{ "id": 352276, "name": "FOREST GUARDIANS, a nonprofit corporation; Southwest Environmental Center, a nonprofit corporation; Western Gamebird Alliance, a nonprofit corporation; Bridget Jacober, for herself, and on behalf of her minor children; Rich Atkinson, for himself, and on behalf of his minor children; Mary Lou Jones, for herself, and on behalf of her minor children; and Jeffrey Scott, for himself, and on behalf of his minor children, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ray POWELL, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Public Lands; New Mexico State Land Office; and State of New Mexico, Defendants-Appellees, and New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, a nonprofit organization, on behalf of itself and its members; New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau, a nonprofit corporation, on behalf of itself and its members; and New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, on behalf of itself and its members, Defendants/Intervenors-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Forest Guardians v. Powell", "decision_date": "2001-04-04", "docket_number": "No. 20,758", "first_page": "368", "last_page": "381", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "130 N.M. 368" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "24 P.3d 803" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "2001-NMCA-028" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "1999-NMSC-036", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 106521 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 24" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/128/0154-01" ] }, { "cite": "1997-NMCA-025", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 142268 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 30-32" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/123/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 N.M. 786", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1558829 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "787" }, { "page": "191" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/120/0786-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 N.M. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1558871 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "570" }, { "page": "19" }, { "page": "573" }, { "page": "22", "parenthetical": "\"The Governor may not exercise power that as a matter of state constitutional law infringes on the power properly belonging to the legislature.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/120/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 F.3d 619", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 1366475 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "630-31" }, { "page": "631" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/161/0619-01" ] }, { "cite": "958 F.Supp. 1501", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 877134 ], "weight": 5, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1517-22" }, { "page": "1506" }, { "page": "1509, 1511" }, { "page": "1509" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/958/1501-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 Ariz. 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 216961 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1072" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/197/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "426 U.S. 26", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6174426 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "38" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/426/0026-01" ] }, { "cite": "504 U.S. 555", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11730070 ], "weight": 13, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "560", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "560" }, { "page": "561" }, { "page": "560" }, { "page": "560" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/504/0555-01" ] }, { "cite": "1999-NMSC-005", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 827403 ], "weight": 9, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 13-14" }, { "page": "\u00b614" }, { "page": "\u00b612" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/126/0788-01" ] }, { "cite": "432 U.S. 333", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6179268 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "343" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/432/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 N.M. 764", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1566662 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "774" }, { "page": "360" }, { "page": "774" }, { "page": "360", "parenthetical": "\"We believe that the Act affords Key particular protection based on his existing and ongoing relationship with Chrysler. We do not construe Key's complaint as stating a cause of action based on the particular protection provided that relationship by the Act.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/121/0764-01" ] }, { "cite": "1998-NMSC-031", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 834365 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b632" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/125/0721-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 N.M. 199", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1561356 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "202" }, { "page": "237" }, { "page": "202" }, { "page": "237" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/119/0199-01" ] }, { "cite": "1999-NMSC-044", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 106564 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 9" }, { "page": "\u00b6 9" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/128/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 Ariz. 511", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 216967 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/197/0511-01" ] }, { "cite": "397 U.S. 150", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12050959 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/397/0150-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 N.M. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2830160 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472", "parenthetical": "quoting Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970)" }, { "page": "1323", "parenthetical": "quoting Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/87/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "517 U.S. 544", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11745772 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "551" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/517/0544-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 N.M. 307", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 322316 ], "weight": 12, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/122/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "1996-NMCA-094", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "weight": 5, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 25" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 35-37" }, { "page": "\u00b6 20" }, { "page": "\u00b6 37" }, { "page": "\u00b6 28" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "71 N.M. 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5347429 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "397" }, { "page": "627" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/71/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "240 Cal.Rptr. 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "485" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 Cal.App.3d 157", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2221671 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-3d/195/0157-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 N.M. 762", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1584783 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "767-68", "parenthetical": "holding that Commissioner of Public Lands had authority to bring mandamus action to prevent illegal diversions of trust funds and rejecting contention that only United States Attorney General may enforce trust" }, { "page": "900", "parenthetical": "holding that Commissioner of Public Lands had authority to bring mandamus action to prevent illegal diversions of trust funds and rejecting contention that only United States Attorney General may enforce trust" }, { "page": "767-68" }, { "page": "900" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/56/0762-01" ] }, { "cite": "548 F.2d 911", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 993469 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "914" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/548/0911-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 P. 668", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "weight": 2, "year": 1916, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "670", "parenthetical": "holding that school district was not named beneficiary of federal grant of lands for use and benefit of public schools, but was means of ascertaining otherwise indefinite beneficiaries" }, { "page": "669", "parenthetical": "\"The act of Congress ... created a charitable trust to be administered by the city of Albuquerque, as trustee!,] ... for the use and benefit of the public schools.... The real beneficiaries were, of course, the patrons of the schools and the taxpayers of the school district!.]\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 N.M. 624", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2389139 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1916, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "630", "parenthetical": "holding that school district was not named beneficiary of federal grant of lands for use and benefit of public schools, but was means of ascertaining otherwise indefinite beneficiaries" }, { "page": "628" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/21/0624-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 P. 414", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1917, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "420-21" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 N.M. 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2396180 ], "year": 1917, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "64" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/23/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Stat. 557", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "Stat.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 N.M. 750", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 715083 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "753" }, { "page": "1281" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/111/0750-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 F.3d 1495", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 7413404 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1499" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/48/1495-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 N.M. 641", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1551441 ], "weight": 12, "year": 1926, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "665-66" }, { "page": "1083" }, { "page": "665-66" }, { "page": "1083" }, { "page": "665-66" }, { "page": "1083", "parenthetical": "holding that neither the Enabling Act nor the Constitution gives a taxpayer or citizen standing to sue to enforce the trust provisions of the Act" }, { "page": "650" }, { "page": "1077" }, { "page": "650" }, { "page": "1076", "parenthetical": "holding that individual citizens or taxpayers lack standing to sue to enforce an Enabling Act trust" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/31/0641-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1543, "char_count": 43599, "ocr_confidence": 0.711, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.419723949090697e-07, "percentile": 0.8008758425684277 }, "sha256": "ee9c31a62aba75ccc3513cffe22970b4f39b00d606460bf310753d8d3e2cfde9", "simhash": "1:9a4d2616853816c6", "word_count": 7097 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:57:26.853949+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "I CONCUR: A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge.", "MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part)." ], "parties": [ "FOREST GUARDIANS, a nonprofit corporation; Southwest Environmental Center, a nonprofit corporation; Western Gamebird Alliance, a nonprofit corporation; Bridget Jacober, for herself, and on behalf of her minor children; Rich Atkinson, for himself, and on behalf of his minor children; Mary Lou Jones, for herself, and on behalf of her minor children; and Jeffrey Scott, for himself, and on behalf of his minor children, Plaintiff's-Appellants, v. Ray POWELL, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Public Lands; New Mexico State Land Office; and State of New Mexico, Defendants-Appellees, and New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, a nonprofit organization, on behalf of itself and its members; New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau, a nonprofit corporation, on behalf of itself and its members; and New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, on behalf of itself and its members, Defendants/Intervenors-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nPICKARD, Judge.\n{1} This case presents us with an opportunity to revisit the issue of who, other than the state and federal attorneys general, has standing to sue to enforce the land trust provisions of the Enabling Act, an issue last addressed in Asplund, v. Hannett, 31 N.M. 641, 249 P. 1074 (1926). Plaintiffs are a coalition of environmental conservation groups and parents of children attending New Mexico public schools. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Commissioner of Public Lands, the New Mexico State Land Office, and the State alleging that certain Land Office rules, regulations, and practices violate the Enabling Act, Article XIII of the New Mexico Constitution, and the Land Office\u2019s fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries of the school lands trust. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including lack of standing to sue. The district court granted Defendants\u2019 motion, and Plaintiffs appealed. We hold that (1) the Enabling Act trust is a charitable trust and Plaintiff schoolchildren do not have a special interest in the trust sufficient to confer standing, (2) for the purposes of standing, there is an insufficient causal relationship between the Land Office\u2019s actions and the harm alleged to be suffered by the children, (3) Plaintiff conservation groups are not within the zone of interests to be protected by the Enabling Act or related constitutional provisions, and (4) the issues presented by this ease do not rise to level of great public importance such that we would be justified in dispensing with the traditional requirements of standing. We affirm.\nBackground\n{2} Plaintiffs Forest Guardians, Southwest Environmental Center, and Western Game-bird Alliance are environmental conservation groups whose primary interests are to restore and promote biological diversity on public lands. In addition, Forest Guardians and Southwest Environmental Center have bid on State school trust lands and have expressed an intention to continue bidding on lands that the groups consider ecologically significant. Plaintiffs Bridget Jaeober, Rich Atkinson, Mary Lou Jones, and Jeffrey Scott are individual parents of New Mexico schoolchildren.\n{3} Plaintiffs filed a complaint in which they sought (1) an injunction prohibiting the leasing of school trust lands without advertisement and public auction, (2) a declaration that \u201call State laws, rules, regulations and practices\u201d relating to six leasing procedures are invalid under the New Mexico Enabling Act and Article XIII of the New Mexico Constitution, and (3) a declaration that the Land Office \u201chas violated their trust obligation by failing to protect the corpus of the trust by allowing state trust lands to deteriorate.\u201d Defendants New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands and New Mexico State Land Office moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, failure to exhaust mandatory administrative remedies, and res judicata. The Commissioner was joined, in a separate brief, by the New Mexico Attorney General. In addition, the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association (NMCGA) intervened over the objections of Plaintiffs and filed their answer to the complaint and their own motion to dismiss. The New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, the New Mexico Public Lands Council, and the New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc. later intervened without objection.\n{4} In their response to Defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs raised the doctrine of \u201cgreat public importance\u201d as an alternative source of standing and requested that the district court accept the case as a writ of mandamus. Defendants\u2019 reply objected to Plaintiffs\u2019 request on the grounds that Plaintiffs had not followed the proper procedural rules for mandamus and argued that Plaintiffs\u2019 claims did not raise questions of \u201cpublic juris\u201d such that the doctrine should be applied. After hearing the parties\u2019 arguments, the district court ruled that Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and granted Defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss. This appeal followed.\nDiscussion\nStandard of Review\n{5} The determination of whether a party has standing to sue is a question of law, which we review de novo. Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495, 1499 (9th Cir.1995). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, we accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party. See New Mexico Life Ins. Guar. Ass\u2019n v. Quinn & Co., 111 N.M. 750, 753, 809 P.2d 1278, 1281 (1991).\nThe Enabling Act\n{6} By the Act of June 20, 1910, 36 Stat. 557, ch. 310 (hereinafter the Enabling Act or the Act), Congress set forth the terms by which New Mexico would be admitted as a state. Under the Act, the federal government granted New Mexico certain lands within the State \u201cfor the support of common schools.\u201d Enabling Act \u00a7 6. By the terms of the grant, these lands were to be held by the State in trust. Id. \u00a7 10, \u00b6 1. The Act set forth the conditions by which trust lands could be sold or leased and established limitations on the uses to which income derived from these lands could be put. The Act made it clear that actions taken in contravention of any provision of the Act would constitute a breach of the trust. Id. \u00b6 2.\n{7} In Asplund, 31 N.M. at 665-66, 249 P. at 1083, our Supreme Court held that neither the Enabling Act nor the Constitution gives a taxpayer or citizen standing to sue to enforce the trust provisions of the Act. Plaintiffs argue that Asplund is not controlling based on the status and harms peculiar to the two classes of plaintiffs here. First, Plaintiffs assert that the schoolchildren\u2019s status as the beneficiaries of the Enabling Act trust is sufficient to confer standing to sue for the Land Office\u2019s alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Second, recognizing that under trust law the conservation groups would lack standing, Plaintiffs remind us that the Enabling Act was incorporated into the New Mexico Constitution and assert standing based on the potential harm caused to them by the Land Office\u2019s ongoing rejection of the conservation groups\u2019 applications to lease trust lands. Third, Plaintiffs allege standing on behalf of the schoolchildren based on the allegations that the Land Office\u2019s practices result in less funding being available to the public schools, as well as the children\u2019s constitutional right to a free education. We will address each argument in turn.\nTrust Law\n{8} The Enabling Act, the New Mexico State Constitution, and case law make it clear that the lands granted under the Act as well as the profits to be derived from these lands are to be held in trust for the benefit of named institutions. See Enabling Act, \u00a7 10, \u00b6 1; N.M. Const, art. XIII, \u00a7 1; N.M. Const, art. XXI, \u00a7 9; Asplund, 31 N.M. at 665-66, 249 P. at 1083. Although Plaintiffs and Defendants accept this basic proposition, the parties disagree about the nature of the trust and the concomitant issues of the identity of the beneficiaries and the standing of these alleged beneficiaries to enforce the trust. Plaintiffs argue that the law of private trusts controls our decision, and they advance New Mexico public schoolchildren as the true beneficiaries of the trust as opposed to the State itself or the \u201ceducational bureaucracy.\u201d The State Land Office, on the other hand, maintains that the Enabling Act trust is a charitable trust and that the beneficiaries are the citizens of the State. We agree with the Land Office.\n{9} The primary differences between a charitable trust and other private trusts are that a charitable trust may be perpetual, the denominated recipients of the trust income may be indefinite, and the intended beneficiary is the community itself. See Restatement (Second) of Trusts \u00a7 364-65 (1959). The trusts created by the Enabling Act are perpetual. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 19 \u2014 1\u2014 17 (1917) (naming permanent and current funds financed by trust lands); State v. Llewellyn, 23 N.M. 43, 64, 167 P. 414, 420-21 (1917). In addition, the recipients of the trust income, the \u201ccommon schools,\u201d are indefinite. See Bd. of Educ. v. Sch. Dist. No. 5, 21 N.M. 624, 630, 157 P. 668, 670 (1916) (holding that school district was not named beneficiary of federal grant of lands for use and benefit of public schools, but was means of ascertaining otherwise indefinite beneficiaries). Finally, when the grants to support the common schools are read in the context of grants made to other Enabling Act land recipients, such as government buildings and a miners\u2019 hospital, we conclude that the intended beneficiary of the federal land grants is the general citizenry of the State, and that the purpose of the grants was to insure a source of funding to support the construction and maintenance of essential social institutions. See Enabling Act, \u00a7 7 (listing social institutions to be supported by federal land grants). Our conclusion that the Enabling Act trust is a charitable rather than private trust is further supported by our Supreme Court\u2019s analysis of a similar trust created by the federal government to benefit local school districts. See Sch. Dist. No. 5, 21 N.M. at 628, 157 P. at 669 (\u201cThe act of Congress ... created a charitable trust to be administered by the city of Albuquerque, as trustee!,] ... for the use and benefit of the public schools.... The real beneficiaries were, of course, the patrons of the schools and the taxpayers of the school district!.]\u201d).\n{10} Having identified the Enabling Act trust as a charitable trust, we turn to the law of charitable trusts to determine who has standing to sue to enforce the trust. Traditionally, three categories of persons have such standing: (1) the state attorney general or other public officer, (2) a trustee as against co-trustees, and (3) persons having a special interest in the enforcement of the trust. See Restatement, supra \u00a7 391.\n{11} The Enabling Act expanded the group of persons entitled to enforce the trust by reserving, in the grantor United States, the right to enforce the trust by making it the duty of the United States Attorney General to prosecute \u201cin the name of the United States and its courts such proceedings\u201d as may be necessary. Enabling Act, \u00a7 10, \u00b6 8. However, in establishing this duty, the Act provided that \u201c[njothing herein contained shall be taken as in limitation of the power of the state or of any citizen thereof to enforce the provisions of this act.\u201d Id. \u00b6 9. Intervenors argue that, notwithstanding the actual language of the Act, this reservation was intended to restrict standing such that the United States Attorney General is the only person or agency that may sue to enforce the trust. We disagree. We understand the language regarding the Attorney General to simply and expressly trump the common law exclusion of the grantor from enforcement actions and to designate the agency within the federal government that is i'esponsible for bringing suit. See United States v. 41,098.98 Acres of Land, 548 F.2d 911, 914 (10th Cir.1977) (holding that United States is not authorized to collaterally attack State management of school trust lands by condemnation proceedings). As Intervenors concede in them brief, the State, as trustee, retains the power to regulate its own agencies and may also sue to enforce the trust. See, e.g., State ex rel Shepard v. Mechem, 56 N.M. 762, 767-68, 250 P.2d 897, 900 (1952) (holding that Commissioner of Public Lands had authority to bring mandamus action to prevent illegal diversions of trust funds and rejecting contention that only United States Attorney General may enforce trust). With respect to private citizens, we are deciding only the narrow issue before us, namely whether public schoolchildren have a \u201cspecial interest\u201d in the enforcement of the trust such that standing would be justified.\n{12} The limitation on standing to enforce a charitable trust \u201carises from the need to protect the trustee from vexatious litigation, possibly based on an inadequate investigation, by a large, changing, and uncertain class of the public to be benefitted.\u201d Hardman v. Feinstein, 195 Cal.App.3d 157, 240 Cal.Rptr. 483, 485 (1987). The fact that an individual may benefit from a charitable trust is insufficient to confer standing to bring an enforcement action. See Restatement, supra \u00a7 391 cmt. e; see also Asplund, 31 N.M. at 665-66, 249 P. at 1083 (holding that neither the Enabling Act nor the Constitution gives a taxpayer or citizen standing to sue to enforce the trust provisions of the Act). Rather, individuals must show that they have a special and definite interest in the trust or are entitled to receive a benefit. For example, if a charitable trust was created to support the minister of a particular church, the minister would have standing to sue the trustees to enforce the trust. See Restatement, supra \u00a7 391 cmt. c. Likewise, if a trust were created to support a named institution such as a university, the university would have standing to enforce the trust. See id.\n{13} Although the Enabling Act requires that trust income be used exclusively to support the common schools, the Act does not specify how or to which schools this income should be distributed. See Enabling Act, \u00a7 10, \u00b6 2. Ultimately, the amount of funding received by the individual public schools is determined by the district in which the school is located and the Department of Education. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 22-8-4 (1988) (stating that state department of education responsible for controlling preparation of all public school budgets); NMSA 1978, \u00a7 22-8-10 (1993) (requiring local school boards to determine estimated yearly budget for school district). Insofar as a particular public school is not entitled to receive income directly from the Enabling Act trust, Plaintiff schoolchildren are likewise not entitled. Therefore, we conclude that the schoolchildren lack the \u201cspecial interest\u201d necessary to sue to enforce the trust. See Restatement, supra \u00a7 391 cmt. c.\nThe Constitution\n{14} As required by Section 2(1) of the Enabling Act, the State consented to be bound by all provisions of the Act in Article XXI, Section 9 of the New Mexico Constitution, and the Act became \u201cfundamental law to the same extent as if it had been directly incorporated into the Constitution.\u201d State ex rel. Interstate Stream Comm\u2019n v. Reynolds, 71 N.M. 389, 397, 378 P.2d 622, 627 (1963); see also N.M. Const, art. XII, \u00a7 12 (acceptance and use of Enabling Act educational grants). In addition, the State enacted Article XIII, which includes provisions regarding the administration and disposition of public lands, including trust lands. Of particular relevance is Section 1, which provides that all public lands must be \u201cheld or disposed of as may be provided by law for the purposes for which they have been or may be granted.\u201d N.M. Const, art. XIII, \u00a7 1.\n{15} Plaintiffs argue that even if they lack standing as beneficiaries of the Enabling Act trust, as citizens threatened with a unique injury, they nonetheless have standing to mount a facial challenge to Land Office practices that violate articles XIII and XXI. However, as our Supreme Court made clear in Asplund, \u201c[t]he constitutionality of a statute is not in itself a cause of action, nor a head of equity jurisdiction.\u201d 31 N.M. at 650, 249 P. at 1077. To succeed in their quest for standing to mount a facial challenge, therefore, Plaintiffs must meet the traditional requirements for standing.\n{16} \u201cThe requirements for standing derive from constitutional provisions, enacted statutes and rules, and prudential considerations.\u201d John Does I Through III v. Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese, Inc., 1996-NMCA-094, \u00b6 25, 122 N.M. 307, 924 P.2d 273. To acquire standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of \u201c \u2018(1) an injury in fact, (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.\u2019 \u201d Id. \u00b6 28 (quoting United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 551, 116 S.Ct. 1529, 134 L.Ed.2d 758 (1996)). In addition, the interest sought to be protected must be \u201c \u2018arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question.\u2019\u201d De Vargas Sav. & Loan Ass\u2019n v. Campbell, 87 N.M. 469, 472, 535 P.2d 1320, 1323 (1975) (quoting Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970)). Finally, standing may be limited based on prudential consideration. See John Does I Through III, 1996-NMCA-094, \u00b6\u00b6 35-37, 122 N.M. 307, 924 P.2d 273,.\nConservation Groups\n{17} Plaintiffs argue that the conservation groups differ from the plaintiff in Asplund because the groups suffer a particularized harm when their applications to lease trust lands are denied. However, the conservation groups are not alleging standing in relation to a specific, adverse action by the Land Office, which clearly they would have standing as lessees to appeal. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 19-7-67 (1912); see also Forest Guardians v. Wells, 197 Ariz. 511, 4 P.3d 1054 (App.2000) (upholding decisions of Arizona State Land Office Commissioner to deny the appellants\u2019 grazing lease applications). In this case, Plaintiffs are precluded from appealing past denials of their lease applications because they have failed to follow the statutory procedure. See \u00a7 19-7-67 (requiring person aggrieved to file notice of appeal within sixty days of a contested decision). Instead, Plaintiffs assert that the alleged harm is ongoing given that the conservation groups intend to apply for leases of trust lands'in the future and are therefore mounting a facial challenge to the Land Office rules and practices in question.\n{18} In their reply brief, Plaintiffs argue that they need not suffer actual injury to bring a facial constitutional challenge because New Mexico cases have held that the threat of injury is enough. See Am. Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) v. City of Albuquerque, 1999-NMSC-044, \u00b6 9, 128 N.M. 315, 992 P.2d 866; Corn v. New Mexico Educators Fed. Credit Union, 119 N.M. 199, 202, 889 P.2d 234, 237 (Ct.App.1994), overruled on other grounds by Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-031, \u00b632, 125 N.M. 721, 965 P.2d 305. While we agree that the cases cited do support this assertion, we conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to show that the conservation groups are within the zone of interests to be protected by the constitutional provisions at issue in this case, an infirmity not shared by the plaintiffs in ACLU and Com.\n{19} Actual or threatened injury alone is not enough to maintain a particular cause of action. See Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp,, 121 N.M. 764, 774, 918 P.2d 350, 360 (1996); John Does I Through III, 1996\u2014NMCA-094, \u00b6 20, 122 N.M. 307, 924 P.2d 273 (discussing Key). To successfully assert standing, a plaintiff must also show that the injury alleged is within the zone of interests to be protected by a constitutional provision or statute. See Key, 121 N.M. at 774, 918 P.2d at 360 (\u201cWe believe that the Act affords Key particular protection based on his existing and ongoing relationship with Chrysler. We do not construe Key\u2019s complaint as stating a cause of action based on the particular protection provided that relationship by the Act.\u201d). Plaintiffs concede that the provisions of the Enabling Act are not for the benefit of purchasers or lessees of trust land, but are solely for the benefit of the trust itself and for the institutions the trust was created to support. Therefore, although the conservation groups may have standing under different circumstances, such as for making an administrative appeal of a specific adverse decision, they lack standing to make a facial challenge because they are clearly not within the zone of interests to be protected by the Enabling Act or articles XIII and XXI of the Constitution.\n{20} The eases cited by Plaintiffs are consistent with our holding. In ACLU, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff parents and children had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a juvenile curfew ordinance despite the fact that none of the plaintiffs had been arrested under the ordinance. See 1999-NMSC-044, \u00b6 9, 128 N.M. 315, 992 P.2d 866. The due process clause, however, is clearly designed to protect the rights of individuals against the government, and the ordinance at issue in ACLU implicated those very rights. See id. \u00b623. Likewise, our decision in Com recognized that the plaintiffs claim arose from her own rights under the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. See 119 N.M. at 202, 889 P.2d at 237. In both cases, the plaintiffs were asserting rights that were well within the zones of interests to be protected by the constitutional provisions at issue.\n{21} The conservation groups also lack standing to bring a complaint on behalf of them members.\n[A]n association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization\u2019s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.\nHunt v. Washington Apple Adver. Comm\u2019n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977); see also New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, \u00b6\u00b6 13-14, 126 N.M. 788, 975 P.2d 841 (discussing requirements for standing to bring action on behalf of third parties). Plaintiffs do not allege that their members would have standing to sue in their own right. See Asplund, 31 N.M. at 650, 249 P. at 1076 (holding that individual citizens or taxpayers lack standing to sue to enforce an Enabling Act trust). In addition, the interests Plaintiffs seek to protect, namely the right of the school lands trust beneficiaries to the undivided loyalty of the Land Office and to the maximization of profits derived from the leasing of the trust lands, are not directly germane to the conservation groups\u2019 environmental purposes. Cf. New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL, 1999-NMSC-005, \u00b614, 126 N.M. 788, 975 P.2d 841 (holding non-profit organization had sufficient relationship to Medicaid-eligible women whose rights organization sought to assert).\n{22} Our conclusion that the conservation groups lack standing is supported by prudential considerations. The purpose of limiting standing is to avoid burdening the courts with multiple lawsuits over the same issue. To accomplish this purpose, we will limit standing to those parties whose interests will compel them to pursue a claim with the adversarial zeal necessary to clarify the issues. See John Does I Through III, 1996\u2014NMCA-094, \u00b6 37, 122 N.M. 307, 924 P.2d 273. In this case, the interests of the conservation groups are not the same as the beneficiaries of the trust, and it is easy to imagine a situation in which the best action for the trust would be contrary to the conservation groups\u2019 self-avowed missions. Because the purpose of the Enabling Act is to maintain a permanent source of funding for crucial social institutions, it is necessary to limit standing to those individuals or organizations who will further that purpose. In addition, we share the Land Office\u2019s concern that holding that the conservation groups, as past and future lessees of trust lands, have standing to mount a facial constitutional challenge in this case would render the requirements for exhaustion of administrative remedies meaningless.\nSchoolchildren\n{23} Unlike the conservation groups, the schoolchildren are arguably within the zone of interests to be protected by the Enabling Act and the school lands trust. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs must still show that the schoolchildren satisfy the three elements of standing: (1) injury in fact, (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. John Does I Through III, 1996-NMCA-094, \u00b6 28, 122 N.M. 307, 924 P.2d 273. We conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a sufficient causal relationship between the alleged injury and the Land Office\u2019s actions and have not demonstrated that a favorable decision in this ease would result in increased funding to a particular public school or school district.\n{24} Plaintiffs allege that the schoolchildren meet the \u201cinjury in fact\u201d requirement because the Land Office\u2019s policies and practices \u201cdirectly and imminently threaten the amount of funding provided to public education in New Mexico.\u201d Courts have defined the term \u201cinjury in fact\u201d as \u201can invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not \u2018conjectural\u2019 or \u2018hypothetical.\u2019 \u201d Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (citations omitted). The requirement that an injury be particularized means that Plaintiffs must suffer the injury in a personal and individual way. See id. at 560 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Therefore, we understand Plaintiffs to allege that the schoolchildren suffer a harm when the schools which they attend receive less money as a result of the Land Office\u2019s challenged conduct. Plaintiffs remind us that a party may successfully assert standing even when the extent of an alleged injury is slight. See New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL, 1999-NMSC-005, \u00b612, 126 N.M. 788, 975 P.2d 841. We agree that the requirement of proving an injury in fact has been liberally construed by the courts, and we conclude that the Plaintiffs have satisfied this element of standing.\n{25} However, Plaintiffs must also show a causal connection between the injury alleged and the conduct of which they complain. \u201c[T]he injury has to be fairly ... traee[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.\u2019 \u201d Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (internal citations omitted). Similarly, \u201cit must be \u2018likely,\u2019 as opposed to merely \u2018speculative,\u2019 that the injury will be \u2018redressed by a favorable decision.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (quoting Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976)). We conclude that even if Plaintiffs\u2019 lawsuit was successful and the Land Office amended its rules and practices to increase income to the school lands trust, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the result would be an actual increase in the funds available to individual public schools or school districts.'\n{26} The income generated by the leasing of school trust lands does not go directly to individual schools or districts, but is deposited in a series of funds before being disbursed pursuant to a complicated school budgeting process. First, the income is deposited in a \u201cstate lands maintenance fund,\u201d from which Land Office expenses are paid. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 19-1-11 & 12 (1989). Once a month, any remaining balance attributable to the school trust lands is transferred from the maintenance to the \u201ccommon school current fund.\u201d See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 19-1-20 (1996). Money from the \u201ccommon school current fund\u201d is then transferred to either the \u201cpublic school utility conservation fund,\u201d NMSA 1978, \u00a7 6-23-7 (1997) or the \u201ccurrent school fund,\u201d NMSA 1978, \u00a7 22-8-32 (1976). The current school fund also includes money receiv\u00e9d from all fines and forfeitures collected under general laws as well as the proceeds of property coming to the state by escheat. Id. Once a month, any unencumbered balance in the current school fund is transferred to the \u201cpublic school fund.\u201d Id. The public school fund receives additional income from a variety of sources. See, e.g., \u00a7 22-8-12.1(0(2) (holding Department responsible for recommending legislative appropriations for public school fund). Finally, the public school fund is allocated to individual school districts through three distribution programs. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 22-8-14 (1988). Any money remaining in the public school fund at the end of a fiscal year reverts to a general fund. Id.\n{27} The distribution of the public school fund among the various school districts is a complex process. See, e.g., NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 22-8-1 through 42 (1953, as amended through 2000) (Public School Finance Act). Each local school board is required to prepare and submit estimated yearly budgets, using a manual compiled by the Department of Education (the Department). See \u00a7\u00a7 22-8-5, -6, -10, 12.1. These proposed budgets are then reviewed, amended and approved by the Department, see \u00a7\u00a7 22-8-11, -12, -12.1, which ultimately decides how public school funds are allocated to the individual school districts, see \u00a7 22-8-15(A). Therefore, the funds available to a school district or individual school are dependent not only on the amount of revenue generated by the school trust lands and other State programs, but also on Department policies and procedures as well as decisions by the Department and local school boards. Given the complexity of this process, we conclude that there is not a sufficient causal relationship between the Land Office\u2019s actions and the amount of funding given to a particular school, much less the amount of funds devoted to a particular child\u2019s education. Furthermore, we are convinced that a judgment in Plaintiffs\u2019 favor could be rendered moot by the actions of local school board members and Department officials who are not a party to this lawsuit, but whose decisions and actions directly affect school funding. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130.\n{28} Plaintiffs cite to several out-of-state cases in support of their allegations that the schoolchildren suffer a redressable injury. See Jeffries v. Hassell, 197 Ariz. 151, 3 P.3d 1071 (App.1999); Branson Sch. Dist. RE-82 v. Romer (Branson I), 958 F.Supp. 1501 (D.Colo.1997), aff'd Branson Sch. Dist. RE-82 v. Romer (Branson II), 161 F.3d 619 (10th Cir.1998). In Jeffries, the plaintiff taxpayers with children attending Arizona public schools sued the Commissioner of the Arizona State Land Department, alleging that certain policies and practices regarding the leasing of school trust lands violated the Enabling Act, the Arizona Constitution, and the State\u2019s fiduciary obligations to the trust beneficiaries, \u201cthe public schools of Arizona.\u201d 3 P.3d at 1072. Although Plaintiffs concede that the Jeffries opinion does not discuss the issue of standing, they assert that \u201cthe failure to mention any problems ... supports the contention that schoolchildren and them parents ... have standing.\u201d We disagree. \u201cAlthough the fact that the [plaintiff] was a party in the proceeding may represent an implicit determination that it had standing, we should not rely on a decision as authority with regard to matters not addressed in the opinion.\u201d John Does I Through III, 1996\u2014 NMCA-094, \u00b6 21, 122 N.M. 307, 924 P.2d 273.\n{29} In Branson I, the plaintiff school districts and public schoolchildren sued to enjoin the enforcement of an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that the plaintiffs alleged would violate the terms of the Colorado Enabling Act and would change the fiduciary duties of the State in managing school trust lands. See 958 F.Supp. at 1517-22.' The defendants challenged the plaintiffs\u2019 standing to bring the action on several grounds, including that the plaintiffs\u2019 alleged injury was too speculative. See id. at 1506. The district court ruled that the potential for loss of revenue to the permanent school fund was a sufficient injury and rejected the state\u2019s argument that any loss of revenue caused by the Amendment would be made up for by legislative appropriations. See id. at 1509, 1511. In affirming the district court\u2019s ruling, .the Tenth Circuit declined to address the finding that the loss of revenue was a sufficient injury, holding instead that the Amendment created a conflict in the loyalty of the school lands trustees, which was enough to confer standing. See Branson II, 161 F.3d at 630-31.\n{30} We are not persuaded by the Bran-son line of cases for several reasons. First, the plaintiffs in Branson sought to invalidate a constitutional amendment that \u201cinjected a series of conflicting interests into the management of the school lands trust.\u201d Branson II, 161 F.3d at 631. The fact that the action at issue in Branson was a constitutional amendment approved by the people of Colorado raises questions of whether the attorney general or any other state official would act to enforce the school lands trust, given the potential conflict between the will of the voters and the interests of the public school beneficiaries. In addition, the federal government did not reserve the right to sue to enforce the Colorado Enabling Act trust, as it did in New Mexico. As such, had the Branson courts not afforded the plaintiffs standing to contest the amendment, it is unclear whether anyone else would have had standing or interest to do so. In the ease at bar, however, we are not faced with this concern. The state and federal attorneys general clearly have the power, the duty, and the public\u2019s interest to enforce the New Mexico school lands trust should the Land Office or any other agency seek to violate the terms of the trust. Plaintiffs could have asked either attorney general to review this case and bring an action on them behalf or in the name of the government. Plaintiffs assert that their reason for not pursuing this alternative was the unlikelihood that a State official would sue another State agency. However, New Mexico ease law is replete with examples of the Attorney General and other State officials bringing actions to compel government officials to perform necessary duties or to refrain from acting illegally. See, e.g., State ex rel Shepard v. Mechem, 56 N.M. 762, 767-68, 250 P.2d 897, 900 (1952); State ex rel Clark v. Johnson, 120 N.M. 562, 570, 904 P.2d 11, 19 (1995); State ex rel Udall v. Pub. Employees Ret. Bd., 120 N.M. 786, 787, 907 P.2d 190, 191 (1995).\n{31} In addition, we note that a school district was a plaintiff in Branson. Although we are not clear that the law supports a holding that a school district satisfies the requirements for standing, we do note that by including the district as a plaintiff, the plaintiffs in Branson eliminated a third party whose independent actions might render the alleged injury incapable of redress by court action. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130.\n{32} Finally, given that New Mexico\u2019s public school budget process is complex, we are in fact persuaded by the argument rejected by the Court in Branson I: that the injury of lost revenue could be made up by legislative appropriations. See 958 F.Supp. at 1509. If there was any evidence that income from the school trust lands was paid directly to a school or district, we might conclude that there was a causal relationship between the Land Office\u2019s alleged mismanagement and the funding available to local schools. However, in reviewing Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint, we see no such evidence, and our canvas of the applicable law demonstrates the unlikelihood of such evidence existing. We conclude that the Plaintiff schoolchildren have failed to allege a causal connection sufficient to support standing.\n{33} Finally, Plaintiffs\u2019 argument that the schoolchildren\u2019s constitutional right to a free education provides a legal basis for asserting standing was not raised below and therefore will not be considered on appeal. See Spectron Dev. Lab. v. Am. Hollow Boring Co., 1997-NMCA-025, \u00b6\u00b6 30-32, 123 N.M. 170, 936 P.2d 852 (holding that normal rules of preservation apply to review of district court\u2019s ruling on a motion to dismiss). We note, however, that were we to reach this argument, we would likely agree with Defendants that Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts in support of their assertion that the schoolchildren have been effectively denied their right to a free education.\nGreat Public Importance\n{34} We agree with Plaintiffs that the doctrine of \u201cgreat public importance\u201d may be applicable to cases other than applications for writs of mandamus. It is unnecessary for us to reach this issue, however, because we conclude that the injuries alleged by Plaintiffs do not rise to the level of great public importance, as described by our Supreme Court. See State ex rel. Coll v. John son, 1999-NMSC-036, 128 N.M. 154, 990 P.2d 1277.\n{35} Plaintiffs seek to compel the Commissioner to comply with his duties under the Enabling Act and the Constitution, alleging that the Commissioner\u2019s administration of grazing leases on the school trust lands results in less income for the public schools. In Coll, our Supreme Court made it clear that \u201cthe fact that a case involves a duty that state officials owe to the general public as a whole is not sufficient to show that the case involves an issue of great public importance.\u201d Id. \u00b6 21. Instead, the doctrine is reserved for those cases involving \u201cclear threats to the essential nature of state government guaranteed to New Mexico citizens under their Constitution.\u201d Id. Plaintiffs have not alleged that the Commissioner is infringing on the power properly belonging to another branch of government. See, e.g., Johnson, 120 N.M. at 573, 904 P.2d at 22 (\u201cThe Governor may not exercise power that as a matter of state constitutional law infringes on the power properly belonging to the legislature.\u201d). Without some indication that the challenged conduct threatens the integrity of state government or \u201cthe state\u2019s definition of \u2022itself as sovereign,\u201d we will not \u201callow Plaintiffs\u2019 invocation of the great public interest doctrine to blind us to traditional standards of justiciability.\u201d Coll, 1999-NMSC-036, \u00b6 24, 128 N.M. 154, 990 P.2d 1277.\nConclusion\n{36} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.\n{37} IT IS SO ORDERED.\nI CONCUR: A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge.\nMICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part).", "type": "majority", "author": "PICKARD, Judge." }, { "text": "BUSTAMANTE, Judge\n(concurring in part and dissenting in part).\n{38} I fully concur in the majority\u2019s disposition of the conservation groups\u2019 claims, but I cannot agree with denying standing to the schoolchildren. The majority opinion applies our standing case law too cautiously and in the process essentially voids that provision of Section 10 of the Enabling Act which reserves the \u201cpower ... of any citizen [of the State] to enforce the provisions of this act.\u201d If schoolchildren \u2014 the real beneficiaries of the Act \u2014 cannot bring suit as citizens, no citizen can. I believe the majority has been led into error by its definition of the harm asserted by the schoolchildren. That error in turn leads to difficulties in its discussion of the remedy sought or available.\n{39} The core of the majority\u2019s concern is that even if the Land Office increased income to the school land\u2019s trust, there is no way to establish that there \u201cwould be an actual increase in the funds\u201d given to schools. Given the complex process of budgetary allocation and appropriation \u2014 which the majority accurately describes \u2014 I agree that no one can assert that a dollar of increased income will result in a dollar of increased money appropriated to any particular school or child. But this uncertainty is not fatal to standing because it focuses on the wrong part of the process.\n{40} The schoolchildren\u2019s focus as stated in their complaint is on the amount of income generated by the trust lands; that is, on the amount of revenues provided to the complex process which results in specific appropriations. The final form of educational appropriation is a political process which the judiciary should not intrude upon. However, that process is of necessity affected by the total resources made available to it. To assert that increasing income from the trust lands is not a real remedy is an implicit assertion that the entity responsible for allocation of resources will not comply with the Enabling Act\u2019s requirement that all trust fund income be applied for the support of the schools in New Mexico. If we are to engage in assumptions, I choose to assume that increased income will be applied positively. Thus, increasing income at its source is a real remedy which can be provided through the exercise of conventional judicial process, depending, of course, on proof. Focusing on the source of income as the object of the litigation obviates all of the majority\u2019s concerns as to causation and remedy.\n{41} The majority\u2019s focus on the political processes leading to appropriation in any event proves too much. Given the complexities of the process and the impossibility of predicting or tracing income to allocation, an argument could be made that the State Attorney General and the United States Attorney do not have proper standing to make the same challenge the schoolchildren are attempting to bring here. After all, the uncertainty relied upon by the majority would infect their efforts to increase income also. I do not believe such a challenge would be successful were a claim to be brought by the Attorney General or the United States Attorney. Similarly, I do not believe it should deny these schoolchildren the ability to make them case.\n{42} Finally, the majority expresses some comfort in the notion that there are other parties who can bring these claims. I do not understand why the theoretical availability of other persons who may have standing should defeat efforts by the schoolchildren to get the same issues heard. Despite their assumed ability to do so, no state or federal agency to date has raised the claims made by the schoolchildren here. I see no judicial economies or societal efficiencies to be gained by deferring to entities who to all appearances have no intention of acting in the foreseeable future. It is odd indeed to refuse standing here because the Attorney General \u2014 who is defending this ease vigorously\u2014 has the power to make the claim these schoolchildren are already making. Fearing that the issues will never be heard, I respectfully dissent.", "type": "concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part", "author": "BUSTAMANTE, Judge" } ], "attorneys": [ "Steven C. Sugarman, Santa Fe, NM, James J. Tutchton, Earthlaw, Denver, CO, for Appellants.", "Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, Katherine M. Moss, Ass\u2019t Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee State of New Mexico.", "Kelly Brooks, Stephen G. Hughes, Special Ass\u2019t Attorneys General, New Mexico State Land Office, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellees Ray Powell and New Mexico State Land Office.", "Lee E. Peters, Hubert & Hernandez, P.A., Las Cruces, NM, for Intervenors-Appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "2001-NMCA-028\n24 P.3d 803\nFOREST GUARDIANS, a nonprofit corporation; Southwest Environmental Center, a nonprofit corporation; Western Gamebird Alliance, a nonprofit corporation; Bridget Jacober, for herself, and on behalf of her minor children; Rich Atkinson, for himself, and on behalf of his minor children; Mary Lou Jones, for herself, and on behalf of her minor children; and Jeffrey Scott, for himself, and on behalf of his minor children, Plaintiff's-Appellants, v. Ray POWELL, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Public Lands; New Mexico State Land Office; and State of New Mexico, Defendants-Appellees, and New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, a nonprofit organization, on behalf of itself and its members; New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau, a nonprofit corporation, on behalf of itself and its members; and New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, on behalf of itself and its members, Defendants/Intervenors-Appellees.\nNo. 20,758.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 4, 2001.\nCertiorari Denied, No. 26,915, May 22, 2001.\nSteven C. Sugarman, Santa Fe, NM, James J. Tutchton, Earthlaw, Denver, CO, for Appellants.\nPatricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, Katherine M. Moss, Ass\u2019t Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee State of New Mexico.\nKelly Brooks, Stephen G. Hughes, Special Ass\u2019t Attorneys General, New Mexico State Land Office, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellees Ray Powell and New Mexico State Land Office.\nLee E. Peters, Hubert & Hernandez, P.A., Las Cruces, NM, for Intervenors-Appellees." }, "file_name": "0368-01", "first_page_order": 406, "last_page_order": 419 }