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

• Petitioners appealed the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission's (WQCC) order adopting the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for a segment of the Rio Ruidoso, arguing that the WQCC's approval was legally erroneous due to an incorrect calculation method used for determining the TMDL limit for total nitrogen. The Department prepared the TMDL, which was then approved by the WQCC and is required to comply with state water quality standards and management plans (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners-Appellants: Argued that the WQCC’s approval of the 2016 TMDL was legally erroneous because the Department used an incorrect calculation method for determining the TMDL limit for total nitrogen, specifically using the annual median flow instead of the critical low flow (para 3).
• Respondent-Appellee (WQCC) and Intervenor-Appellee (New Mexico Environment Department): Contended that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal, but if jurisdiction is found, argued that the regulation does not govern the calculation of the total nitrogen limit in the manner suggested by the Petitioners (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider Petitioners’ appeal.
• Whether the WQCC’s adoption of the 2016 TMDL was legally erroneous in its calculation of the total nitrogen limit (paras 4, 8).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the WQCC’s adoption of the 2016 TMDL, holding that it had subject matter jurisdiction and that the WQCC’s decision was not legally erroneous (para 1).

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge; ATTREP, Judge; ZAMORA, Judge (concurring): The court determined it had subject matter jurisdiction by interpreting the TMDL as a regulation under the Water Quality Act, thus making the WQCC’s adoption of the TMDL appealable. The court further held that the WQCC did not err in its legal interpretation regarding the calculation of total nitrogen limits. The court found that the regulation cited by Petitioners did not apply to nitrogen as argued, and the Department’s use of the annual median flow for calculating total nitrogen was appropriate based on the objectives of preventing undesirable aquatic life growth. The court concluded that the WQCC’s action was in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence, affirming the adoption of the 2016 TMDL (paras 4-11).