Opinion ID: 1387075
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mutual domestic water consumer associations

Text: The statutory history of the term mutual domestic water consumer association demonstrates not only that the term has virtually disappeared from New Mexico law since 1965, but also that Morningstar's status as a water users' association is the product of a totally different statutory genealogy than the one to which mutual domestics belong. Mutual domestics can be traced to the precursors of the Sanitary Projects Act, Sections 3-29-1 to -19. According to the current SPA, the definition of an SPA association includes any association organized under Laws 1947, Chapter 206, Laws 1949, Chapter 79 or Laws 1951, Chapter 52, as well as any association organized under the provisions of the Sanitary Projects Act. Section 3-29-2(B). The 1947, 1949, and 1951 laws are the direct lineal ancestors of the SPA. The 1947 laws appear to have first created the entity called a Mutual Domestic Water Consumers' Association. The purpose of this act was to fund rural community water service projects. [1] This body of law was not called the Sanitary Projects Act. The 1947 laws were repealed by the 1949 laws, [2] and the 1949 laws were repealed by the 1951 laws. [3] Mutual domestics continued to be the subject of regulation in each successive body of law. The 1951 laws were repealed in 1957, [4] and for the first time these enactments were called the Sanitary Projects Act. The 1957 act expanded state funding beyond mutual domesticswhich provided only water servicesto include funding of sewer projects. The 1957 SPA was amended in 1965. [5] This version of the act created the sanitary projects fund to finance the provisions of the SPA. 1965 N.M.Laws, Ch. 300, § 14-28-10. At the same time, the law directed that the balance of the then existing mutual domestic water consumers association fund was to be transferred into the new SPA fund. Id. With the 1965 amendments, the term Mutual Domestic Water Consumers' Association(s) made its last appearance in the SPA. Though we know of no scholarly studies of this mesmerizing area of law, we believe that after the 1965 laws were enacted no new mutual domestics were formed. Nevertheless, the SPA as now codified and amended, is the governing statute for mutual domestics, should any still be in existence. Cf. N.M.Att'y Gen.Op. 62-99 (1962) (discussing the SPA as governing the conduct of a Water Consumers Association). Mutual domestics are at issue in this case because the term was, without explanation, included in the 1990 amendments to Section 62-9-1 of the PUA. See 1990 N.M.Laws, ch. 95. Only by showing that it is a mutual domestic, can Morningstar, under the PUA, claim protection from Farmington's intrusions. It is important to clarify that the PUA does not regulate any SPA association. El Vadito, 115 N.M. at 788, 858 P.2d at 1267. However, the PUA does expressly protect one type of SPA associationmutual domesticsfrom intrusion by a public utility. See 62-9-1. Morningstar raises the legitimate point that, of all the types of utilities organized under the SPA, it is odd that only mutual domestics formed before 1965 should be singled out for protection in the PUA. Moreover, the term mutual domestic water consumer association is not defined anywhere in the current New Mexico statutes. It is arguable that the legislature intended the expression mutual domestic water consumer association to signify that any water provider formed under the SPA should be protected by Section 62-9-1. However, the language of the statute encourages no such interpretation. The statute explicitly protects only mutual domestics and we must presume that the legislature intended this limited scope. Nevertheless, because Morningstar is not a mutual domestic or any other kind of SPA provider, these questions are irrelevant to this case.