of	15
Bernalillo County—which has not annexed Village 1 and has not approved the	16
Master Plan. Conclusion of law No. 26 notes that Bernalillo County’s approval of	17
the Master Plan and annexation of Village 1 is uncertain. This conclusion is	18
reasonable given that Bernalillo County was—and is—an active protestant in this	19
matter. Conclusion of law No. 31 states, “Also, Absent [sic] inclusion of Village 1	20
in the Master Plan, [Aquifer Science]’s calculation of groundwater usage is not	21

27
accurate and the generation of effluent to mitigate/offset the impact the Master Plan	1
will have on San Pedro Creek is flawed.”	2
{54} 	These portions of the district court’s decision simply do not carry the meaning	3
or the weight Aquifer Science ascribes to them. Finding of fact No. 30 and	4
conclusion 	of 	law 	No. 	26 	are 	simple 	observations 	describing 	the 	factual	5
circumstance in this case. Conclusion of law No. 31 is most accurately interpreted	6
as an expression of one factor among others impinging on the district court’s	7
consideration of the issues of the amount of water likely to be used under the	8
Application and the impairment potentially caused by that use. The district court did	9
not require land use approval as a precondition to approval of the Application. It	10
simply noted the uncertainties evident in the execution of the Master Plan. In the	11
district court’s view, those uncertainties weighed in favor of caution in deciding	12
whether to approve the Application because they all increase the risk that the Master	13
Plan would require use of more pumped water than contemplated and the production	14
of less effluent than contemplated in its projections. Thus, the district court’s	15
observations with regard to land use approvals are best seen as common sense factors	16
to be taken into account as part of the overall scenario of potential water usage and	17
not as strict requirements for approval of the Application. This interpretation of the	18
district court’s decision is in keeping with the precept that appellate courts indulge	19
all inferences in support of the decision below and disregard all inferences to the	20

28
contrary. See Sheldon v. Hartford Ins. Co., 2008-NMCA-098, ¶ 7, 144 N.M. 562,	1
189 P.3d 695.	2
II. 	Costs	3
{55} 	Generally, “costs, other than attorney fees, shall be allowed to the prevailing	4
party unless the court otherwise directs.” Rule 1-054(D)(1). As the prevailing party,	5
Protestants are “entitled to a presumption that [they] should be awarded costs.” See	6
Key v. Chrysler Motors Co., 2000-NMSC-010, ¶ 6, 128 N.M. 739, 998 P.2d 575.	7
The burden is on the losing party to demonstrate that an award of costs would be	8
unjust or that other circumstances justify a denial or reductions of costs. Apodaca v.	9
AAA Gas. Co., 2003-NMCA-085, ¶ 103, 134 N.M. 77, 73 P.3d 215.	10
{56} 	Aquifer Science argues (1) Protestants’ bill of costs was deficient because	11
Rule 1-054(D)(4) requires a party to disclose sufficient information for the district	12
court to determine if each itemized cost is recoverable, and asserts that Protestants	13
failed to do so; (2) Aquifer Science was entitled to additional time to lodge specific	14
objections based on additional information Protestants provided to the district court	15
and Aquifer Science; and (3) NMSA 1978, Section 56-8-4(A) (2004) does not permit	16
an award of post-judgment interest on an award of costs. We address each argument	17
in turn after we detail the factual and procedural background of the issue.	18
{57} 	The timeline of submissions, objections, and communications between the	19
parties about the bill of costs is useful to understand the district court’s rulings.	20

29
Protestants initially filed a bill of costs on August 28, before the district court entered	1
its final judgment. On September 3, Aquifer Science contacted Protestants and	2
requested that Protestants provide supporting documentation. Protestants responded	3
that same day by providing electronic versions of invoices for expert witnesses	4
referenced in their original bill of costs. On that same day, the district court filed its	5
final judgment. The next day Aquifer Science requested a complete set of invoices	6
and documents supporting payment of invoices. On September 5, Protestants refiled	7
their bill of costs and electronically provided Aquifer Science the additional invoices	8
it had requested. On September 11, Protestants provided Aquifer Science copies of	9
cashed checks reflecting payment of the invoices.	10
{58} 	On September 17, Aquifer Science timely objected to Protestants’ bill of costs	11
after receiving the documents it had requested. On September 23, Protestants sent a	12
letter to the district court in which it provided a hard copy version of the documents	13
it provided to Aquifer Science (Binder #2). Protestants provided the hard copy to	14
Aquifer Science three weeks later. The delay in delivering the hard copy to Aquifer	15
Science was caused by a clerical error internal to Protestants’ counsel’s office. On	16
September 27, Aquifer Science moved the district court to disregard the documents	17
in Binder #2 because they were not filed contemporaneously with Protestants’ bill	18
of costs and, thus, were not part of the official court record. In the alternative,	19
Aquifer Science asked for permission to file supplemental objections.	20

30
{59} 	Three months later, the district court held a hearing on the bill of costs,	1
Aquifer Science’s objections, and the motion to disregard Binder #2. During the	2
hearing, Aquifer Science requested an extension of time to respond to the documents	3
in Binder #2 once it was orally informed the district court would deny its motion to	4
disregard the documents. In two written orders, the district court denied Aquifer	5
Science’s 	motion 	to 	disregard, 	substantially 	granted 	the 	costs 	requested 	by	6
Protestants, and granted post-judgment interest on the award of costs.	7
A. 	Protestants Were Not Required to Provide More Information in Their	8
Bill of Costs	9
{60} 	Aquifer Science argues that “Protestants’ generic bill of costs, filed without	10
any supporting documentation,” was not sufficiently detailed to meet their burden	11
under Rule 1-054(D)(4). Our review is de novo. See H-B-S P’ship v. Aircoa Hosp.	12
Servs., Inc., 2008-NMCA-013, ¶ 5, 143 N.M. 404, 176 P.3d 1136 (“Our review is	13
de novo because the interpretation of rules is a question of law.”).	14
{61} 	When interpreting procedural rules, we seek “to determine the underlying	15
intent” of our Supreme Court. State v. Miller, 2008-NMCA-048, ¶ 11, 143 N.M.	16
777, 182 P.3d 158. “In interpreting procedural rules, we apply the same canons of	17
construction as applied to statutes and, therefore, interpret the rules in accordance	18
with their plain meaning.” Rodriguez ex rel. Rodarte v. Sanchez, 2019-NMCA-065,	19
¶ 12, 451 P.3d 105 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “We first look to	20
the language of the rule, and if the rule is unambiguous, we give effect to its language	21

31
and refrain from further interpretation.” Id. (alteration, internal quotation marks, and	1
citation omitted). Moreover, we consider all parts of the rule together, reading the	2
rule in its entirety and construing each part in connection with every other part to	3
produce a harmonious whole. See N.M. Dep’t of Game & Fish v. Rawlings, 2019-	4
NMCA-018, ¶ 6, 436 P.3d 741.	5
{62} 	Rule 1-054(D)(4) states, “[T]he party recovering costs shall file with the clerk	6
of the district court an itemized cost bill, with proof of service, on opposing counsel.”	7
The rule requires the prevailing party’s bill of costs be “itemized,” but does not	8
provide a definition of the term. Aquifer Science asks us to read into the plain	9
language of the rule a requirement to provide as part of the initial bill of costs	10
supporting documents such as invoices and cashed checks. But nothing in Rule 1-	11
054 points to a requirement to provide documentation at that level of detail initially.	12
Cf. High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-050, ¶ 5,	13
126 N.M. 413, 970 P.2d 599 (noting appellate courts “will not read into a statute or	14
ordinance language which is not there, particularly if it makes sense as written”	15
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Sims v. Sims, 1996-NMSC-	16
078, ¶ 17, 122 N.M. 618, 930 P.2d 153 (“The plain meaning rule of statutory	17
construction states that when a statute contains language which is clear and	18
unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and refrain from further statutory	19
interpretation.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).	20

32
{63} 	Aquifer Science argues that because Rule 1-054(D)(4) requires that “the clerk	1
of the district court shall tax the claimed costs[,] which are allowable by law[, and	2
t]he judge shall settle any objections filed,” the prevailing party’s itemized list must	3
provide sufficient detail so that the district court may “discern an appropriate basis	4
under Rule 1-054(D)(2).” We agree that the rule’s requirement of an itemized list is	5
intended to provide the district court a basis upon which to discern which costs are	6
recoverable—or not—under Rule 1-054(D)(2) and (3). It does not necessarily	7
follow, however, that the “itemized” list must include the level of detail described	8
by Aquifer Science. The rule provides a process to object to items and to litigate the	9
applicability of Rule 1-052(D)(2) and (3). That process is sufficient to provide	10
greater detail to the district court if need be. As the district court noted, Protestants’	11
bill of costs provided a spreadsheet that included the date, source, amount,	12
description, and recoverable cost category for each item of cost requested as	13
provided by Rule 1-054(D)(2). We agree with the district court that the spreadsheet	14
satisfied Protestants’ initial burden to provide an itemized list sufficient for Aquifer	15
Science to make objections.	16
{64} 	Aquifer Science also cites out of state and nonprecedential authority for the	17
proposition that a generic bill of costs without supporting documentation is	18
insufficient and does not meet Protestants’ burden. These cases are not persuasive	19
because they involve distinguishable facts or statutory requirements, or both. For	20

33
example, Allen v. Santee Community School, No. 4:07CV3131, 2009 WL 1606478,	1
at *1 (D. Neb. June 4, 2009), relies on a local rule of the Nebraska federal district	2
court that specifically requires that “[c]opies of invoices or proofs of payment must	3
be attached to the bill of costs.” (omission, internal quotation marks, and citation	4
omitted). There is simply no such rule in New Mexico’s rules. See SP Techs, LLC v.	5
Garmin Int’l, Inc., No. 08 CV 3248, 2014 WL 300987, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2014)	6
(holding that although fees for private process servers are taxable if the rates charged	7
do not exceed those charged by the U.S. Marshals, because the invoices provided	8
did not include any information about the hourly charge, the actual time spent	9
serving process, or any information regarding travel and expenses, the court could	10
not determine if the amount requested was taxable and thus only awarded the	11
minimum charge of the U.S. Marshals). Neither of these cases, nor any other cited	12
by Aquifer Science, support Aquifer Science’s assertion that Rule 1-054(D)(4)	13
requires submission of invoices and checks as part of an initial bill of costs	14
submission.	15
B. 	Aquifer Science Was Not Entitled to Additional Time to File Objections	16
{65} 	Aquifer Science next argues that the district court abused its discretion in	17
denying its request for extra time to file objections based on information in Binder	18
#2. Aquifer Science’s argument is based on its assumption that Protestants’ filed bill	19
of costs was not sufficiently detailed combined with the circumstance that Binder #2	20

34
was not provided to the district court until after its objections to the bill of costs were	1
due. Aquifer Science contends that because the hard copy was not part of the official	2
court record, it could not sufficiently object, and it was entitled to additional time to	3
object to Protestants’ bill of costs.	4
{66} 	We review the district court’s decisions regarding costs for an abuse of	5
discretion. Robertson v. Carmel Builders Real Estate, 2004-NMCA-056, ¶¶ 48, 53,	6
135 N.M. 641, 92 P.3d 653; State v. Antonio M., 2022-NMCA-041, ¶ 23, 516 P.3d	7
193 (“We review a district court’s decision to deny or grant a continuance or	8
extension under an abuse of discretion standard.”), cert. granted (No. S-1-SC-39343,	9
Aug. 11, 2022).	10
{67} 	We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting	11
Protestants’ bill of costs and denying Aquifer Science’s request for an extension of	12
time to supplement its objections. The district court’s order first concluded that	13
Protestants’ bill of costs—specifically Exhibit B—was not deficient and satisfied	14
their burden under Rule 1-054(D). The district court thus foretold our ruling here.	15
The district court noted that the supporting documents Aquifer Science requested	16
were provided electronically as soon as they were requested and before Aquifer	17
Science was required to provide its objections. The district court also noted that	18
Aquifer Science alluded to the electronically provided documents. The district court	19
further noted that Aquifer Science was provided Binder #2 two months before the	20

35
hearing. While Aquifer Science complains that the hard copies provided in Binder	1
#2 contained handwritten additions to the invoices, it does not explain how those	2
handwritten notes affected its ability to object to Protestants’ bill of costs or if they	3
changed the calculations provided.	4
{68} 	The order thus demonstrates that the district court was fully aware of the	5
information Aquifer Science had available to it. In our view, the district court’s	6
decision reflects a common sense, practical conclusion that Aquifer Science had all	7
of the information it needed in sufficient time to review and make all of the	8
objections it deemed meet. The district court’s denial of Aquifer Science’s request	9
for an extension was therefore not contrary to logic or reason. See Stansell v. N.M.	10
Lottery, 2009-NMCA-062, ¶ 14, 146 N.M. 417, 211 P.3d 214 (“A [district] court	11
abuses its discretion when its decision is contrary to logic and reason.” (internal	12
quotation marks and citation omitted)).	13
C. 	Prevailing Parties Are Entitled to Post-Judgment Interest on an Award	14
of Costs	15
{69} 	Aquifer Science argues that the district erred as a matter of law when it granted	16
post-judgment interest pursuant to Section 56-8-4(A) on the cost award. We	17
generally review an award of post-judgment interest for abuse of discretion. Pub.	18
Serv. Co. of N.M. v. Diamond D Constr. Co., 2001-NMCA-082, ¶ 60, 131 N.M. 100,	19
33 P.3d 651. To the extent we must interpret our statutes, our review is de novo. See	20
H-B-S P’ship, 2008-NMCA-013, ¶ 5.	21

36
{70} 	The relevant statute provides that “[i]nterest shall be allowed on judgments	1
and decrees for the payment of money from entry and shall be calculated at the rate	2
of eight and three-fourths percent per year.” Section 56-8-4(A). Aquifer Science	3
argues that an award of costs is neither a judgment nor a decree, and, as such,	4
Protestants were not entitled to post-judgment interest on their award of costs.	5
{71} 	The general rule regarding interest on costs is that “in the absence of a	6
statutory authorization, interest may not be allowed on a judgment awarding . . .	7
costs.” 47 C.J.S. Interest & Usury § 69 (2022). Interestingly, there is no New Mexico	8
case authority squarely considering whether Section 56-8-4(A) allows interest to be	9
imposed on cost awards.3 Aquifer Science relies on our Supreme Court’s decision	10
in Genuine Parts Co. v. Garcia, 1978-NMSC-059, 92 N.M. 57, 582 P.2d 1270, for	11
the proposition that interest is not allowed on costs, but acknowledges that the	12
discussion in Garcia is based “on the unstated premise that interest is not allowed	13
on costs.” The opinion in Garcia neither mentions Section 56-8-4(A), then compiled	14
as NMSA 1953, Section 50-6-3 (Vol. 8, Repl., Part 1, 1953), nor undertakes any	15
statutory analysis. Garcia, 1978-NMSC-059. In fact the opinion does not even	16
3 Though Section 56-8-4 has been amended a few times, the historical statute
has provided that “judgments and the decrees for the payment of money” are subject
to post-judgment interest since 1852 in territorial times. 1865 Compiled Laws of
N.M., ch. 79 § 5 (1852).

37
mention the “general rule” reflected in 47 C.J.S. Interest & Usury § 69, quoted	1
above.	2
{72} 	The issue in Garcia was whether interest was properly awarded on an award	3
of attorney fees granted to a worker under the Worker’s Compensation Act (WCA)	4
in effect at that time. 1978-NMSC-059, ¶¶ 1, 18-21. The defendants argued that the	5
award of attorney fees was an award of costs, not damages, and as such were not	6
subject to interest. Id. ¶ 18. The operative provision of the WCA was NMSA 1953,	7
Section 59-10-23(D) (Vol. 9, 2d. Repl., Part 1, 1974), which provided that after a	8
trial attorney fees “fixed and allowed by the court shall be paid by the employer in	9
addition to the compensation allowed the claimant under the provisions of the	10
[WCA].” See Garcia, 1978-NMSC-059, ¶ 19 (internal quotation marks and citation	11
omitted). Our Supreme Court decided that the statute required attorney fees to be	12
“compensation and not taxed as costs.” Id. ¶ 20. Because the attorney fees were	13
included as part of the compensation award they were to be “considered part of the	14
judgment and interest thereon is proper.” Id. Given that our Supreme Court never	15
mentioned NMSA 1953, Section 50-6-3 (1953) (recompiled as Section 56-8-4(A)),	16
Garcia does not resolve the issue squarely presented to us. See Fernandez v.	17
Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 1993-NMSC-035, ¶ 15, 115 N.M. 622, 857 P.2d 22 (“The	18
general rule is that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (internal	19

38
quotation marks and citation omitted)). We thus turn our attention to Section 56-8-	1
4(A).	2
{73} 	Section 56-8-4(A) provides for interest on “judgments and decrees for the	3
payment of money.” Is this the statutory authorization in New Mexico that addresses	4
the exception to the general rule that costs are not subject to interest? We conclude	5
that it is.	6
{74} 	We base our conclusion on the straightforward observation that an award of	7
costs—and its accompanying order to pay them—are obviously judgments for the	8
payment of money. In using the word “obviously” we echo the general approach of	9
the federal courts in granting interest on costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. See	10
Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 986 F.2d 413, 415 (10th Cir. 1993) (noting that “[a]n	11
award of costs, which partially reimburses the prevailing party for the out-of-pocket	12
expenses of litigation, is obviously ‘any money judgment[]’” under 28 U.S.C.	13
§ 1961). Section 1961 provides, “Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment	14
in a civil case recovered in a district court.” This language is the functional	15
equivalent of Section 56-8-4(A)’s provision that “[i]nterest shall be allowed on	16
judgments and decrees for the payment of money.”	17
{75} 	The Tenth Circuit’s pragmatic view of the nature and status of costs in turn	18
echoes the Iowa Supreme Court’s view of the issue going back to 1897. In Hoyt v.	19

39
Beach, 73 N.W. 492, 493 (Iowa 1897), construing substantially identical language	1
to Section 56-8-4(A), the Court stated:	2
Money due on a judgment for costs is as much money due on a	3
judgment as is money due on a judgment for damages, and this is true	4
whether such costs embrace the fees of witnesses or officers or	5
attorney[] fees. While we think it has been the understanding that costs	6
did not draw interest, still we discover nothing in our statute allowing	7
interest on judgments which limits its allowance to the judgment for	8
damages only. There was therefore no error in providing that the costs	9
and attorney[] fees should draw interest.	10
See Arnold v. Arnold, 140 N.W.2d 874 (Iowa 1966), superseded by statute on other	11
grounds as stated in In re Marriage of Baculis, 430 N.W.2d 399 (Iowa 1988); see	12
also Ezzone v. Riccardi, 525 N.W.2d 388, 401 (Iowa 1994), as amended on denial	13
of reh’g (Dec. 15, 1994) (same); Cajun Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. Owens-Corning	14
Fiberglas Corp., 605 So. 2d 1387, 1389 (La. Ct. App. 1992) (determining that “since	15
court costs are considered by law to be money judgments executable against the	16
party that costs are assessed against . . . and since [the statute] does not differentiate	17
between expenses incurred by a party and taxed as costs and a judgment for other	18
court costs, the award of legal interest on court costs is permissible”), writ granted,	19
609 So. 2d 213 (La. 1992), and aff’d in part and amended sub nom. Cajun Elec.	20
Power Co-op. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 616 So. 2d 645 (La. 1993).	21
{76} 	To the extent Aquifer Science cites cases from other jurisdictions, they are	22
either simply inapplicable or they interpret statutes that do not allow interest on	23
costs. See, e.g., Eberhardt v. Eberhardt, 2003 ND 199, ¶¶ 12-14, 672 N.W.2d 659	24

40
(noting that the mother was not entitled to an award of interest on attorney fees	1
because the statute only provided for interest on spousal support or child support,	2
and the mother had not taken enforcement steps in accordance with the statute);	3
Schwartz v. Kunze, 22 P.3d 618, 622-23 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001) (regarding statutes	4
relating to the costs of repairs and erecting a fence, determining that because the	5
relevant party was not entitled to costs relating to the fence because of failures to	6
follow procedural requirements, it was not entitled to attorney fees, and since it was	7
not entitled to the attorney fees, it was not entitled to the interests on the attorney	8
fees); Catlin v. Tormey Bewley Corp., 219 P.3d 407, 412 (Colo. App. 2009) (holding	9
that accrued interest on loans taken out by prevailing parties to finance their cases is	10
not a recoverable cost and noting that based on its statute, which permits interest on	11
damages, “Colorado awards moratory interest on costs only in rare circumstances—	12
not present here—where the costs constitute an item of special damages”).	13
{77} 	In awarding costs, the district court ruled Protestants were entitled to payment	14
from Aquifer Science pursuant to Rule 1-054(D), and in doing so issued a judgment	15
for the payment of money. As our Legislature has provided that a judgment for a	16
payment of money is subject to an award of interest, we affirm the district court.	17
CONCLUSION	18

41
{78} 	For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.	1
{79} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	2
__________________________________	3
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge,	4
retired, sitting by designation	5
WE CONCUR:	6
________________________________	7
J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge	8
________________________________	9
JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge	10