Opinion ID: 2633768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: stennis could challenge the 1999 ordinance through a declaratory judgment action without first applying for city authorization

Text: {14} The City claims that Stennis lacks standing to bring the underlying declaratory judgment action because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The City made an identical argument in Smith, 2007-NMSC-055, ¶ 11, 142 N.M. 786, 171 P.3d 300. Therein, we concluded that a declaratory judgment action is an appropriate method for challenging the constitutionality or validity of local laws or ordinances when it does not require fact-finding by the administrative agency. Id. ¶¶ 14-16. Stennis, like the plaintiffs in Smith, simply asked the district court to determine whether the City's attempt to regulate the permitting of domestic wells within the City's municipal limits was appropriate in light of existing state statutes concerning the regulation of wells. Id. ¶ 18. Furthermore, since Stennis never sought a permit from the City, this declaratory judgment action is not an attempt to circumvent administrative appellate procedures. See id. ¶ 25. Because Stennis falls under the rule announced in Smith, we conclude that she has standing to bring this declaratory judgment action challenging the City's authority to enact the 1999 Ordinance and proceed to address the merits of her claim.