AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Applicant, Santa Fe Water Resource Alliance, LLC, purchased water rights from Augustine and Arlene Wagner and petitioned the State Engineer to change the point of diversion of the Wagner's declared right from Socorro County to a point north of Santa Fe and for a change of use from agricultural to municipal. The State Engineer granted the application but for significantly less water than the Applicant claimed it was entitled to. The Applicant appealed to the district court, which reversed the State Engineer's decision and granted the Applicant's petition in full. The Applicant then moved to tax its costs against the State Engineer, which the district court granted (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: The district court reversed the State Engineer's decision and granted the Applicant's petition in full. It also granted the Applicant's motion to tax its costs against the State Engineer.

Parties' Submissions

• Applicant/Appellant-Appellee: Argued that it was entitled to change the point of diversion and use of the water rights it purchased from the Wagners for a significantly larger amount of water than the State Engineer granted. After winning in district court, argued for the taxation of its litigation costs against the State Engineer (paras 3, 5-6).
• Appellee/Appellant (State Engineer): Contended that the district court had no statutory authority to tax the Applicant's costs against the State Engineer and, even if it did, the district court abused its discretion in awarding costs in this case (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had statutory authority to tax the Applicant's litigation costs against the State Engineer.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding costs to the Applicant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to tax the Applicant's costs against the State Engineer (para 43).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge concurring):
  The court addressed the State Engineer's argument regarding the lack of statutory authority for taxing costs against it, despite the issue not being preserved at the district court level, due to its public importance (paras 7-9).
  The court found that Section 72-7-1(D) gives district courts the authority to tax costs in the same manner as in other district court cases, which includes the ability to tax costs against the State Engineer (paras 10-30).
  The court rejected the State Engineer's argument that appeals from its decisions are not "civil actions or proceedings of any kind" and therefore not subject to the general statute on the taxation of costs, finding this interpretation would render the text of Section 72-7-1(D) superfluous (paras 20-24).
  The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs against the State Engineer, rejecting the Engineer's policy arguments against such awards as not sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion (paras 32-41).