Opinion ID: 891708
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Enabling Act's Plain Language Limits Land Disposals

Text: {34} Although Section 10 of the Enabling Act never used the word exchange until the word was specifically added in an amendment to give the Land Commissioner exchange power with the Secretary of the Interior, the Land Commissioner interprets the word dispos[e] in Section 10 as a general, implicit grant of authority beyond sales or leases to include exchanges. Under that interpretation, the authority to exchange would only be conditioned upon an appraisal of the exchange lands and obtaining at least the appraised value in exchange for the state lands; there would be no companion requirement of notice and public auction to the highest and best bidder. The Land Commissioner reasons that an exchange is a form of disposal, not expressly prohibited by the Enabling Act, and thus it falls within his general disposal authority. {35} We reject the Land Commissioner's interpretation. We cannot accept the notion that use of the word dispose[d] in Section 10 grants additional, residual authority to convey trust land beyond a sale or lease. Significantly, Section 10 of the Enabling Act requires that disposals occur only in the manner provided herein, thus limiting, rather than broadly granting, the Land Commissioner's power to dispose. The word dispose appears three times in Section 10 of the Enabling Act: [A]ll lands hereby granted . . . shall be . . . held in trust, to be disposed of in whole or in part only in manner as herein provided and for the several objects specified in the respective granting and confirmatory provisions. . . Disposition of any of said lands . . . for any object other than that for which such particular lands, or the lands from which such money or thing of value shall have been derived, were granted or confirmed, or in any manner contrary to the provisions of this act, shall be deemed a breach of trust . . . All lands, leaseholds, timber and other products of land before being offered shall be appraised at their true value, and no sale or other disposal thereof shall be made for a consideration less than the value so ascertained . . . . (Emphasis added.) The first two uses explicitly negate an expansive interpretation. They direct the reader to the Act's limitations (lands are to be disposed of . . . only in manner as herein provided and [disposition. . . in any manner contrary . . . shall be deemed a breach of trust). Any infraction of the Act's limited bounds is prohibited as a breach of trust. {36} The third use of disposal specifies the manner in which disposals of land should occur. It directs that land trust holdings shall be appraised and no sale or other disposal shall be made for a consideration less than appraised value. The Land Commissioner is correct to interpret this passage as requiring an appraisal before any transaction involving state trust land, not only for sales but also for leases. Because leaseholds are also expressly contemplated in Section 10, sale or other disposal is necessary language to include such conveyances. The phrase or other disposal, does not create, however, a new universe of possible disposals, such as swaps or exchanges, exempt from the conditions required for sales and leases. We have repeatedly recognized that [w]here authority is given to do a particular thing and a mode of doing it is prescribed, it is limited to be done in that mode; all other modes are excluded. This is a part of the so-called doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Fernandez v. Espanola Pub. Sch. Dist., 2005-NMSC-026, ¶ 6, 138 N.M. 283, 119 P.3d 163 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {37} The Enabling Act's plain language is more than sufficient to establish the absence of any implicit grant of land exchange power. Despite this, we put forth the congressional history showing the factors that formed the Act's restrictions and the election history that demonstrates voter intent to refrain from amending the Act to allow for land transfers. These histories further illustrate the intended limitations on the Land Commissioner's disposal of land.