New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 75-6-1 (2026)

Endangered plant species; definition; conservation; penalty

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

protection; permits. A. As used in this section, "endangered plant species" means any plant species whose prospects of survival within the state are in jeopardy or are likely, within the foreseeable future, to become jeopardized. Regulations passed by the natural resources department establishing a list of endangered plant species shall include those species listed in the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 or as that act may be amended.

B. The natural resources department shall conduct investigations of all species of plants in the state in order to develop information relating to population, distribution, habitat needs, limiting factors and other biological and ecological data, and to determine conservation measures and requirements necessary for their survival. On the basis of these investigations, the department shall establish a list of endangered plant species.

C. The department shall establish a program necessary for the conservation of listed endangered plant species. That program shall include research, census, law enforcement, habitat maintenance, propagation and transplantation. As used in this section, law enforcement shall be defined to be law enforcement for purposes of enforcement of the prohibition against taking, possession, transportation, exportation from this state, processing, sale or offer for sale or shipment within this state of listed plants or plant materials.

D. The department shall have authority to protect species of plants determined to be endangered by prohibiting the taking, possession, transportation, exportation from this state, processing, sale or offer for sale or shipment within this state of such species. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection or any regulations issued pursuant to this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than three hundred dollars ($300) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or be imprisoned for a term of not more than one hundred twenty days or both. As used in this section, "possession" shall be defined to be possession of listed plants or plant materials for purposes of taking, transportation, exportation from this state, processing, sale or offer for sale or shipment within this state.

E. The department may by permit allow collection otherwise prohibited by this section for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species by transplanting or other means, but such permit shall not authorize any action that would violate federal laws or regulations.

F. The department may enter into agreements with federal agencies, other states, agencies or political subdivisions of the state, or with individuals for administration and management of any program established under this section.

History: 1978 Comp., § 9-10-10, enacted by Laws 1985, ch. 143, § 1; recompiled as 1978 Comp., § 75-5-1 by Laws 1987, ch. 234, § 82.

ANNOTATIONS

Recompilation note. — Laws 1987, ch. 234, § 82, effective July 1, 1987, recompiled former 9-10-10 NMSA 1978 as 75-5-1 NMSA 1978, but, since Laws 1987, Chapter 192 had already enacted Article 5 of Chapter 75, former 9-10-10 NMSA 1978 has been recompiled as 75-6-1 NMSA 1978.

Endangered Species Act of 1973. — The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, referred to near the end of Subsection A, principally appears as 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Criminal prosecution under Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USCS §§ 1531-1543), 128 A.L.R. Fed. 271.

ARTICLE 7 Natural Resources Trustee

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases, 1955–1977 · leading case: City of Albuquerque v. Reynolds, 379 P.2d 73 (N.M. 1962).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Albuquerque v. Reynolds, 379 P.2d 73 (N.M. 1962). · cites it 4× “” The state engineer contends: That the powers and duties imposed upon him are administrative in character and that he therefore had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of the city that it is the owner of a pueblo water right; and that the district court, on appeal to it…”

Fellows v. Shultz, 469 P.2d 141 (N.M. 1970). · cites it 5× “Carlsbad Irrigation District, supra, which also involved the State Engineer, this court considered the proper scope of review under § 75-6-1, N.M.S.A. 1953, of a decision denying an applicant the right to change the point of diversion of surface water under § 75-5-23, N.”

Kelley v. Carlsbad Irrigation Dist., 379 P.2d 763 (N.M. 1963). · cites it 2× “The statute, § 75-6-1, N.M.S.A.1953, providing for review of a decision of the state engineer, reads in part: “Any applicant or other party dissatisfied with any decision, act or refusal to act of the state engineer may take an appeal to the district court * * *.”

Heine v. Reynolds, 367 P.2d 708 (N.M. 1962). · cites it 2× “It appears that the state engineer has no authority, under the statute, to grant such a change if there is impairment to existing rights.”

Fort Sumner Irrigation Dist. v. Carlsbad Irrigation Dist., 530 P.2d 943 (N.M. 1974). · cites it 2× “Fort Sumner Irrigation District (Fort Sumner) thereupon appealed to the District Court of Guadalupe County pursuant to the provisions of § 75-6-1, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 11, pt.”

Appeals of Durand v. Reynolds, 406 P.2d 817 (N.M. 1965). · cites it 2× “The review by the court is limited to questions of law and restricted to whether, based upon the legal evidence produced at the hearing before the state engineer, that officer acted fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously; whether his action was substantially supported by the…”

Ingram v. Malone Farms, Inc., 382 P.2d 981 (N.M. 1963). · cites it 2× “At the outset we are faced with the scope of review on appeal under § 75-6-1, 1953 Comp. • The pertinent provisions "of the section read: “Any applicant or other party dissatisfied with any decision, act or refusal to act of the state engineer may take an appeal to the district…”

Spencer v. Bliss, 287 P.2d 221 (N.M. 1955). “, § 75-6-1, eliminating the appeal to the water board in favor of a direct appeal from decision of State Engineer to district court, carried forward the provision for a trial de novo in the district court.”

City of Roswell v. Reynolds, 522 P.2d 796 (N.M. 1974). “XVI, § 5, Constitution of New Mexico and § 75-6-1, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 11, pt.”

McGee v. State Ex Rel. Reynolds, 380 P.2d 195 (N.M. 1963). · cites it 2× “2d 763 , in which we said that the district court in reviewing the decision of the State Engineer is not permitted under the statute, Section 75-6-1, N.M.S.A.1953 Comp., to hear new or additional evidence.”

Mata v. Montoya, 569 P.2d 946 (N.M. 1977). “2d 981 (1963), § 75-6-1, N.M.S.A.1953, “Any applicant . .”

Kelley v. Carlsbad Irrigation Dist., 415 P.2d 849 (N.M. 1966). “Carlsbad Irrigation District, supra; § 75-6-1, N.M. S.A., 1953 Comp. The first six findings of fact of the State Engineer deal with appellee’s claimed percolation of his surface water into the underground basin.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

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.