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 Environment Department (NMED) identified four violations of the Solid Waste Act (SWA) and Solid Waste Regulations (SWR) by HRV Hotel Partners, LLC (HRV) and BL Santa Fe, LLC, related to the disposal of solid waste on the Pueblo of Pojoaque. The violations included failure to register as a hauler of special waste, failure to ensure a special waste manifest accompanied each truckload of waste, insufficient documentation of the waste's characteristics, and improper disposal of the waste. BL Santa Fe settled with NMED, leaving HRV to contest the findings (paras 2, 4).

Procedural History

• NMED Compliance Order: Identified four violations of the SWR by HRV and BL Santa Fe, assessed civil penalties, and ordered remediation arrangements (para 2).
• Hearing Officer's Report: Recommended upholding the compliance order against HRV, which was adopted by the NMED Secretary (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Complainant-Appellee (NMED): Argued that HRV, together with BL Santa Fe, committed four violations of the SWR and SWA subject to penalties. Asserted that HRV was involved in the operation of Bishops Lodge, including the wastewater retention pond, and was responsible for the disposal of sludge on Pueblo lands (paras 4, 6).
• Respondent-Appellant (HRV): Contended that the findings were not supported by evidence, NMED overstepped its jurisdiction, the civil penalty was assessed without notice or basis, and liability was improperly apportioned. Argued that HRV did not arrange for removal and disposal of the sludge or directly transport it, and that HRV and BL Santa Fe were not the same entity (paras 1, 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence supported the NMED's findings of four violations of the SWR and SWA by HRV (para 4).
• Whether NMED had the authority to order remediation and assess penalties against HRV (paras 10, 18).
• Whether the civil penalty was assessed with proper notice and basis, and if liability was correctly apportioned between HRV and BL Santa Fe (paras 18-19).

Disposition

• The decision of the NMED, which found HRV in violation of the SWA and SWR and assessed civil penalties, was affirmed (para 21).

Reasons

• The Court found substantial evidence supporting NMED's decision that HRV, together with BL Santa Fe, committed four violations of the SWR and SWA. The Court reviewed HRV's challenge to the evidence, the authority of NMED to order remediation, and the assessment and apportionment of the penalty. The Court concluded that HRV's admissions in pleadings and evidence presented at the hearing supported NMED's operational findings. The Court also determined that NMED did not exceed its authority by ordering HRV to arrange for remediation with the Pueblo of Pojoaque and that the civil penalty was justified and not contrary to law. The Court rejected HRV's arguments that the penalty calculation lacked notice and basis, and that liability should have been apportioned differently, finding no statutory requirement for NMED to demonstrate economic benefit or to apportion the penalty among BL Santa Fe, the Pueblo, and HRV (paras 3-20).