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 case involves a settlement in the San Juan River General Stream Adjudication, resolving the largest water rights claim in New Mexico. The settlement followed decades of litigation and extensive negotiation, including public hearings and congressional approval through the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The Settlement aimed to review and enter a partial final decree on the terms of the Settlement by a New Mexico district court before a specified deadline (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee State of New Mexico, New Mexico Office of the State Engineer: Argued in support of the Settlement, emphasizing its fairness, adequacy, and consistency with public interest and applicable laws (para 3).
• Appellee United States of America: Supported the Settlement, contributing to the legal and procedural framework established by Congress (para 2).
• Appellee Navajo Nation: Participated in the negotiation of the Settlement, which was aimed at resolving water rights claims (para 2).
• Appellants B Square Ranch et al.: Challenged the Settlement, arguing it awarded the Navajo Nation substantially more water rights than it could secure at trial and contended that the Settlement deprived them of their water rights in violation of constitutional due process (paras 4-5, 7-9).
• Appellants McCarty Trust et al.: Relied on the arguments and research of other appellants and raised a unique issue regarding the ethical conduct of an attorney representing certain groups in the Settlement (paras 17-20).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Settlement Agreement awards the Navajo Nation substantially more water rights than it could secure at trial, thereby violating the appellants' due process rights (para 5).
• Whether the appellants were denied substantive due process in the approval of the Settlement Agreement (para 5).
• Whether the appellants were denied procedural due process in the discovery process and the scheduling of the final order (paras 10-16).
• Whether an attorney acted unethically by accepting a fee under the Acequia and Community Ditch Fund Act while allegedly representing individual members of certain groups without their direct retention (paras 18-20).

Disposition

• The district court's decision to approve the Settlement was affirmed (para 22).

Reasons

• Judge Bruce D. Black, with concurrence from Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi and Judge J. Miles Hanisee: The court found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient legal authority or evidence for the majority of their issues, effectively waiving any challenge to those determinations (para 4). On the substantive due process claim, the court held that the evidence did not support the appellants' position that they were deprived of their water rights, noting that the Navajo Nation had made concessions that were beneficial to the appellants (paras 5-9). Regarding procedural due process, the court determined that the appellants had ample opportunity for discovery and that their claims of insufficient time were unreasonable given the timeline of events (paras 10-15). On the issue raised by the McCarty Trust, the court clarified that an individual member of an association is not a client of the association's attorney without an individual contract and dismissed the ethical concerns raised (paras 18-21).