This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 SAMMIE SINGH, SR., SAMMIE H. SINGH, JR., 2 ED PROVENIENCE, LUPE GARCIA, JOHNNY DIAZ, 3 AND JOHN FLEMING, 4 Claimants/Defendants-Appellants, 5

vs. No. 33,274 6

UNITED STATES, ELEPHANT BUTTE 7 IRRIGATION DISTRICT, AND CITY OF LAS CRUCES, 8 Defendants-Appellees. 9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 10 James J. Wechsler, District Judge 11 Robert S. Simon 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellants 14 Appellate Section, Environmen t and Natural Resources Divsion 15 U.S. Department of Justice 162 Matthew Littleton 1 Washington, DC 2 for Appellee United States 3 Law office of Steven L. Hernandez PC 4 Steven L. Hernandez 5 Samantha R. Barncastle 6 Las Cruces, NM 7 for Appellee Elephant Butte Irrigation District 8 Stein & Brockmann PA 9 Jay F. Stein 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee City of Las Cruces 12 Gary K. King, Attorney General 13 DL Sanders, Chief Counsel, Special Assistant Attorney General 14 Francis L. Reckard, Special Assistant Attorney General 15 Laurie A. Knowles, Special Assistant Attorney General 16 Richard A. Allen, Special Assistant Attorney General 17 Santa Fe, NM 18 for Appellees 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 HANISEE, Judge. 21
{1} Appellants appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion to designate 22 a new stream system issue in the Lower Rio Grande Adjudication to adjudicate pre23 1906 claims to water, storage, and divers ion rights in the Lower Rio Grande. [DS 2; 243 RP 9, 67] This Court issued a calendar notice proposing summary dismissal of the 1 appeal. Appellants have filed a memorandum in opposition to this Court’s notice of 2 proposed disposition. Appellees United States , Elephant Butte Irrigation District, and 3 State of New Mexico each filed a memorandum in support of this Court’s notice of 4 proposed disposition. Having duly considered each of these filings, we dismiss. 5
{2} In our calendar notice, we proposed to di smiss for lack of a final, appealable 6 order. [CN 4] Appellant s’ memorandum in opposition contains three broad 7 contentions, only one of which directly addresses our proposed disposition. We focus, 8 then, on Appellants’ argument that the district court’s order denying their motion to 9 designate a stream system issue was a fi nal, appealable order because it “finally 10 resolved and denied [Appellants’] opportunity to set a stream issue.” [MIO 15] 11
{3} In our calendar notice, we recognized th at this Court’s jurisdiction lies from 12 final, appealable orders. [CN 2] See Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 1992-NMSC13 005, ¶ 14, 113 N.M. 231, 824 P.2d 1033; see also Montoya v. Anaconda Mining Co. , 14 1981-NMCA-113, ¶ 20, 97 N.M. 1, 635 P.2d 1323 (observing that an appellate court 15 will raise jurisdictional questions on its own motion), overruled on other grounds as 16 recognized by San Juan 1990-A., L.P. v. El Paso Prod. Co. , 2002-NMCA-041, 132 17 N.M. 73, 43 P.3d 1083. Generally, an order or judgment is not considered final unless 18 all issues of law and fact have been determined and the cas e disposed of by the district 194 court to the fullest extent possible. See Kelly Inn , 1992-NMSC-005, ¶ 14. In City of 1 Albuquerque v. Sanchez , 1992-NMCA-038, ¶ 9, 113 N.M. 721, 832 P.2d 412, we 2 noted in determining the practical finality of an order that “the judge’s order fully 3 disposed of all issues between the partie s that were brought before the judge.” 4
{4} In this case, the district court’s order denying Appellants’ motion to designate 5 a stream system issue did notdetermine the rights of the parties on the merits, leaving 6 those for future determination in the course of the water ad judication. As we stated in 7 our calendar notice, the practical effect of th e district court’s denial is that instead of 8 having their claims heard in an expedited fa shion as a stream system issue, Appellants 9 will have to pursue their claims through th e standard sub-file proceedings. [CN 3] 10 Appellants apparently recognize this fact as well, as they state in their memorandum 11 in opposition that a dismissal of their app eal would “relegate [Appellants’] [c]laim to 12 sub-file proceedings” and “their claims w ill not be appealable until all sub-file and 13 inter-se proceeding[s] are completed.” [MIO 23] 14
{5} While Appellants continue to argue that their claims should be heard as a stream 15 system issue and not as a standard sub-f ile, we remain unconvinced that the district 16 court’s order in this case fully disposed of all the issues between the parties. This is 17 particularly true given Appellants’ statemen t that “the issue [of] whether [Appellants] 18 are entitled to senior priority to some or all of the project rights for the LRG is an 195 issue that arrived at this Court indepe ndently [through an appeal from a denial of 1 summary judgment in Stream System Issu e 104 [MIO Ex. C]] of [Appellants’] appeal 2 in this case.” [MIO 22] Thus, it appears thatdespite the district court’s order denying 3 Appellants’ motion, Appellants are still activ ely working within the water adjudication 4 process to vindicate their claims. 5
{6} Appellants argue that dismissal of the present appeal will “eliminate for decades 6 the ability of [Appellants] to seek redress for their collective [r]ights.” [MIO 23] 7 Further, Appellants claim “irreparable harm” from the “del ay [in] the determination 8 of [Appellants’] [c]laim . . . .” [MIO 28] However, we note thatAppellants have not 9 provided this Court with authority to support their argument that either the passage of 10 time or irreparable harm so mehow converts a non-final order into a final one. Where 11 a party cites no authority to support an ar gument, we may assume no such authority 12 exists. In re Adoption of Doe , 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329. 13 Therefore, we remain unconvinced thatour proposed disposition was incorrect. 14
{7} To the extent that Appellants’ remaini ng contentions raise issues regarding the 15 merits of their motion to designate a stream system issue and the merits of their claims 16 more generally, we hold that we do not have jurisdiction to consider those matters 17 given the lack of a final, appealable order in this case. 186 {8} For these reasons, and those in our cale ndar notice, we dismiss the appeal for 1 lack of a final, appealable order. 2
{9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

_______________________________ 4 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 5

WE CONCUR: 6

__________________________________ 7 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 8

__________________________________ 9 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 10