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 New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (the Commission), at the request of the New Mexico Environment Department (the Department), adopted amendments to the variance rule within the ground and surface water protection regulations. These amendments removed the five-year limitation on the duration of variances and introduced new subsections, including one that established periodic reporting requirements for variances exceeding five years. Amigos Bravos and Gila Resources Information Project (Appellants) challenged these amendments on several grounds, including the procedures used for the amendment, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the adoption, and the facial validity of the amended rule (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that the Commission's rulemaking procedures violated the State Rules Act and the Water Quality Act (WQA), contended that the decision to adopt the amendments was not supported by substantial evidence, and claimed that the amended variance rule was facially invalid due to conflicts with the WQA's purpose and requirements (paras 5, 7, 10).
• Intervenor (New Mexico Environment Department) and Appellee (Water Quality Control Commission): Defended the procedural soundness of the rulemaking process, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the amendments, and the facial validity of the amended rule, asserting that the amendments were within the Commission's statutory authority and did not conflict with the WQA (paras 6, 13-14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Commission's rulemaking procedures violated the State Rules Act and the WQA.
• Whether the decision to adopt the amendments to the variance rule was supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether the amended variance rule is facially invalid due to conflicts with the WQA's purpose and requirements.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s decision adopting the amendments to the variance rule.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges Megan P. Duffy and Zachary A. Ives concurring, found that the appellants did not provide compelling arguments for reversal. The Court held that the Commission did not violate procedural requirements as the adoption of the final rule occurred upon the signature of the written decision, not merely upon verbal agreement in a meeting. The Court also found that appellants failed to properly present a substantial evidence claim by not summarizing relevant evidence in their brief in chief, thus waiving their right to this claim. Regarding the facial validity of the amended rule, the Court determined that appellants did not demonstrate that no set of circumstances exists where the rule could be valid, thereby failing to meet their burden of showing the rule's invalidity. The Court concluded that the amendments were within the Commission's statutory authority and did not conflict with the WQA, affirming the decision to adopt the amendments (paras 1-27).