1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r:

____

____ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Apr il 3, 201 8 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 3535 5 ST A TE OF N EWM EX IC O e x r el . 6 STATE ENGI NEER, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8 v. 9 UNITE D STATES OF AMERICA, 10 De fendant-Appellee, 11 v. 12 NAVAJO NATI ON, 13 De fendant/Intervenor-Appellee, 14 v. 15 SAN JUAN AGRI CULTURAL WAT ER USERS 16 ASSOCI ATI ON, HAMMOND CONSE RVANCY 17 DIST RIC T, BLOOM FIEL D IRRIGA TION DIST RIC T, and 18 VARIOUS DI TCHE S AND VARIOUS MEMB ERS TH EREO F, 19 D ef

en dants -Appe llants . 20 APPEAL FROM THE DI STRI CT COURT OF SAN J UAN COUNTY 21 Honorable Jam es J. We chsler1 Ar ianne Singer, Special A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 2 San ta Fe, NM 3 Utt on & Kery, P.A. 4 John W . U tton, Special A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 5 San ta Fe, NM 6 for Appellee State of Ne w Me xico, N ewMexico Of fice of the State E ngin eer 7 U nit ed S ta te s D ep ar

tm en t of Jus tic e Appe llate S ec tio n 8 E nvi ro nm en t & N at

ur al Re sour ce s D ivi sio n 9 John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 10 A ndr ewJ. G uari no 11 Mark R. Ha ag 12 W ashingt on, D .C. 13 for Appellee United States of Am erica 14 Navaj o Nation De partm ent of Justice 15 Stanley

M. Pollack 16 M. K athry

n Hoover 17 W in do w Roc k, AZ 18 fo r In te rv en or -Appe lle e N av aj o N at ion 19 Victor R . Marshall & A ssociates, P. C. 20 V ic tor

R. Mars ha ll 21 Albuquerque, N M 22 fo r Appe llants San Juan A gr ic ult ur al W at er U se rs , H am

m ond Co nse rv an cy

D istri ct , 23 Bl oom fi el d I rr iga tio n D istri ct , a nd V ar iou s D itc he s and V ar iou s M em be rs T he re of1 St ei n & Bro ck m an n, P.A.

2 Ja m es C. Br oc km an n 3 Jay F
. S te in 4 San ta Fe, NM 5 fo r Be rn al ill o C ounty

W at er U til ity A uth or ity , Ci ty

of E spañol a, a nd C ity

of G al lup 6 Kele he r & Mc Leo d, P.A. 7 Ca ssandr a R. Ma lon e 8 Ri ch ar d B

. Co le 9 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 10 fo r Ci tie s of

A zt ec a nd B loo m fi el d 11 Tul ly L aw Fi rm , P.A. 12 Ri ch ar d T

. C. T ull y 13 Farm in gt on , NM 14 fo r B S quare Ranc h; B ola ck Mi ne ra ls C om

pany , a/k/ a Bo la ck

Mi ne ra ls C om

pany 15 L im ite d P ar

tne rs hip ; E state of

T om Bo la ck ; a/k/ a T hom as F el ix B ola ck , D ec ea se d; 1 6 B o l a c k M i n e r a l s F o u n d a t i o n ; T o m m y B o l a c k R e v o c ab l e T r

u s t ; E s t a t e o f

Jua nit a 17 V el as que z, D ec ea se d; D av id A

. P ie rc e; Ma xin e M. P ie rc e; Da vi d M. D rake ; and 18 Sh awnaD rake 19 Mo dr al l Sp erl in g R oe hl Harri s & Sis k, P.A. 20 Maria O ’ Brien 21 Christina C. S heehan 22 Zoë E . L ees 23 Albuquerque, N M 24 fo r BHP Bi ll it on New Mex ic o C oa l In c. an d En te rp ris e Fi el d S erv ic es , LLC 25 Dum as Law Offic e, LLC 26 Jenny Dum as 27 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 28 fo r Jic ar ill a Apa ch e N at ion1 Tay lo r & Mc Cal eb , P.A.

2 E liz ab eth N ew linT ay lor 3 Jolene L. McCa leb 4 Co rral es , NM 5 fo r San Ju anW at er

Co m m iss ion 6 L awO ff

ic e of P ri sc ill a A
. S hannon 7 Pr isc ill a A
. S hannon 8 Farm in gt on , NM 9 for McC arty

Tr ust et al., Stephen Al bert McCa rty , T rustee; and Estate of Mary 10 McCar

ty , a /k/a Mary Louise McC arty , D ecea sed 11 Gary L. Horner 12 Farm in gt on , NM 13 Pro Se 14 Public Service Com

pany of N ewMexico 15 Mikal M. A ltom are, Corporate C ouns el 16 Albuquerque, N M 17 for T ucson Electric Powe r Com pany and Public Service Com

pany of N ewMexico 18 U te Mo unt ai n U te T ri be 19 Of fice of Ge neral Counsel 20 Le land Begay , A ssociate Gener al Counsel 21 Pe te r O rt eg o 22 Le e Ber gen 23 Tow aoc, CO 24 Sam uel L. W inder 25 Albuquerque, N M 26 fo r U te Mo unt ai n U te T ri be1 C. Brad L ane Cate s

2 Fai racr es , NM 3 fo r A m ic i P au l B an dy , S te ve N ev ill e, a nd C ar l T ru j ill o1 OPIN ION

2 BLA CK, Judge. 3 Fact ual and P rocedu ral Back ground 4 { 1} In184 9, a ft er y ears of int er m itt en t w ar fare , the U nit ed S ta te s e nte re d in to a 5 pe ace t reat y

wit h t he N a v a

jo Trib e (Nav ajo Nat io n)

. Se e Tr ea tyW ith the Na va ho , 6 Sep te m be r 9, 1 84 9, 9 Sta t. 9 74 (Treat y of 1 84 9) . That tre at y

su bjec t e d th e Nav ajo 7 Na tion and its people to the sovereignty and rule o f th e United States and recognized 8 th e ex i s t e n c e an d l eg it im acy of a te rri to ry to be de di cat edto th e Nav ajo Nat io n. At 9 the tim e, t he feder al governm ent aspired to change the existin g Navaj o pastoral 10 cu lt ur e in to on e o f m or e tr ad it io na l Eas te rn -s tyl e f arm in g a nd m ov edth e Nav ajo 11 Na tion o nto a reservation at Bosque Redondo , in w hat eventua lly becam e E astern 12 N ewMe xic o. Fo llo w ing the Ci vil W ar , the f ed er al gov er

nm en t r ea liz ed

it s 13 ag ri cu ltura l go al s f

or the N av aj o N at ionw oul d invol ve alon g and e xpe nsi ve pr oc es s 14 fo r w hic h B osqu e Re dond o w as il l- sui te d. A se co nd tre aty w ith the N av aj o N at ionin 15 18 68 returne d t he m

to a po rti on of th ei r an ces tra l te rri to ry as th ei r “ pe rm an en t h om e.” 16 Se e Tr ea tyW

ith the Na va ho art. 13, J une 1, 18 68, 15 Stat. 667, 671 (Tre aty of 1868). 17 { 2} T he Co lor ad o Ri ve r dr ai ns the Co lor ad o P la te authr oughthe G rand C an y on. 18 T he S anJuan R ive r is the tr ibu ta ryof the Co lor ad o R ive r uponw hic h th e Fo ur18 The “ Fo ur C or ne rs ” is the de sig na tio n gi ve n to the poi nt whe re Co lor ad o, 1 19 U tah, A ri zo na , a nd N ewMe xic o m ee t. 2 1 Co rn er s r eg ion re lie s fo r sur fa ce w at er a nd i s th e larg es t r ive r in N ewMe xic o. T he 1 2 ab or igi na l l an ds of the N av aj o N at ionor igi na lly inc lud ed the e nti re S anJuan B as in. 3 Navajo Tribe of India n s v. Un i t ed States of Ame rica , 23 I nd. Cl

. Co m m . 244 , 251 4 (1 970)

. T he San Juan sti ll runs thr ough a con sid er ab le por tio n of the N av aj o N at ion 5 an d i s a wa te r so ur ce m uc h c ov et edin th is ari d p or ti on of t he co un try. 6 { 3} Inli ght

of the N av aj o Na tio n’ s pote nti al cl ai m fo r the m aj or ity of w at er in the 7 San J u an River Ba sin, the State of Ne w Me xico init iated a genera l stream 8 adj udication to determ ine the wate r rights of the m aj or claim ants. T he United State s 9 asserted claim s as trustee for t h e Navajo N ation, and the Navaj o Nation intervened 10 on i ts o w n be ha lf

. F oll ow ing y ears of

li tig at ion , the S ta te e nte re d in to s ettle m en t 11 nego ti at io ns w iththe N av aj o N at iona nd the U nit ed S ta te s. T he S ta te pr opos ed a 12 blu ep ri nt f

or ase ttl em en t and h el d publi c m ee tin gs i n F ar m ingto n and B loo m fi el d 13 se ek ing inp ut f

ro m the non -I ndi anw at er

use rs . I n r es pons e to s ubst an tia l pu bli c inp ut, 14 th e St at e rev is edit s s et tl em en t p ro po sa ls

. 15 { 4} In200 5, f

oll ow ing m or e than ade ca de of ne got ia tio n, the N av aj o Na tio n, the 16 Un i t e d S t a t e s, a nd

t he S t a t e o f

N e wM e xi c o ( c ol l e c t i ve l y , S e t t l i ng P a rt i e s) rea ched 17 an agreem ent (the Settlem ent Agr e e m e nt ) s e tt l i ng the Navaj o Nation’ s claim s to water3

1 in the San Juan Ri ve r Ba sin (the Ba sin ). F ed er al le gis la tio n to appr ove a nd i m ple m en t 2 the S ettle m en t A gr ee m en t was en act ed by Co ngr es s in200 9 un de r the O m nib us 3 Public Land Managem ent Act of 2009, Northwe stern Ne w Me xico Rural W ater 4 Pr oj ec ts A ct , P ub. L
. N o. 111 -1 1, § 10 301, 123 S ta t. 991 (2 009) ( Se ttl em en t A ct ), a nd 5 sig ne d by

the P re sid en t. T he N ew Me xic o L eg isl at ur e the n a ppr opr ia te d $5 0 m ill ion 6 to p ay N ewMe xic o’ s c ost

of the S ettle m en t A gr ee m en t and aut ho riz ed the 7 Ne w Me xico State E ngin ee r to bring a lawsuit seeking judicial approval 8 re gard ing the St at e’ s share of the w at er , pur suant to N MS A 1978 , Sect ion 9 72 -1 -1 2 (2 0 0 5 ). See State of Ne w Me xico, O ffice of the State Engineer, 10 20 17 In di an W at er Rig ht s Sett le m en t Fun d Rep or t, 3-4 ( 2 0 1 7 ), av ailabl e at 1 1 https : // w w w . n m l e g i s . g o v / h a n d o u t s / I A C % 2 0 1 1 2 7 1 7 % 2 0 I t e m % 206% 20O ff ic e% 20 12 of%20the%20State% 20Enginee r % 20 20 17 % 20 I nd i a n% 20 W a t e r % 20 R i ghts%20Se 13 ttl em en t% 20F und% 20R ep ort. pdf ; se e als o U nit ed

S ta te s D ep ar

tm en t of the I nte ri or 14 Bure auof

Re cl am at ion , N av aj o- G al lup W at er Su ppl y P ro j ec t: Co st S hare A gr ee m en t 15 Bet ween th e Uni te d S ta te s an d t he Sta te of Ne w Mex ic o, 1 1 (2 0 1 1 ), av ailabl e at 16 h t t p : / / www .o se.state. n m .u s / Le g al / s et t l emen t s / NNWR S/Na v aj o Se t t l emen t / NGWS 17 P-O riginalCostShareAgre em ent.pdf. In the subsequ ent suit th e settling parties asked 18 the San Juan CountyDistrict C ourt to approve the wate r rights previous ly allocated 19 in c ongressio nal legislation for the Navaj o Indian I rrigation Proj ect ( NI IP ),15 N orm al ly in an int er se pr oc ee din g, the part ie s ob j ec tin g to ase ttl em en t have 2 16 the bur de n to pr ove the se ttl em en t i s no t f ai r, a de qua te , or

r ea sonab le

. See State ex 17 re l. Sta te E

ng’ r v . A am odt , 582 F. Supp. 2 d 131 3, 1317 (D. N. M. 2007); I n re Cr ow 18 W ater Compact , 201 5 M T 353 , ¶ 28, 382 Mo nt. 46, 364 P. 3d 584. In the pr es en t c as e 19 the dis tr ic t co ur t sh if te d th is b ur de n to pr opon en ts o f the S ettle m en t A gr ee m en t. 20 Mor eo ve r, the dis tr ic t co urt did not re qui re tho se ch al le ngi ng the Se ttl em en t 21 A gr ee m en t t o m ak e a show ing that it w oul d af fe ct the ir ri ght s, a s is usu al ly r equir ed

. 22 Se e Sta te e

x re l. O ffi ce of the Sta te E

ng’ r v . L ew is , 2007-NMC A- 008, ¶ 16, 141 N. M. 23 1, 150 P
. 3d 3 75. 4 1 Fru it la n d

- C a m

br id ge Irri ga ti on Pro

ject, Ho gb ack -Cu de i Irrig at io n P ro ject, Nav ajo 2 Ga llup W ater S uppl y

Proj ect (N GW SP) , A nim as-L a Plata Pr o je ct(A LP ), San Juan 3 Ri ve r m

uni ci pa l and i ndus tr ia l us es , r es er ve d gr oundw at er , a nd r igh ts b as ed on s toc k, 4 ir ri ga tio n, an d re cr eatio na l uses as of January 1, 2011
. O the rs w ith anint er es t i n th e 5 Se ttl em en t A gr ee m en t w er e inv ite d in to t his inter se pr oc ee din g th ro ugh w ide ly 6 dis tr ibu te d r ad io announc em en ts, ne w spa pe r not ic es , and o ve r 19, 000 fi rs t- cl as s 7 le tte rs to tho se w at er

r igh ts h old er s w ho h ad

ti tle of r ec or d. 8 { 5} A t the ini tiatio n of the pr oc ee din gs, the dis tr ic t c ourt im po se d anunu sua lly 9 str in g e n te v i d e n t i a ry

b u r d e n o n t h e S e t t l i n g P a rt i e s t o p r o v e t h e S e t t l em en t 10 A gr ee m en t wa s fa ir , ad equa te , re as ona ble , an d in the publ ic int er es t. A ft er giv ing a ll 2 11 oth er w at er r igh ts c la im an ts in the Ba sin not ic e an d oppo rt uni ty to p ar

tic ipa te a nd t o 12 co nd uc t d is co ve ry

an d fi le di sp os it iv e m ot io ns in acco rd an ce wi th Ru le 1-0 71 .2 13 NMRA, the district court entered its order granting the settlem ent m otion for entry 14 of partial final decr ees describing the water rights of the Navaj o Nation. T he court18 Fo r pur pose s of thi s op i n i o n , wh e nd i s c u s s e d j o i ntl y the S ettle m en t A gr ee m en t 3 19 an d S et tl em en t Ord er ar e ref erre d t o a s “ th e Set tl em en t.”

5 1 th en en te redth e pa rti al fin al jud gm en t an d d ecre e o f th e wat er ri gh ts of t he Nava jo 2 N at ionand the sup ple m en ta l part ia l f ina l j udgm en t and de cr ee of the w at er r igh ts o f 3 the Navaj o Nation (Pr opos ed De cree s). The non -settling parties o bje cted to several 4 te rm s of

the S ettle m en t A gr ee m en t and t o th e int er se pr oc ed ures a dopt ed

by the 5 dis tr ic t c ourt. A ft er

f ull br ie fin g an d ar gum en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt r ej ec te d th e 6 objec tions and issued it s order approving th e Se ttlem en t Agre em ent and Proposed 7 De cree s (the Settlem ent Or der). In the Settlem ent Or der, the district court concluded 3 8 tha t the Se ttl em en t A gr ee m en t w as f ai r, a de qua te , r ea sona

ble , a nd c onsi ste nt w iththe 9 publ ic int er es t a s w el l a s a ll ap pli ca ble law s. 10 { 6} Appe llants he re in, the S anJuan A ce qui as , a re non -s et tl in g part ie s to the 11 unde rl y ing pr oc ee din gs tha t pr ec ed ed the S ettle m en t A gr ee m en t. D es pit e ha vin g 12 virtua lly

a ll iss ue s inc om

m on w ithoth er non- se ttl ing part ie s, ea chha s c onsi ste ntl y 13 re fu se d to c onso lid at e the ir appe al s, fail ed

to co m ply w ithf ili ng d ea dli ne s, a nd 14 ne gle ct ed

to fo llo wr

ule s of pr oc ed ur e or standard pr ac tic e. T he re fo re , it

w ill be 15 necessary

to address their claim s in separate opini o n s . The San Juan Acequias 16 challenge m ore than fifty aspects of the district court’ s conclusio ns. H owever , since 17 this Cou rt fi n d s essentially all of these ar e based on faulty fac tual and/or legal6

1 prem ises, w e w ill disp ose of them categorically

rathe r t h an attem

pt to answer ea ch 2 c h a l l e n g e s e p a r a t e l y. 3 Stand ard of R eview 4 { 7} “ ‘ It

is the pol ic y

of the law an d of the St at e of N ewMe xic o to f

av or se ttl em en t 5 agreem ents.’ ” A m . Ci vi l L ibe rti es U nio n of N. M

. v . D uran , 2016 -N MC A -0 63, ¶ 50, 6 3 9 2 P
. 3 d1 8 1 ( quot ing Na vajo Tribe of India ns v. H anos h Chevrolet-Buick

, I nc. , 7 1988 -N MSC- 010, ¶ 3, 106 N.M . 705 , 749 P. 2d 90 ). Ne w Me xico courts therefore 8 “ holdsuch agreem ents in hig h regard and re quire a c o m p el ling b asis to set them 9 as id e.” B uil

de rs Con tra ct In te rio rs, I nc . v . H i-Lo I ndus

. , 2006 -N MC A -0 53, ¶ 7, 139 10 N
. M. 508 , 134 P
. 3d 7 95. Appe llate co urts re vie w a tr ia l co urt’ s de ci sio n to appr ove 11 a se tt le m en t d ecre e o n l y t o de te rm in e if th ere was an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e, e . g. , 12 P lat te v . F

irs t C olo nyL ife I

ns. Co

. , 2008 -NMSC -0 58, ¶ 7, 145 N
. M. 77, 194 P
. 3d 13 108; In re No rw es t Bank of N.M

. , N

. A. , 200 3- N MC A -1 28, ¶

22, 134 N
. M. 516 , 80 14 P. 3d 9 8; Johnso n v. Lodge #93 of Fra t er n a l Or der of Police , 393 F
. 3d 1 096, 110 2 15 (1 0t h C ir. 2 00 4)

. 16 I. Ne w Mexico S tatut es Re fut e A ppellant s’ C laim That t he S ettle m ent 17 Re quire d the Express Ap proval of the Ne w Mexico Le gisla ture and A ny 18 Su ch C lai m S ho ul d Ha ve Be en R ais ed b y W ri t 19 { 8} Appe llants m ai nta in tha t the Se ttl em en t is void unde r N ewMe xic o laww ith out 20 the express prior approval of the Ne w Mexico Le gislature. Initially it m ust be not ed7

1 Appellants’ brief in c hief fails to include any indication of how this issue (and ind eed 2 m ost oth er s) w as pr es en te d to the dis tr ic t c ourt. T his vio la tio n of Ru le 12- 318( A )( 4) 3 NMRA mak e s t h i s C ou rt’s jo b m uc h m or e d iff

ic ul t. See State v. Gom ez , 199 7- 4 N MS C- 006, ¶

14, 122 N
. M. 777 , 932 P
. 2d 1 ( statin g th at “ an ap pe llate c ourt w ill 5 co nsi de r onl y

suc h qu es tio ns a s w er e ra ise d inthe lo wer co ur t” ( int er na l qu ota tio n 6 m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed )) ; Sta te v. L uc er o , 199 3- N MS C- 064, ¶ 11, 116 N
. M. 450 , 7 863 P.2d 107 1 (noting that the appellate court should no t h av e t o guess what trial 8 issues were preserved for appeal). 9 { 9} Appe l l a nt s r e c i t e se ve r a l i t e r a t i on s of t he t he m e t hat t he S e t t l e m e nt wa s 10 unauth orized o r in violatio n of New Mexico law. For exam ple, Appellants argue inter 11 al iathat the S ettle m en t vi ola te s th e N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n’ s separatio n of po w er s. 12 T his is ba se d onthe pr em ise tha t G ove rn or Ri ch ar dson la ck ed the pow er to sig n th e 13 Se ttl em en t w ith out pr ior le gis la tiv e app ro va l. T he y f urthe r co nte nd tha t thr oughthe 14 Se ttl em en t, G ove rn or

Ri ch ar dsona tte m

pte d to inf ri nge the ple nary j ur isd ic tio n of the 15 New Mex ic o C ou rts un de r Arti cl e VI o f th e New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n. 16 { 10} T his c ont en tio n, li ke Appe llants ’ e nti re appe al , is ba se d onaf ai lur e to 17 understand th e nature of the r elationshi p between I ndian natio ns a nd the United State s 1 8 g o v e rn men ta s we l l a s t h e s t r u c tu r e o f f e d e r a l i s m. I ti s c o mp o u n d e db y a8

1 m isconceptio n of Ne w Me xico water lawprocedure and the role of the Ne w Me xico 2 St at e E ngi ne er . W e ex pla in. 3 { 11} Fi rs t, w at er is a com m odi ty tha t can m ove in i nte rs ta te c om m er ce , a nd d oe s so 4 as the San Juan River c rosses several st ate bo undaries. Thus, it is ultim ately subject 5 to th e co nt ro l of th e fed eral , no t t he st at e, go ve rn m en t. See Oneida Indian Nat ion v. 6 Ct y. of O ne ida , 414 U
. S. 661 , 667 , 670 (1 974) ; cf. City of El Paso ex rel. P ub. Serv. 7 B d. v . R ey nolds , 597 F
. S upp. 694 , 704 ( D
. N
. M. 198 4) ( stat ing that a state m ay

not 8 im pe rm iss ibl y

bur de n tr an sf

er of int er state w at er ). A lth ough the state ha s an in te re st 9 in regulating w ater within its boundaries, it lacks any ownership claim in such water. 10 V irg ini a v . M

ary lan d , 540 U. S. 56, 74 n.9 (2003) (noting that federa l com m on law 11 governs in terstate bodies of wa t er , ensuring that wa ter is equitably apportioned 12 be twee n s ta te s an d t ha t n o s ta te ha rm s an ot he r’s in te res t). 13 { 12} Se co nd, the cr eatio n of an Ind ian r es er va tio n ge ne ra lly

inv olv es the r ed

uc tio n 14 an d de fi nit ionof

a tribe’ s tr ad iti ona l ho m el an ds i n r et ur n f or aguarante e of 15 pe rm an en t and p ro te ct ed te rr ito ry . See W

inters v. U

nited Sta tes , 207 U
. S. 564 , 576 16 (1908). Indian tribes thus have a proprietary interest in wate rs recognized by feder al 17 res erv at io n t reat ie s. See A. Dan Tarl oc k, L awo f W at e r R i gh t s & R eso ur c es § 9 :38 18 (2 016)

. I t f

oll ow s th at th e cre at ionof a n I ndi anr es er

va tio n c re at es astr ong 19 pr es um

pt io n t ha t s ta te law d oe s no t ap pl y to th e In di an s o r th ei r pr op ert y . Se e B ry an9

1 v. Itasca Cty. , 426 U
. S. 373 , 376 n. 2 ( 1976 ); see generally Moe v . C onfedera ted 2 Sal ish & Ko ote naiT

rib es of the F

lat he ad R es erva tio n , 425 U
. S. 463 , 474 n. 13 3 (1 976)

. I t i s t h e r e f

o r e f e d e r a l , n o t s t a t e , l a w t h a t g o v e rn s t h e v a l i d i t y a nd 4 in te rp ret at io n o f wate r se tt le m en ts be twee n st at es an d t rib es . A riz ona v. San Ca rlo s 5 A pac he T rib e of A riz

. , 463 U. S. 545, 571 (198 3). 6 { 13} Third, intergovernm ental agreem ents are particularly useful because they 7 provide benefits be y on d what “ ordinary state regulation” allows. Ne w Me xico’ s entry 8 int o th e co ngr es sio na lly sanc tio ne d in te rg ove rn m en ta l a gr ee m en t a s part of the 9 Se ttl em en t i nvol ve d he re in r einf or ce s f ed er al pr ee m

pti on o f state c ontro l ov er the 10 Navaj o Nation’ s portion of the wa ters of the San Juan. T he Settlem ent Agre em ent at 11 iss ue he re in e xpr es sly state s, “ Co ng res s a

ppr ove s, r at if

ie s, a nd c onf

irm s th e 12 Se ttl em en t. ” Su chac ongr es sio na lly appro ve d se ttl em en t pr ee m pts the lawof

the 13 pa rti ci pa ti ng st at es . Cf. Texas v. New Mex ico , 462 U
. S. 554 , 564 ( 1983 ) (d isc uss ing 14 the e ff

ec t of c ongr es sio na l c onse nt o n ase ttl em ent en te re d in to p ur suant t o th e 15 Co m pa ct Cl au se ); N. Y. Shi

ppi ng A ss’ n I

nc . v . W ate rfr ont Co m m’n of N. Y. H

arbo r , 16 835 F. 3d 3 44, 348 n. 4 (3r d Cir

. 2016 ) (s am e)

. T he re fo re ac om pa ct be tw ee n in te rs ta te 17 au tho ri tie s m ay

not be im pa ir ed by the part ic ipa tin g st at es on ce appr ove d by 18 Co ng res s. See Kansas v. Ne bras ka , ___ U. S. ___, ___, 135 S. Ct. 1042 , 1053 (2015).10

1 { 14} Against this backdrop , the Settlem ent Agre em ent interpreted by the district 2 co urt he re in w as ap pr ove d by Co ngr es s w el l pr ior to Appe llants ’ state lawc ha lle nge s, 3 an d thus, f

ed er al pr ee m

pti on d isp ose s of

m an y of thei r arg um en ts, to w it: ( 1) the 4 Settlem ent is a nullitybecause it w as not approved b y the Ne w Me xico Legislature; 5 (2) the Inter state Stre am Com m issio n viol ated NM SA1978 , S ection 72-14 -3 (1935), 6 in f ai lin g to su bm it the S ettle m en t t o th e N ewMe xic o L eg isl at ur e; a nd ( 3) the 7 Se ttl em en t vi ola te s N MS A 1978 , S ec tio n 72 -1 -1 1( C) (1 ) (2 005) by not a ddr es sin g a ll 8 of th e Nav ajo Nati on ’s waterne ed s. See W . Va . e x re l. Dyer

v. Si ms , 341 U
. S. 22, 28 9 (1 951) ( statin g th at

the U nit ed

S ta te s S upr em e Co urt ha s th e fi na l pow er to pa ss o n 10 the m eanin g and v al idi ty of c om pa ct s) ; Co rr v . M

etro. W ash. A irp ort

s A uth

. , 800 F. 11 Su pp. 2d 7 43, 758 -5 9 ( E
. D
. V a. 201 1) ( not ing that on ce a com pa ct ha s be ena dopt ed , 12 it is “ tr an sf

orm [e d] int o fe de ra l lawa t w hic h ti m e its int er pr et at iona nd c onstru ct ion 13 presented feder al, not state quest ion s ”)

. Moreover, this Court would no te the N ew 14 Me xic o L eg isl at

ur e ha s gi ve n th e A tto rn ey G en er al th e au tho ri ty

to pr ose cu te a nd 1 5 s e t t l e c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n t o w h i c h t h e S t a t e i s a p a rt y p u r s u a n t t o N M S A 1978 , S ec tio n 16 36-1-22 (187 5-76). E ven m ore t o t h e p oint, it is clear that the L egislature has 17 de le ga te d to the A tto rn ey G en er al the ex pli ci t au tho ri ty to ini tiate , c ondu ct , dis m iss , 18 an d co m

pr om is e li ti ga ti on on be ha lf o f th e St at e. See NMS A 1978 , § 8-5-2 ( 1975 ); 19 § 36 -1 -2 2; N MS A 197 8, § 72 -4 -1 5 ( 1907 ); Ly le v . L una , 195 9- N MS C- 042, ¶ ¶ 23- 24,15 T he L eg isl at ur e ha s li ke w ise de le ga te d to the S ta te E ngi ne er aut hority

to 4 16 supervise “ the apportion m ent of water in this sta t e ac co rd i ng to th e licenses issued 17 by him and his p re de ce sso rs a nd the a dj udi catio ns o f the c ourts. ” N MS A 197 8, § 72

- 18 2- 9 ( 1907 ); se e als o NMS A 197 8, § 72-2-1 (1982) (providin g that the State E ngin eer 19 “ ha s ge ne ra l su

pe rv isi on o f w at er s of

the state a nd o f the m ea sur em en t, appr opr ia tio n, 20 [and] dis tr ibu tio n th er eo f” ); Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n v

. 21 D ’A nto nio , 2012-NMS C-039, ¶ 34, 289 P. 3d 1232 ( “ [T ] he Le gislature has delegated 22 the com

plicated and difficult task of m anaging Ne w Mexico’ s scarce water re sources 23 to th e St at e Eng in eer[ .] ”). 11 1 65 N
. M. 429 , 338 P. 2d 1060. T he S ta te E ngi ne er , w ho a lso appr ove d th e Se ttl em en t, 2 al so a ct ed

w iththe e xpr es sly

de le ga te d auth or ity

of the L eg isl at

ur e. W er e it 4 3 necessary

to address this argum ent further, the Court notes—as did the district 4 co urt—tha t the N ewMe xic o L eg isl at ur e ha s prov ide d e xpr es s auth or ity f or the S ta te 5 E ngi ne er

to spe ci fi ca lly

e nga ge in thi s li tig at iona nd h as appr op ria ted ov er $50 6 m il li on as th e St at e’s sh are o f th e co st of t he Set tl em en t. See § 72-1-12. To argue that 7 the L eg isl at

ur e did not auth or iz e the G ove rn or an d At tor ne y G en er al to ent er int o th is 8 Set tl em en t, t he n, i s at be st il lo gi cal , and m or e to th e p oi nt , in co rrec t. 9 { 15} Even under Ne w Me xico rather than feder al law , then, Appellants are incorrect 10 in the ir

pr em ise that the L eg isl at ur e w as r equir ed

to ap pr ove the Set tlem en t. 11 H ow ev er , a ssu m ing a ny of the se state lawa rg um en ts h ad m erit, the y

sho uld ha ve 12 be ente ste d be fo re the U nit ed S ta te s C ongress stam

pe d it s im

pr im at ur on the 13 Settlem ent by adoptin g it into fe deral law. To the extent Appellants’ state law 14 argum ents had m erit, t h ey s h ouldhave been brought to the attention of the New12

1 Me xic o S upre m e Co urt by aw ri t of

m an da m us and are no l onge r ri pe f or 2 ad jud ic at io n. See Sta te e

x re l. Clark

v . J ohns on , 1995-NMS C-048, ¶ 1 9 , 1 20 N. M. 3 562, 904 P
. 2d 1 1 ( statin g th at in ce rt ai n cir cu m stanc es , m an da m us “ is an ap pr opr ia te 4 m eans to prohib it unlawful or unconstit ution al official a ction”). 5 II
. State Law Lim itations Do N ot Cont rol Navajo Water 6 A. Indian Tr ibes A re N ot Re qui re d to Pr ove Im m ediate B enef icial Use t o 7 Quantif

y Their Wat er Rights 8 { 16} Appe llants a rg ue “ [b ] en ef ic ia l use is al so an e sse nti al a nd e xpl ic it re qui re m en t 9 of state law , inc lud ing A rt ic le X V I of the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n, r at if ie d by 10 Co ng res s i n 1 91 1.” As not ed earl ie r, New Mex ic o st at e la w do es no t con tro l Nav ajo 11 w at er al loc at ion s. W e re ite rate tha t to the ext en t Ap pe llants ar e at te m pti ng t o a ppl y 12 Ne w Me xico w ater lim itations in this in stance, federa l law has expressly pre-e m pted 13 suc h st at e lim itatio ns. I f D ef en dants a re a rg uin g th e N ewMe xic o C on stitut ion 14 co ntr ols the Se ttl em en t sinc e Con gr es s a ppr ove d th e Co nst itu tio n in191 1, thi s is a lso 15 incorrect. The Settlem ent Agre em ent was a pproved b y

Congress in 20 0 9 and was 16 intended b y

Congress to allocate Navaj o wa ter and is thus m uch m ore specific than 17 the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n, w hic h m ak es no m en tio n of the w at er a llo cate d to the 18 N av aj o R es er

va tio n in186 8. S pe ci fi c an d late r- en ac te d statut es c ontro l ov er ge ne ra l, 19 earl ie r-en act edlaws

. Se e M ort on v . M

anc ari , 417 U
. S. 535 , 550 -5 1 ( 1974 ); Nguyen 20 v. United States , 556 F. 3d 12 44, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2009).13 Co urts and oth er le ga l sc hol ar s ha ve re pe at ed ly re co gni ze d th is i nte rp re ta tio n 5 14 of res erv at io n wat er ri gh ts . Se e, e . g. , Agua Caliente Band of C ahui lla I ndia n s v. 15 Co ac he lla V

all eyW ate r D ist

. , 849 F
. 3d 1 262 , 1 27 2 (9 th C ir

. 201 7) ; Co lv ill e 16 Co nfe de rat ed

T rib es v . W alton , 752 F. 2d 397, 405 ( 9thCi r. 198 5) ; Navajo Nation v. 17 U nit ed Sta tes D ep ’t

of the I nte rio r , 34 F. Supp . 3d 10 19 , 10 22 (D. Ariz. 2 01 4) , aff’d 18 in p art

, re v’d in par t , 876 F
. 3d 1 144 (9 th C ir

. 201 7) ; Uni t ed S t a t es v. Orr W ater 19 D itc h C

o. , 309 F. S upp. 2d 1 245, 124 8 ( D
. N ev . 200 4) ; In re G en . A dju dic ati on o f A ll 20 Rights to U

se W ater in G ila River Sys. & Source , (Gil a V.) 35 P.3d 68, 71-72 (Ar iz. 21 2001 ) (e n banc ); Sta te of W ash. D ep ’t

of Eco log

y v. Yakim a R es erva tio n I rri gat ion 22 D ist

. , 850 P
. 2d 1 306, 133 0 ( W as h. 199 3) ( enbanc ); Sta te ofM ontana exre l. G re el

y 23 v. Confederated Salis h & Kootenai Tribes , 712 P. 2d 754, 762 (M ont . 198 5) ; United 24 States ex rel. R ay v. Hibner , 27 F. 2d 909, 911- 12 (D

. Id ah o 1928 ); Sally F ai rf ax , 25 Hele n In gr am

& Leig h R aym on d, H istori ca l E

vo lut ion & F

utu re of Na tural 26 Resour ces Law &Policy, The E volutio n of Natur al Resources Law & Policy19 27 (Lawren ce Macd on ne ll & Sarah F. Bat es ed s., 201 0) ; Ju di th E. Jaco bs en , Th e Na va jo 13 1 { 17} Appare ntl y

r ec ogni zi ng the inv al idi ty of the ir state law ar gum en ts, Appe llants 2 further m aintain that “ [b] eneficial use is an essential requirem ent of every feder al law 3 gove rn ing the a llo catio n of w at er in the a ri d W es t, inc lud ing W int er s an d su bse que nt 4 cases. ” W

int er s , to w hic h Appe llants r ef er , is inde ed an earl y

pol es tar in r ec ogni zi ng 5 re se rv at ionw at er

r igh ts. H ow ev er , a s w ill b e co m e cl ear, it doe s no t r equir e im

m ed ia te 6 “ beneficial use” a s the onlym easure of Indian water rights. Prof

essor Tarlock 7 suc ci nc tly

out lines the pr ope rl y

appl ic ab le le ga l pr inc ipl e fo r the a llo catio n of 8 reser vation water: 9 In dian w at er

r igh ts are pr opr ie tary

r igh ts. Re se rv ed w at er ri ght s . . . ha ve 10 a priority

da t e, the date of the cr eation of the reser vation, but th ey

are 11 no t d ep en de nt on th e ap pl ic at io n o f wat er t o b en efi ci al us e. 12 Tarl oc k, supra , § 9: 38. 516 In dia n I

rri gation P roj ec t & Q uant ifi ca tio n of Na va jo W int er s R igh ts , 32 N at . 17 Re sour ce s J. 825 , 826 ( 1992 ). Hen ce, Appe llants ’ a sse rt ionthat “be ne fi ci al use is 18 required by

all the cases and statut es—except for Gil a V. an dt h e l o w e rco u rt ’s 19 de ci si on in th is cas e” i s, at th e v ery le as t, m is le ad in g. 20 T he f

ed er al go ve rn m en t ha s th e pow er to re se rv e w at er

und er both th e 6 21 Co m m erce an d P ro pe rty clau se s o f t he Fed eral Co ns ti tu ti on . Cappaert v. United 22 States , 426 U. S. 128, 138 (197 6). 14 1 { 18} App e l l a nt s a t t e m pt t o bo l st e r t he i r i nt e r pr e t a t i on of “ be ne f

i c i a l use” as 2 re qui ri ng i m

m ed ia te use by

r el y ing on i na

ppl ic ab le f

ed er al statut es suc h a s th e 3 Reclam ation Ac t of 1 902, 43 U. S. C. § 372 (2012). T hey are corre ct that if this wer e 4 in de ed a Re cl am at ionA ct c as e, the S ec re tary

of the I nte ri or

w oul d be r equir ed

to 5 fo llo wthe state lawint er pr et at ionof

“ be ne fi ci al use . ” H ow ev er , the y pr es en t no 6 ev ide nc e or

sound l eg al arg um en t tha t the Re cl am at ionA ct appl ie s he re . A rr ivi ng 7 m or e than f

orty y ears a ft er

the e sta bli shm en t of

the N av aj o R es er

va tio n, the 190 2 8 Reclam at ionA ct

is cl earl y not the sourc e of

the f ed er al gov er

nm en t’ s auth or ity

to 9 cr eate the N av aj o R es er va tio n o r res erv e w at er

r igh ts t o it

a nd the re fo re doe s no t 10 constrain the use of reservation water. See Colvill e Confederated Tribes , 752 F
. 2d 6 11 at40 5. 12 { 19} Appellants are al s o o ff base in attem

pting to graft language from the Ne w 13 Mexico Suprem e Cou rt regarding the Pueblo W ater Rights doctrine onto the W int er s 14 doctrine. The Pueblo W ater Rights doctrine derives from Spanish an d Me x ican 1 5 p r o p e rt y l a w
— a u n i qu e s o u r c e h a v i n g n o r e l a t i o n s h i p to W int er s . Sta te e x re l.21 T he S ettle m en t A ct spe ci fi ca lly

r ec ogni ze s th e Co lor ad o R ive r Co m pa ct a nd 7 22 ad jus ts wate r al lo cat io ns to co m pl y wit h i t. Se tt le m en t Act § 1 06 03 (j). 15 1 R ey nolds v

. A am odt , 61 8 F . Sup p. 9 93 , 10 10 (D.N.M. 19 85 ); Tar lo ck , supra , § 9: 39; 2 W il li am

Gol df arb , W ate r L aw39 (2nd ed. 1988 ). 3 { 20} Appe llants ar e cl ose r to the w ay the “ be ne fi ci al use ” co nc ep t ha s oc ca sio na lly 4 been ref

erence d in the reser

vation context in their i nvocation of the Colorado River 5 Co m pa ct . T ha t C om

pa ct spe ci fi ca ll y ack no w le dge s th at it s purp ose is “ to e sta

bli sh 6 the relative im

portance of diffe rent beneficial uses of w ate r . ” M or e ov e r, that Com pact 7 ex pr es sl y

co nt em pl at edfut ur e u se s beyond th os e ex is ti ng in 19 22
. See N MS A 197 8, 8 § 72-15-5 (art. I ) (1923). Thus Com pact wa ter wa s not seen a s frozen in tim e and can 7 9 cl earl y be use d a t vari ous tim es f or vari ous use s. T ha t i nde ed is ex ac tly

ho wthe 10 dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y e m plo y ed the c onc ep t of

“ be ne fi ci al use ” he re in: 11 [b] eneficial use shall be the lim it of the rights to u se water adj udicated 12 to the N av aj o Nati on b y thi s D ec re e. T he N av aj o N at ionsha ll not be 13 en tit le d to r ec ei ve , nor the U nit ed St at es or the St at e of N ewMe xic o be 14 re qui re d to de li ve r, no r sha ll non- N av aj o w at er use rs be r equir ed

to 15 curtail w ater uses to provide to the Navaj o Nation any water not then 16 ne ce ssary

f or be ne fi ci al use under

the r igh ts a dj udi cate d he re in o r 17 acq ui redhe reaf te r. 18 { 21} A ddi tio na lly , the Co lor ad o C om pa ct ex pl ic itly

pr ovi de s th at

nothin g inthe 19 Co m pa ct sha ll be c onstru ed

a s affe ct ing the obl iga tio ns o f the U nit ed S ta te s of 20 Am eri ca t o In di an tri be s. See § 72 -1 5- 5 (a rt. VII ); NM SA 19 78 , § 7 2- 15 -2 6 (a rt. XIX)16

1 (1 949)

. T he S ettle m en t he re in, as a spe ci fi c an d late r- en ac te d st at ute , sho uld

thu s be 2 gi ve n p rece de nc e o ve r a m or e g en eral earl ie r st atut e. Se e M ort on , 41 7 U.S. at 55 0. 3 { 22} Appe llan ts la stl y dov et ai l the ir

Co lor ad o R ive r Co m

pa ct a rg um en t w ith 4 reliance on the Colorado River Storage Proje ct, which recites one of its purpo ses as 5 “ sto ri ng w at er

f or be ne fi ci al c onsum

pti ve use . ” 43 U
. S. C. § 62 0 (2 012)

. Bu t this 6 langua ge m ak es f

urth er cl ear tha t the w at er to w hic h th at

Co m pa ct appl ie s is not 7 re qui re d to be put to i m

m ed ia te “ be ne fi ci al c onsum pti ve use . ” Rathe r than su ppor tin g 8 Appe llants ’ a rg um en t, the se sourc es ind ic at e N av ajo Nati on rig hts sho uld not be 9 lim ite d to the a m ount

of w at er use d onthe r es er

va tio n a t the ti m e of its de dic at ion

. 10 B. The D istrict C ourt P roperly App l i ed t he Wi nt er s Doct rine and the 11 Pr acticably Irrigable A creage (P IA) Stand ard to M easure t he Wate r 12 Re served t o the N avajo Nation Un der the Sett lem ent Agree m ent 13 { 23} In W

int er s , the G ro s V en tr e T ri be s inMo ntana , lik e the N av aj os, ha d c ed ed the 14 vast m aj ority

of their ance stral land by treaty to the United States in re turn for a 15 perm anent re s er v at i o n. 207 U. S. at 567-68. When non -Indians on th e Milk River 16 upstream

from the Gr os Ventre r eservation diverted all the available water, the United 17 St at es so ug ht an in

jun ct io n t o h al t t he up st ream di ve rs io ns . Id

. a t 565. A lth oughthe 18 non- In dians h ad

e ar lie r w at er pr ior ity da te s unde r Mon tana law , the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld 19 th e tr ib es ’ rig ht s u nd er t he t r eat y were s up eri or . Id

. at 576. T he United State s 20 Su pr em e Co urt re co gni ze d it wa s inco nc ei vable the tr ibe s w oul d have giv enup the ir17

1 ancestral hunting g rounds for land that had insufficient w ater to pursue the pastoral 2 li fe the fed eral go ve rn m en t wi sh edto en co ur ag e. Id

. I t st at ed that si nc e tr eatie s m

ust 3 be co ns tr

ue d inf av or of the I ndi an s it

w as im pla usi ble that the tr ibe s in te nde d to 4 fo rf ei t the ir w at er r igh ts: 5 T he I ndi an s ha d c om m an d of the lands an d th e w at er s, —c om m an d of a ll 6 the ir

be ne fi ci al use , w he the r ke pt f or hun tin g, a nd g ra zi ng r ovi ng h er ds 7 of stock, or turned to agriculture and the arts of c iviliza t i o n . Did th ey 8 giv e up a ll thi s? D id the y r ed uc e the a re a of

the ir oc cu pa tio n and g ive 9 up the w at er s w hic h m ad e it val uable or a de qua te ? A nd, e ve n r eg ar din g 10 the a lle ga tio n of the an sw er as tr ue , tha t the re a re spr ing s and s tr eam s on 11 the reser

vation flowing abo ut 2,900 i nches of water, the inqui ries ar e 12 pe rt ine nt. I f it w er e poss ibl e to b el ie ve a ff irm at iv e an sw er s, w e m igh t 13 al so b el ie ve that the In dians we re aw ed by the pow er of the gov er nm en t 14 orde cei ve d b y

it s n eg ot ia to rs . Neit he r vi ew is po ss ib le

. 15 Id

. (internal quotation m arks om itted). 16 { 24} While the W

inter s c as e es ta

bli she d ale ga l f

ound at ionthat st ood fo r the 17 pr opos iti on that

u p r i v er use that de pr ive d a gr ic ult ur al I ndi anr es er

va tio ns o f av ai la

ble 18 w at er w as not c onsi ste nt w ithtr eatie s th at e sta blished s uc h r es er

va tio ns i n th e fi rs t 19 ins tanc e, low er

c ourts h av e gr ap ple d w ithho w to ca lc ula te the w at er ne ce ssary

to 20 fu lfi ll th e n eed s an d g oa ls of o th er res erv at io ns . Co m pare Conrad

Inv. Co. v . U

nited 21 States , 16 1 F. 82 9, 83 2 (9 th Ci r. 19 08 ), and U nit ed Sta tes v . A hta num I

rri gat ion D ist

. , 22 23 6 F .2d32 1, 3 27 (9t h C ir. 1 95 6) , wi th U nit ed Sta tes v . W

alk er R iv er I rri gat ion D ist

. , 23 10 4 F .2d 3 3 4 , 3 3 5
- 36 , 33 9- 40 (9t h C ir. 1 93 9) , and In re Yakim a R iv er D rai nage 24 B asi n , 296 P. 3d 835, 839 (W as h. 201 3) ( enbanc ). I n th e Co lor ad o R ive r lit iga tio n,18

1 the S upr em e Co urt c al cu la te d th e am ount of “ pr ac tic ab le ir

ri gable ac re ag e” ( PI A ) on 2 re se rv atio ns de dic at ed to ag ri cu lture a nd u se d th at a s ay ar dst ic k to a llo cate 3 res erv at io n wat er. A riz ona v. Ca lif orni a, 46 0 U.S. 6 05 , 61 3 (1 98 3)

. A riz ona 4 re co gni ze d th at W

int er s m ad e PI A the re co gni ze d base lin e fo r m ea sur ing r es er va tio n 5 wate r ri gh ts when th e in te nt of t he res erv at io n was ag ric ul tu re. Id

. a t 60 9- 10. I t di d 6 not , how ev er , a s Appe llants ar gue , hol d “ tha t pr ac tic ab ly ir ri gable a cr ea ge ( PI A ) is 7 the onl y pr ope r w ay to quanti fy fe de ra l re se rv ed r igh ts f or I ndi antr ibe s. ” N or

did the 8 Supr em e Co urt a dopt

the appe llants ’ vie wthat the f ai lur e to p ut a llo tte d w at er to 9 im m ed ia te “ be ne fi ci al use ” re sul ts i n af or fe iture of

tho se w at er ri gh ts. In de ed , the 10 Co ur t no te d th e Ch em eh ue vi Trib e h adno t d iv ert edan y of i ts all ot te d wat er. Se e id. 11 at 653, n.8 (B rennan, J. , c oncurring in p art and dissentin g in part). 12 { 25} De term i ni ng h owt o c a l c ul a t e P I Aa nd w hati tm e a ns i n l e ss a gr i c ul tur al 13 si tu at io ns ha s re qu ire d ju di c i al res ou rcef ul ne ss . See W

alk er R iv er I rri gat ion D ist ., 1 4 1 0 4 F
. 2 da t3 4 0 ( d i s c u s s i n g w a t e r r i g h t s i n r e l a t i o n t o p o w e r g e n e r at ion ); United 15 Sta te s v. Adair , 723 F
. 2d 1 394, 141 1 ( 9thCi r. 198 3) ( dis cu ssi ng w at er r igh ts i n 16 relatio n t o h u nting and fishing activities). In light of such d ifficulties, the j udicial 17 trend appears to rec ogni ze r eservation allocations sh ouldnot be lim ited to on ly an 18 am ount

of w at er suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the pa sto ra l l if

e of te n c ont em

pla te d inthe 19 nineteenth century , but rather , calculated to provide the tribes with wa ter in quant ities19

1 su ffi ci en t t o p ro m ot e su rv iv al an d t he su cces s o f th e res erv at io ns . See A rizon a v. 2 Ca lif orni a , 43 9 U.S. 4 19 , 42 2- 23 (19 79 ) (p er cu ria m ), a me n ded , 4 66 U. S. 144 (198 4); 3 A gua Ca lie nte B and of C ahui lla I ndi ans , 8 4 9 F
. 3 d a t 12 70; Jo int B d. of Co ntr ol o

f 4 Flath ead, M

issio n & Jocko Irrigation Dists. v. United States , 832 F
. 2d 1 127, 113 1 5 (9 th C ir

. 198 7) ; A hta num I rri gat ion D ist

. , 236 F
. 2d a t 32 7; A dai r , 723 F
. 2d a t 14 10; 6 Co lv ill e Co nfe de rat ed Tr ibes v. W alton , 647 F. 2d 4 2, 47- 48 ( 9thCi r. 198 1) ; T ar loc k, 7 supra , § 9: 41; G old farb , sup ra , at 5 1. But see In re G en . A dju dic ati on o f A ll R igh ts 8 to U se Wat er in B ig H orn R iv er Sy s. , 75 3 P .2d76 , 94 (Wy o. 1 98 8) , aff’d sub nom , 9 W yoming v. United States , 49 2 U.S. 4 06 (19 89 ), abro gat ed on o the r gr ound

s by 10 V augh n v . Sta te , 962 P. 2d 14 9, 151 (Wy o. 1998). 11 { 26} Current j urisprudence thus tends to recognize the goal of t he feder al 1 2 gove rn m e n ti n c r e a t i n g I n d i a n r e s e rv a t i o n s w a s n o tt o p r o du c e m o r e f a rm e r s or 13 she phe rd s bu t “ to m ak e the r es er va tio n li vable ” an d “ to f

urthe r[ ] a nd a dvanc e[ ] the 14 ci vi li zat io n,” all owi ng th e In di an s t o c ha ng e to ne w way s o f li fe. A riz ona , 460 U. S. 15 at 616 ; see Mart ha C. Fran ks , Th e U ses o f th e P rac tic abl

y Irrigabl e A cr eage 16 Sta ndard in the Q uant ifi ca tio n of R es erve d W

ate r R igh ts , 31 N at . Re sour ce s J. 549 , 17 553- 54 ( 1991 ); W

int er s , 207 U. S. at 5 67, 5 77. The ultim ate obj ective of Congress w as 18 to s ee that “ In dian tr eaty r igh ts t o ana tur al r es our ce th at on ce w as tho ro ughl y a nd 19 ex cl usi ve ly

e xpl oit ed

by the I ndi an s se cure s so m uc h a s, but

no m or e than, is20

1 ne ces sa ry

to pro vi de th e In di an s wi th a li ve li ho od—t ha t is to sa y , a m od erat e li vi ng .” 2 W ashin gton v. W

ash. State Comm er ci a l Pass enger Fishing Vessel A ss’n , 443 U. S. 3 65 8, 6 86 (19 79 ). 4 { 27} Inli ne w ithc ur

re nt j udi ci al an al y sis , the dis tr ic t c ourt he re in r ec ogni ze d th e 5 fundam en ta l purp ose of the N av aj o R es er

va tio n w as to c re at e a sus ta ina ble hom el an d 6 for the tribe. Other

than frequently

repea ting th e PI A m antra, Appellants have offer ed 7 no evidence or supp ortive authority to c ontradict the district court’ s finding . I ndeed 8 the onl y ev ide nc e to w hic h thi s Co urt w as dir ec te d by Appe llants is co nsi ste nt w ith 9 th atfin di ng . See Treat y of 1 86 8 a rt. XII I, 15 St at . 66 7, 67 1 (st at in g th at th e Nav ajo 1 0 t ri b e a g re es t o m ak e t h e r e s e r v a t i o n “ t h ei r p er m an en th o m e” ) T h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 11 de ci sio n r eg ar din g th e pr ope r m ea sur e of re se rv at ion w at er is the re fo re not

a n a buse 12 of di sc ret io n. 13 III . Th e D ist ri ctC ou rtP ro pe rl y A pp lie d th e F air , A de qu at e, an d R ea son ab le 14 Sta nda rd to the Se ttl ement o f the Nav aj o I ndi an Irr ig at io n Pro ject (NII P) 15 { 28} Appe llants m ak e se ve ra l c ha lle nge s to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s aw ar d of w at er to the 16 N II P. O nc e ag ai n the se ch al le nge s fa il to unde rs tand the or igi ns an d sc ope of the 17 Co ng res si on al di rect io n fo r NIIP. See Navajo Indian Irri gatio n Project , Pu

b. L
. N o. 18 87-483 , § 2, 76 Stat. 96 (1962) ( the NI IP A ct) (discussing th e construction of the NIIP 19 A ct a nd i ts i nte nde d use)

. T his Co ngr es sio na l m an da te m ak es Appe llants ’ dis cu ssi on16 Appellants’ argum ents based on o ther feder al law s are a gain unfou nded. T hey 8 17 re ly on v ar iou s r es olu tio ns, co m pa ct s, and statut es f

ro m the f ir st h al f of

the 20th 18 century

that include (a t m o st) general r efer ences to the principle of beneficial use. 19 E ve n if

a ny of the se ge ne ra l r es olu tio ns o r statut es w er e ap pli ca ble in thi s si tua tio n, 20 w hic h th ey

a re not , t he y wou ld be supe rs ed ed by the sub se que nt and m or e spe ci fi c 21 NIIP an d S et tl em en t s ta tu te s p as se d b y Co ng res s. Se e M

ort on , 417 U
. S. a t 55 0- 51. 21 1 of state or his tor ic re se rv at ion co nc ep ts of be ne fi ci al use a nd P IAina ppl ic ab le f

or the 2 sa m e re as ons pr ev iou sly out lin ed

. 8 3 { 29} Congress specifically a ut ho r i z e d the c on st

r uc t i on and op eration of the N IIP Ac t 4 “ for the principal purpose of furnishin g irrigation water to [a service area

of not m ore 5 th an 11 0,630] a cr es of land[

. ] ” N II P A ct

§ 2; see S e t t l e m e nt

A c t§ 1 04 02 ( a) 6 (am ending Sec tion 2 of the N IIP Ac t). In so doing, Congress nec essarily determ ined 7 tha t up to 110, 630 ac re s of N II P lands ar e “ ir

ri ga ble an d ar ab le

. ” N II P A ct , 76 S ta t. 8 at 96. Mor eo ve r, the Se ttl em en t A ct am en ds the N II P A ct to sig nif ic an tly br oa de n th e 9 pot en tia l us es of

N II P wate r w hil e co nf

irm ing the a m ount s of

N av aj o di ve rs ion 10 (5 08, 000 ac re -f

ee t of w at er pe r y ear) an d ir ri ga te d ac re ag e (1 10, 630) auth or iz ed f or 11 the pr oj ec t. S ettle m en t A ct § 10 402( a)

. “ O nc e re se rv ed ri ght s for In dian r es er va tio ns 12 ha ve be en qu an ti fie d, t he y m ay b e a p pl ie d t o a ny water u se s ch os en by the tri be s.” 13 Gol df arb , supra , a t 51
. 14 { 30} In the 1940 s several Colorado River B asin states nego t i at ed the Upper 15 Co lor ad o R ive r Co m

pa ct . Uppe r Co lor ad o R ive r Ba sinCo m pa ct , ch

. 48, Pu

b. L
. N o.22

1 81- 37, 31, 63 Stat. 31 (19 49)

. A lth ough it did not dir ec tly im pa ct tha t C om

pa ct , a t the 2 tim e it w as e sti m at ed

the N av aj o N at ionc ou ld r equir e ab out 787 , 000 ac re -f

ee t of 3 wate r. Llo y d B ur to n, A m er ic an I ndi an W ate r R igh ts &the L im its of the L aw30 (U. 4 Press K an. 1991). T he United State s Bureau of R eclam ation and th e Burea u of Indian 5 Affai rs th en pro po se d a recl am at io n p ro ject o f th is ap pr ox im at e si ze for t he Nava jo 6 T ri be

. I n the fa ce of oppo sit ionf ro m state s a dj oin ing the Co lor ad o R ive r, Co ngr es s 7 refu se d t o a c t. Id

. The Navaj o Tr ibal Council th erea fter a greed to a guaranteed 8 quantit y of water—508,000 acre- feet annually —but to be shared w ith oth er S an Juan 9 use rs in dr ough t y ears . T he Co unc il furthe r ag re ed if suc h apr oj ec t w as c om

ple te d, 10 th e Nav ajo Nat io n wo ul d no t ass ert it s 18 68 da te of ap pr op ria ti on to su ch wate r. Id

. 11 at 31. O n this b asis, the N avaj o Nation along with the State of N ewMexico then 12 presented Congress with a j oint N avaj o-State proje ct for the agreed portion of the San 13 Juan R ive r. I n June of 196 2, Co ngr es s pa sse d th e A ct auth or iz ing the c onstru ct ion 14 an d m ai nte nanc e of

N II P an d N ewMe xic o’ s S anJuan- Ch am a div er sio n. See NI IP 15 A ct , 76 S ta t. a t 96 ; 43 U
. S. C. § 61 5ii ( 2000 ) (o m itt ed f ro m c ur re nt v er sio n of

the 16 U.S.C.) (f

ora m or e d et ai le d d is cu ss io n o f th e h is to ry of NII P, see Jac ob se n, supra , 17 at 825 -3 2)

. Appe llants ’ a rg um en t th at C o n g r e s s s t at

ut o ri ly a dopt ed the a gr ee d a m ount 18 of 50 8,0 00 acre -fee t, b u t s ecre tl y ex pe ct eda st at e jud ge to co m pu te th e Nav ajo 1 9 N a t i o n ’s s h a r e b a s e do n aP I A c a l c u l a t i o n , f l i e s i n t h e f

a c e o f t h i s h i s t o ry.23

1 { 31} In ad di ti on to sp eci fy in g t he so ur ces , am ou nt s, d is tri bu ti on , and pu rpose s of the 2 N II P A ct , Co ngr es s un am big uous ly pr ovi de d: 3 N o pe rs on sha ll ha ve or be e nti tle d to ha ve the use f or a ny 4 purpos e . . . of wa ter sto red in Navaj o Reservoir or of any other waters 5 of

th e San J u a n R iv er an d i ts tri bu ta rie s o rig in at in g abo ve Nava jo 6 Re se rv oir

to the us e of w hic h th e U nit ed S ta te s is e nti tle d un de r the se 7 pr oj ec ts e xc ep t un de r co ntr ac t satis fa ct or y to the S ec re tary

a nd 8 co nf

orm ing to the pr ovi sio ns o f thi s A ct . 9 N II P A ct

§ 11
. 10 { 32} Appe llants a rg ue that “ Se ct ion13( c) of the N II P A ct

e xpl ic itl y

dis cl ai m s any 11 Congression al intention to crea te a w ater r ight[.] ” T hat section provi des, in part, that 12 “ [n] o right or claim

of right to the us e o f th e w aters of the C olorado River sy stem 13 shall be aided or prej udiced by ” the A ct. NI IP A ct § 13(c). As the district court 14 ex pla ine d how ev er , by re as oni ng wi th whic h w e ag re e, thi s arg um en t t ak es S ec tio n 15 13( c) tot al ly

out of it s r el ev an t cont ex t. N oth ing in Se ct ion 13 pro hib its the c re at ion 16 of in di vi du al wate r ri gh ts wit hi n t he li m it at io ns of t he Co lo rad o R iv er Co m pa ct . 17 IV. The D istri ct C ourt’ s Pr ocedur e C om plies With S tatut ory and 18 Constit utional R equir em ents 19 { 33} Appellants advance s everal challenges to the procedure ado pted by the district 20 court. These challenges exhibit a lack of com prehension of Ne w Mexic o s t at u t o ry 21 pr oc ed

ur es f or the a llo catio n of

w at er a nd h owc onst itu tio na l no rm s a ppl y to tho se 22 pr oc ed

ur es .16 On Mar ch 13, 1975, the State E ngin eer initiated th e gen eral stream 9 17 ad j udi catio n onthe S anJuan R ive r str eam sy ste m by f ili ng the c om

pla int 18 contem

plated under Section 72-4-15 in district c ourt. In accordance with th e u sual 19 pr oc edur e in wate r rig ht s pro ceed in gs , no “ an swe r” was req ui redor f il ed

. Se e Sta te 20 exre l. Sta te E

ng’ r v. Co m m ’r of P ub. L ands , 200 9- N MC A -0 04, ¶ 8, 145 N
. M. 433 , 21 200 P. 3d 8 6. 24 1 A . Th e D ist ri ct C ou rtD id N ot Er r in Tr ea ti ng A pp el lan ts ’ “C ro ss C lai m s” 2 as Objec tions to th e Se ttlem ent 3 { 34} T he N ewMe xic o st at uto ry int er se w at er pr oc ed ur e is s pe ci fi ca lly

de sig ne d to 4 al lo w t he St at e Eng in eer to fai rly al lo cat e wate r to al l u se rs of a pa rti cu la r st ream . See 5 N MS A 197 8, §§ 7 2- 4- 15 ( 1907 ), - 17 ( 1965 ). As the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ai ne d, thi s 6 statut or

y pr oc ed ur e doe s no t fo llo wthe ty pic al c ivi l patte rnof

pe rm itt ing c la im s, 7 cross-claim s, and counter-c l a i m s. Ne w Me xico statutes sp ecifica lly allow the district 9 8 co urt f le xib ili ty to ad j udi cate the se nio r w at er r igh ts f ir st, a nd the n a ddr es s j uni or 9 c l a i ms . T h i s p r o c e du r e i s e f f i c i e n t s i n c e i t a l l o w s t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtt o h e a r a l l c l a i ms 10 ag ai nst

the S ta te E ngi ne er so it can be de te rm ine d how m uc h w at er the state w ill ha ve 11 to all oc at e. Se e Stat e exre l. O ffi ce of Sta te E

ng’ r v . L ew is , 200 7- N MC A -0 08, ¶ 30, 12 141 N
. M. 1, 150 P
. 3d 3 75. T ha t i s e xa ct ly w hat the dis tr ic t c ourt di d he re ; Appe llants ’ 13 “ cro ss cl ai m s” w er e tr eate d a s ob j ec tio ns t o th e Se ttl em en t, a nd n owthe S ta te 14 E ngi ne er

kno w s how m

uc h wa te r m

ust be subtra ct ed fo r the “ se nio r” N av aj o N at ion 15 cl ai m s be fo re he c al cu la te s the j uni or c la im s. T o li tig at e Appe llants ’ “ cr oss c la im s”25

1 an d de te rm ine the ir

e xa ct w at er r igh ts i n th e ini tial pr oc ee din g w oul d de str oy the 2 pu rp os e o f an ex pe di te d i nt er s e p ro ced ur e. See Rule 1-071.2(B). 3 B. N ot ic e of

Th is I nt er S e P ro ce ed in g S at isf ie d C on st it ut ion al D ue P ro ce ss 4 { 35} T o a s s e rt a p r o c e du r a l du e p r o c e s s c l a i m , a n ap p e l l a n t m u s t e s t ab l i s h b oth a 5 depr iv at ionof

apr ote ct ed

li be rty or pr ope rty int er es t and tha t he or

she w as not 6 affo rd edad eq ua te pro ced ur al pro te ct io ns . Barreras v. N. M. Corr. D ep’t , 199 2- 7 N MS C- 059, ¶

18, 114 N
. M. 366 , 838 P
. 2d 9 83. “ [T ] he thr es hol d qu es tio n in 8 ev alua tin g adue pr oc es s c ha lle nge is w he the r the re is a de pr iva tio n of li be rty or 9 property .” B ound

s v. Sta te e

x re l. D ’A nto nio , 201 3- N MS C- 037, ¶ 51, 306 P
. 3d 4 57 10 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). A s the district court found, “ the total 11 am ount

of w at er [ al loc at ed

to the N av aj o N at ion ] in the S ettle m en t A gr ee m en t i s le ss 12 than the N av aj o Na tio n’ s cur re ntl y , fe de ra lly au tho ri ze d righ ts to w at er pur suant t o 13 the 196 2 N II P A ct

an d th e l o n g - e s t a

b l i s h e d H ogba ck -C ude i and F ru itl an d- Cam br idg e 14 ir ri ga tio n pr oj ec ts” a nd thus the re w as ar ea sona ble ba sis to co nc lud e tha t the 15 Se ttl em en t pr ovi de s f or le ss than t he po te nt ia l c la im s th at c oul d be se cure d a t tri al

. 16 Si nc e the se r igh ts were se cure d by Co ngr es sio na l e na ctm en ts and thus ha ve 17 pr eem pt iv e effe ct , App el la nt s co ul d n ot ha ve su ffer ed an y lo ss of pro pe rty rig ht s. In 18 re Ge n. A djud ication of All R ights to Use W ater In the Gila R iver Sys. &Source , 224 19 P. 3d 17 8, 187 (Ar iz. 2010 ) (e n banc) (holding that no du e process v i o l at i on occurs18 The G all up I nde pe nde nt , Navajo Times , Farm ingto n Daily Tim es , R io 10 19 Rancho Observer , R io G rand e Sun , a nd A lbu que rque J ourn al

. 26 1 if a tr ibe is given n o m ore w ater t h an t hey could secure at trial and claim ants are 2 given th e right to advance claim s to the rem aining water)

. 3 { 36} If

th is Co urt c oul d pr es um e Appe llants ha d apr ope rty los s, how ev er , the ir 4 as se rtionthat the part ie s to the S ettle m en t A gr ee m en t i nte nti ona lly vio la te d du e 5 pr oc es s by fa ili ng “ to use av ai la ble da ta sour ce s to ident if y an d se rv e the de fe ndants 6 in the N av aj o in te r se ” is n ot l eg al ly via ble

. I nit ia lly

it ign or es the f

ac t tha t the se ttl ing 7 part ie s w er e fo llowin g th e or de r of the dis tr ic t c ourt and the r equir em en ts o f Ru le 8 1- 071. 2( C)

. S ec ondl y it ap pe ar s at le as t part of the pr obl em ar ose fr om the fa ilure of 9 Appellants’ counsel to supp ly the current nam es of all m em bers of the various ditch 10 as soc ia tio ns that w er e av ai la ble to Appe llants . Appe llants c an not co m pl ai n of 11 reversible error th ey

invited an d t he reb y

cau se d. Se e U

nit ed Sta tes v . L ope

z-M edina , 12 596 F. 3d 7 16, 732 ( 10th C ir

. 201 0) ; Sta te v . J im , 2014 -N MC A -0 89, ¶ 22, 332 P
. 3d 13 870 (“ It

is w el l e sta

bli she d th at

aparty m ay not inv ite e rr or

a nd th en pr oc ee d to 14 co m pla in a bout it on a ppe al

. ”)

. T he S ettli ng P ar tie s: ( 1) c ondu ct ed

f ive pub lic 15 m eetings; (2) publ ished the notice inform ation and filing requirem ents once a w eek 16 fo r fo ur

c onse cu tiv e w ee ks i n a ll loc al ne w sp ap ers ; ( 3) pub lic iz ed f ive pub lic 10 17 m ee tin gs whe re t he S ettle m en t w as dis cu sse d by pur ch as ing aquart er -p ag e27

1 advertisem ent or larger once a w eek for thre e consecutive wee ks i n the G all up 2 In de pe nde nt , the Farm ingto n Daily Tim es , and the Navajo Times ; (4 ) publ ic iz ed the 3 fi ve pub lic m ee tin gs b y pur ch as ing thi rty -s ec ond or lon ge r loc al r ad io a dve rt ise m en ts 4 at le as t thr ee ti m es a day

on the day

be fo re a nd the day

of e ac h publi c m ee tin g; and 5 (5 ) submitt ed

asy nops is o f ea chpub lic m ee tin g to th e co urt f or pub lic ins pe ct ion

. 6 A ddi tio na lly

the S ta te use d f

ir st- cl as s m ai l t o de liv er not ic e to th e ove r 19, 500 7 pot en tia l w at er

use rs in the S ta te E ngi ne er ’ s r ec or ds. 8 { 37} D ue pr oc es s r eq ui res only

not ic e “ re as ona

bly c al cu la te d, und er

a ll the 9 circum stances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and to afford 10 them an oppo rtunity

to present their objec tions .” Mullane v. Cent. H anover Bank & 11 Tr

. Co

. , 339 U
. S. 306 , 314 ( 1950 ); se e B ound s , 20 13 -NMSC -0 37, ¶

50. 12 Rea so nabl en es s i s a f un ct io n o f p r a c t i c a l alt ern at iv es . See G reene v. Lindsey , 456 13 U
. S. 444 , 454 ( 1982 ). A s th is c as e ill ustrate s, int er se w at er c as es c aninv olv e 14 thou sands of po tential claim ants, and the lim its o f d u e p rocess notice therefore 15 re qui re f

le xib ili ty in thi s c ont ex t. See In r e R ights to Use of G ila River , 830 P
. 2d 4 42, 16 449-50 (A riz. 1992 ); Lu R anch i ng Co. v. United States , 67 P
. 3d 8 5, 88- 89 ( Id ah o 17 2003 ). T he m ea sur es take n by the S ta te he re in s at isf

y the r eq ui rem en ts o f due 18 pr oc es s. See In re C

row W ater Compact , 2015 MT 353, ¶ 39, 382 Mo nt. 46, 364 P
. 3d 19 584; Je nse n v . M

orga n , 844 P. 2d 28 7, 290-91 (Utah 1992).17 Appe llants c oul d th enide nti fy doc um en ts and r ep osi tor y sta ff w oul d m ak e 11 18 the c opi es . Whe n Appel la nts’ c ouns el obj ec te d th at doc um en ts m

ust be m ad e 19 av ai la ble in San Ju anCo unty , c ouns el f or the U nit ed

S ta te s in fo rm ed

the c ourt and 20 the non -s ettli ng p ar

tie s th at the non -p ri vil eg ed

doc um en ts w oul d be sc an ne d on to a 21 di sk

. 28 1 C . Th e D ist ri ctC ou rtD id N ot A bu se It s D isc re ti on in Li m it in g th e Ti m e fo r 2 Discovery 3 { 38} T he dis tr ic t c ourt e sta bli she d an or de rl y an d appr opr ia te dis co ve ry pr oc es s, 4 w hic h in cl ude d an e le ctro nic r ep osi tor y f or a cc es s to dis cove ry

doc um en ts and 5 re gio na l r ec or ds r ep osi tori es for ins pe ct ionof

the old er

a rc hiv ed gov er nm en t 6 re co rd s . Te ch n i ca l re p o rt s s up p o r t i n g t h e U n i t ed St at es ’ an dNa v aj o Na t i o n ’s

11 7 Statem ent of C l a im s and sup porting docum ents wer e filed on January 30, 2012. Initial 8 dis co ve ry

be gan w iththe dis tr ic t cour t’ s F eb ru ar

y 3, 201 2 or de r lif

tin g th e stay

of 9 dis co ve ry . D isc ove ry

w as a va ila

ble to the non -s ettli ng p ar tie s be gin nin g on Apr il 2, 10 2012 , w he n th e se ttl ing part ie s m ad e the ir ini tia l di sc los ur es . T he part ie s w er e ab le 11 to r ev ie wdoc um en ts, m ak e disco ve ry r eque sts , a nd c ondu ct

de posi tio ns o f the 12 Se ttl ing P ar

tie s’ w itn es se s a t any

ti m e af te r Fe br uary 3, 201 2. 13 { 39} Under the c ourt’ s schedulin g order entere d on Augus t 7, 2012, discovery wa s 14 or igi na lly

se t t o c los e on Fe br

uary 1, 2013
. O n N ove m

be r 6, 201 2, a t the r eque st o f 15 Appe llants a nd o the rs , the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d an or de r ex te ndi ng dis co ve ry . A t the 16 request of Appellants and the other non-set t l i ng parties, the district court granted29

1 an oth er ex te nsion of

ti m e fo r dis co ve ry

unt il Marc h 31 , 201 3. D isc ove ry w as thu s 2 available to Appellants for m ore than a y ea r d u ri n g which th ey sough t no further 3 dis co ve ry

e xte nsi ons. 4 V
. A pp el lan ts ’ A sse rt ion s Th at th e D ist ri ctC ou rtKn owingl y A dm it te d F als e 5 or Ina dmi s s ible Eviden ce, Allow ed t he D estru ction of E vidence and Ex 6 Part e C ontact, and Im proper ly Exc l ud ed Ap pellants’ E vidence Ar e 7 Un support ed and Sub jectto Sanct ions 8 { 40} Appe llants a rg ue the dis tr ic t cour t com m itt ed re ve rs ibl e er

ro r by int en tio na lly 9 adm itt ing ina dm iss ibl e ev ide nc e. A ga in , v irtua lly a ll the se a rg um en ts are ba se d on 10 Appe llants ’ ina

bil ity to co m pr eh en d th e pr ope r goa ls and p ro ce du re f or a n in te r se 11 w at er he ar ing

. A s w e ha ve r ei te rate d, in suc h apr oc ee din g, issue s r eg ar din g 12 se tt le m en t of

oth er c la im s and n ec es sity

of apip el ine w er e not

r equir ed to be 13 ad dr es se d a t the out se t of li tig at ionor

a lon gsi de sup er ior

c la im s. Ap pe llants ’ 14 “ equit ab le ” ar gum en ts r eg ar din g gl ob al w ar m ing , la ck

of a de qua te w at er , the 15 E n g i n e e r ’ s f

a i l ur e t o f a i r l y a l l o c at e , s h ri nki ng N av aj o po pul at ion , e ndange re d sp ec ie s, 16 ex cl usi on of oth er

r es er ve d f ed er al w at er

use s, a nd the f

ai lur e to i nc lud e Appe llants 1 7 i n t h e i n t e r

s e n e g o t i a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e t h r e e g o v e rn m e n t s a l s o a l l m i s c o m p r e h e nd 18 the scope and legal effe ct of the congressional approvals in this case. 19 { 41} D ue to the int em pe rate na tur e of som e of Appe llants ’ langua ge how ev er , thi s 20 Court cannot fail to address one of their argum ents. Appellants claim that19 Appe llants spe cu la te that “ a real hy dr ogr ap hic sur ve y . . . w oul d have 12 20 id en ti fie d m an y ad di ti on al wate r own ers who op po se d th e Nav ajo [Nati on ’s] cla im .” 21 This speculation is again a violatio n of t he Ne w Mexico Rules of Appellate P rocedure 22 an d i s n ot to be co un te na nc edby thi s C ou rt. See Rule 12-318(A). 30 1 [t] he cour t abolish ed the requirem ent of a hy drographic survey , which 2 is req ui redby stat ut e. [Sec ti on s] 72 -4 -1 3 t hr ou gh -17
. Th e co urt 3 subs tituted a fake hydrogra phic sur vey pr e par e d by t he U ni t e d States 4 an d th e N av aj o N at ionw ith out a ny fie ld work.

. . . T his pse udo5 hy dr ogr ap hic sur ve y w as ac om

pil at ionof

unv eri fie d in fo rm at ion 6 co m

pil ed by the adve rs ar ia l cl ai m an ts— the N av aj o N at ionan d t he 7 U nit ed

S ta te s—f

ro m uni de nti fi ed

sourc es . 12 8 (Em ph as is ad de d.) 9 { 42} Inf

ac t the U nit ed St ate s c le ar ly c re at ed a nd p ro duc ed

the te ch nic al a nd 10 extrem ely

expensive hy drologi cal report, and the State E ngin eer followed the usual 11 pr oc edur e o f ad op ti ng it

. See N MS A 1978 , § 72- 4- 16 (1 919)

. T he a lle ga tio n th at the 12 court fraudulently subs tituted a fake hy drographic survey alleges a felony i n New 13 Mex ic o and is ap pr op ria te ly sub ject t o ju di ci al san ct io ns . See NMS A 1978, § 30-22-5 14 (2 003) ; se e als o M

art in v

. E ssr ig , 277 P
. 3d 8 57, 860 -6 1 ( Co lo. App. 201 1) ; P et er s 15 v. Pine M

eadow Ranch Hom e A ss’n , 200 7 U T 2, ¶ 23, 151 P
. 3d 9 62. Appe llants ’ 16 cl ai m s a lle gin g w ill fu l m isc ondu ct by the dis tr ic t cour t ar e re j ec te d, a nd Appe llants ’ 17 counsel is st rongly adm onish ed not to adv ance any such frivolou s and unfou nded 18 accusations in th e future.31

1 { 43} Likew ise , Ap pellants’ allegations regarding ex parte contact are equally off 2 base. Appellants’ counsel states it ap p ea rs violation s of the prohibit ion against ex 3 parte com

m unication ha v e “ co ntributed to m any instances in thi s and other cases 4 w he re the ba si c rights of w at er ow ne rs ha ve be ensa cr if ic ed to ac co m

m oda te the 5 interests of the OS E. ” Appellants’ counsel further posits the questio n, “ Did the O SE 6 en ga ge in ex part e co nta ct s to co nvi nc e the j udge that i t w oul d be too e xpe nsi ve f or 7 the three governm ents to search rea dily available public re co rd s? ” E ven m ore 8 out rageou sly , w ith out

e sta bli shi ng any

ba sis f or the a cc usa tio n of

e x part e co nta ct , 9 Appellants’ counsel goes on to sm ear the district j udge by stating, “ [t] he j udge never 10 m ad e an y

di sc lo su res , and ne ve r ex pl ai ne d wh y no t.” 11 { 44} Tr

uth is n ot a m atter of c onveni ence. “ Lawy ers ar e office rs of the court and are 1 2 a l w a ys u n d e r

a n o b l i g a t i o n t o b e t r

u t h f u l ” w i t h t h e j u d i c i a l f

o r u m. I n re Ste in , 200 8- 13 N MS C- 013, ¶

35, 143 N
. M. 462, 177 P
. 3d 5 13 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n 14 om itted). Making such allegations without offering a shred of proof is unprofessional 15 an d u ne th ic al

. In re V

en ie , 201 7-NMS C-018, ¶ 22, 3 95 P. 3d 516. Appellant’ s counsel 16 is cautioned th at, in the future, such unsupp orted accusations and eviden ce-f ree 17 spe cu la tio n w ill not

be so pol ite ly ad dr es se d by thi s Co urt, but w ill ins te ad r es ult in 18 sanc tio ns.32

1 CON CLU SION 2 { 45} For the above stated rea sons this Court affirm s the order of the di strict court 3 fi ndi ng the S ettle m en t wa s fa ir , ad equa te , re as ona ble , an d cons ist en t wi th the pub lic 4 in te res t as well as a ll ap pl ic ab le New Mex ic o a nd fed eral laws

. 5 { 46} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

6

____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 7 BRU CE D. BLA CK, Judge P ro Tem 8 WE CO NCUR:

9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 10 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, C hi ef Ju dg e

11

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 12 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e