April 15, 2020- Wildearth Guardians v. Tom Blaine, No. A-1-CA-37737

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
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS,	2
Petitioner-Appellant,	3
v. 	NO. A-1-CA-37737	4
TOM BLAINE, in his capacity as	5
New Mexico State Engineer,	6
Respondent-Appellee,	7
and	8
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE CONSERVANCY	9
DISTRICT, and U.S. BUREAU OF	10
RECLAMATION,	11
Real Parties in Interest.	12
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY	13
Francis J. Mathew, District Judge	14
Samantha Ruscavage-Barz	15
Santa Fe, NM	16
for Appellant	17
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General	18
Gregory C. Ridgley, Special Assistant Attorney General	19
Maureen C. Dolan, Special Assistant Attorney General	20
Santa Fe, NM	21
for Appellee	22
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 4/15/2020 12:59 PM

2
Law & Resource Planning Associates	1
Charles T. DuMars	2
Tanya L. Scott	3
Albuquerque, NM	4
for Real Party In Interest	5
MEMORANDUM OPINION	6
VARGAS, Judge.	7
{1} 	Petitioner has appealed from an order denying its petition for writ of	8
mandamus. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which	9
we proposed to affirm. Petitioner has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due	10
consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.	11
{2} 	The relevant background has previously been set forth. We will avoid undue	12
reiteration here and instead focus on the content of the memorandum in opposition.	13
{3} 	First, Petitioner asserts that the district court’s denial of its petition for writ of	14
mandamus should be reviewed de novo, because questions of statutory interpretation	15
are presented. [MIO 2-3] We disagree. “Generally, the grant or denial of a petition for	16
writ of mandamus is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” State ex rel. Stapleton v.	17
Skandera, 2015-NMCA-044, ¶ 5, 346 P.3d 1191. Although pure questions of statutory	18
interpretation are reviewed de novo, see id., “where, as here, the district court	19
exercised its discretion to deny the writ petition for prudential reasons . . . we review	20
the denial for an abuse of discretion.” Fastbucks of Roswell, N.M., LLC v. King,	21
2013-NMCA-008, ¶ 7, 294 P.3d 1287. “A district court abuses its discretion if its	22

3
decision is contrary to logic and reason, or if it exceeds the bounds of reason, all the	1
circumstances before it being considered.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations	2
omitted). For the reasons set forth at greater length in the notice of proposed summary	3
disposition, we are not persuaded that this district court abused its discretion in this	4
case.	5
{4} 	We understand Petitioner to suggest that concerns relative to the scope and	6
nature of the authority of multiple federal and state governmental entities over the	7
water rights and permits at issue should be disregarded, on grounds that those	8
concerns were raised by only one of the parties, [MIO 3] and on grounds that those	9
concerns are “extraneous” to the issue or issues that Petitioner seeks to narrowly	10
define. [MIO 4-5] We disagree. The district court’s apparent recognition of the	11
complexity of the situation was prudent, provident, and entirely permissible. See	12
generally id. (recognizing that the district courts may exercise their discretion to deny	13
mandamus relief for prudential reasons).	14
{5} 	Petitioner also continues to argue that the specific statutory provision invoked	15
should be understood to establish a clear and undisputable duty on the part of the State	16
Engineer. [MIO 6-12] Petitioner offers a plausible interpretation of the specific	17
regulatory provision at issue; however, that is not the only possible interpretation. As	18
described in the notice of proposed summary disposition, the relevant statutory and	19
regulatory provisions are susceptible to one or more alternative interpretations which	20

4
would permit the Office of the State Engineer to elect among a variety of options,	1
apparently at his discretion. [CN 4-6] A mandamus action is not appropriate under	2
such circumstances. See generally Schein v. N. Rio Arriba Elec. Coop., 1997-NMSC-	3
011, ¶ 22, 122 N.M. 800, 932 P.2d 490 (“Relevant rights and duties must be	4
established before a writ of mandamus can issue.”); El Dorado at Santa Fe, Inc. v. Bd.	5
of Cty. Comm’rs, 1976-NMSC-029, ¶ 5, 89 N.M. 313, 551 P.2d 1360 (holding that	6
mandamus is not appropriate to “direct the performance of the particular act from	7
among two or more allowed alternatives”); Mimbres Valley Irrigation Co. v. Salopek,	8
2006-NMCA-093, ¶ 19, 140 N.M. 168, 140 P.3d 1117 (“[M]andamus is only	9
appropriate to compel an official to perform a duty if the duty is clear and	10
indisputable.”); Brantley Farms v. Carlsbad Irrigation Dist., 1998-NMCA-023, ¶ 23,	11
124 N.M. 698, 954 P.2d 763 (“Mandamus does not issue to control a discretionary	12
duty.”).	13
{6} 	To be clear, we do not take a position on the proper interpretation or application	14
of the various statutory and regulatory provisions that bear upon the underlying	15
matter. We merely conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in	16
denying the requested peremptory writ of mandamus, given the complexity of the	17
situation and the lack of clarity relative to the duty to perform as alleged. See State ex	18
rel. Black v. Aztec Ditch Co., 1919-NMSC-057, ¶ 6, 25 N.M. 590, 185 P. 549 (“The	19
duties which will be enforced by mandamus must be such as are clearly and	20

5
peremptorily enjoined by law, and where for any reason the duty to perform the act	1
is doubtful the obligation is not imperative and the applicant must pursue other	2
remedies.”).	3
{7} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed	4
summary disposition, we affirm.	5
{8} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	6
__________________________________	7
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge	8
WE CONCUR:	9
_________________________________	10
JACQUELINE. R. MEDINA, Judge	11
_________________________________	12
ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge	13