N.M. Stat. » Chapter 11 — Intergovernmental Agreements and Authorities
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 11-1-2 (2026)

Definitions

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in the Joint Powers Agreements Act:

A. "public agency" means the federal government or a federal department, agency or instrumentality; this state, another state or a state department, agency or instrumentality; an Indian nation, tribe or pueblo; a subdivision of an Indian nation, tribe or pueblo that has authority pursuant to the law of that Indian nation, tribe or pueblo to enter into joint powers agreements directly with the state; a county, municipality, public corporation or public district of this state or another state; a New Mexico educational institution specified in Article 12, Section 11 of the constitution of New Mexico; and a New Mexico school district;

B. "agreement" means a written contractual agreement entered into between two or more public agencies subject to a constitutional or legislative restriction imposed upon any of the contracting public agencies, but the Joint Powers Agreements Act does not authorize an interstate water supply agreement or limit the powers of an interstate water compact commission, the interstate stream commission or the state engineer, and it does not limit the powers of a state agency or political subdivision to enter into agreements with the interstate stream commission or the state engineer; C. "bonds" means revenue bonds;

D. "bondholder" means a person who is the bearer of an outstanding bond or the owner of bonds that are at the time registered to other than the bearer;

E. "indenture" means the instrument providing the terms and conditions for the issuance of the bonds and may be a resolution, order, agreement or other instrument; and

F. "instrumentality" means a public corporate entity created by state law but that is not subject to the general laws of the state and is not a state agency or department.

History: 1953 Comp., § 4-22-2, enacted by Laws 1961, ch. 135, § 2; 1963, ch. 253, § 1; 1977, ch. 128, § 1; 1984, ch. 88, § 1; 1998, ch. 63, § 3; 1999, ch. 100, § 1; 2009, ch. 153, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2009 amendment, effective June 19, 2009, in Subsection A, after "instrumentality; this state", changed "an adjoining" to "another" and after "district of this state or", changed "an adjoining" to the word "another".

The 1999 amendment, effective June 18, 1999, in Subsection A inserted "nation" and inserted the language beginning "a subdivision" and ending "the state".

The 1998 amendment, effective July 1, 1998, in Subsection A, inserted "or instrumentality" following "agency", twice, substituted "a New Mexico" for "it also specifically includes any state" and "a New Mexico" for "any", and deleted "in this state" at the end; in Subsection B, deleted "provided that nothing in" following "contracting public agencies", substituted "does not" for "shall be construed to" following "Act", deleted "to" following "agreement or", deleted "or to" following "state engineer", and inserted "and it does not" preceding "limit the powers"; in Subsection D, deleted "revenue" following "outstanding"; deleted former Subsection E defining governing body and redesignated former Subsection F as Subsection E; deleted former Subsection G defining project; added present Subsection F; and made minor stylistic changes throughout the section.

The 1984 amendment inserted "an Indian tribe or pueblo" and substituted "of this state" for "or this state" in Subsection A and deleted "revenue" preceding "bonds" in Subsections F and G.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2023 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Clark v. Johnson, 904 P.2d 11 (N.M. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Clark v. Johnson, 904 P.2d 11 (N.M. 1995). · cites it 2× “§ 11-1-2(A). The Governor’s claim of authority seems to be premised upon the notion that he is a “state department or agency” within the meaning of this statute.”
San Juan Water Comm'n v. Taxpayers & Water Users, 860 P.2d 748 (N.M. 1993). · cites it 2× “Section 11-1-3 makes no mention of having to pass an ordinance, but instead requires only that a public agency, defined in Section 11-1-2(A), be authorized to do so.”
Greentree Solid Waste Auth. v. Cnty. of Lincoln, 2016-NMCA-005, 365 P.3d 509. · cites it 2× “]” Section 11-1-2(A). Greentree is a “public district” because it was created pursuant to the Community Service District Act.”
Gutierrez v. West Las Vegas Sch. Dist., 2002-NMCA-068, 48 P.3d 761. “§ 11-1-2(A). The legislative or other governing body of the public agencies must authorize any joint powers agreement, see § 11-1-3, which must “clearly specify the purpose of the agreement or for any power which is to be exercised.”
Gebler v. Valencia Reg'l Emergency Commc'n Ctr., 535 P.3d 763 (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Section 11-1-2(A). There is no question that the parties to the VRECC joint powers agreement had the authority to enter into the agreement.”
N.M. Stat. § 11-1-2(A): 5 cases
State Ex Rel. Clark v. Johnson, 904 P.2d 11 (N.M. 1995). “§ 11-1-2(A). The Governor’s claim of authority seems to be premised upon the notion that he is a “state department or agency” within the meaning of this statute.”
San Juan Water Comm'n v. Taxpayers & Water Users, 860 P.2d 748 (N.M. 1993). “Section 11-1-3 makes no mention of having to pass an ordinance, but instead requires only that a public agency, defined in Section 11-1-2(A), be authorized to do so.”
Greentree Solid Waste Auth. v. Cnty. of Lincoln, 2016-NMCA-005, 365 P.3d 509. “]” Section 11-1-2(A). Greentree is a “public district” because it was created pursuant to the Community Service District Act.”
Gutierrez v. West Las Vegas Sch. Dist., 2002-NMCA-068, 48 P.3d 761. “§ 11-1-2(A). The legislative or other governing body of the public agencies must authorize any joint powers agreement, see § 11-1-3, which must “clearly specify the purpose of the agreement or for any power which is to be exercised.”
Gebler v. Valencia Reg'l Emergency Commc'n Ctr., 535 P.3d 763 (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). “Section 11-1-2(A). There is no question that the parties to the VRECC joint powers agreement had the authority to enter into the agreement.”
N.M. Stat. § 11-1-2(B): 1 case
State Ex Rel. Clark v. Johnson, 904 P.2d 11 (N.M. 1995). “§ 11-1-2(A). The Governor’s claim of authority seems to be premised upon the notion that he is a “state department or agency” within the meaning of this statute.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.