to preserve interstate comity among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, establishes minimum amounts of Rio Grande water that must be delivered to gauging stations along the river’s length from north to south. See § 72-15-23. Since the signing of the Compact, all waters of the Rio Grande have been fully appropriated. Reynolds, 1962-NMSC-173, ¶ 12. The OSE, as the steward of New Mexico’s obligations under the Compact, must ensure that it approves only those applications that are “not contrary to the conservation of water within the state and . . . not detrimental to the public welfare of the state[.]” Section 72-5-6; see Montgomery, 2007-NMSC-002, ¶ 15 (discussing rules promulgated by the OSE to ensure compliance with the Compact); Heine v. Reynolds, 1962-NMSC-002, 69 N.M. 398, 367 P.2d 708 (<HOLDING>). In Montgomery, as opposed to this case, the
holding that the ose has a positive duty to determine whether an application impairs existing water rights holding that with respect to judicialenforcement provision in clean water act limiting courts to enforcementj of existing standards and orders the authority to enforce an existing requirement is more than the authority to declare that the requirement exists and repeat that it must be followed holding that district court has discretion to determine whether it could reasonably be said that an emergency exists holding that preelection claims that an initiative is unconstitutional on its face because it draws an unreasonable distinction between electrical corporations and other utilities constitutes a taking without due process of law is retrospective in effect impairs existing contract rights and is preempted by federal legislation are not ripe for decision holding that the analysis to determine whether a claimant has established a reasonable basis to plead a claim for punitive damages is similar to the analysis applied to determine whether the allegations of a complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action