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 case revolves around a dispute concerning the validity and enforceability of a discharge permit (DP-558) issued in 1989 by the predecessor agency of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). This permit would allow Hydro Resources, Inc. (HRI) to discharge chemicals into an underground aquifer on a specific land area known as Section 8. The plaintiffs argue that the permit is no longer valid and that NMED is acting improperly by considering HRI's renewal application for this permit. They also claim that NMED failed to inform HRI that it is prohibited from engaging in discharging activities authorized by the 1989 permit.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the 1989 discharge permit is no longer valid and that NMED is improperly considering HRI's renewal application. They also claimed that NMED failed to inform HRI about the prohibition on discharging activities under the 1989 permit.
• Defendants-Appellees (NMED): Supported the district court's decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, arguing that the case was not ripe for review.
• Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee (HRI): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the 1989 discharge permit (DP-558) issued to HRI is still valid and enforceable.
• Whether the case presents an "actual controversy" that is ripe for judicial determination.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief without prejudice.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Jonathan B. Sutin, J., and Michael E. Vigil, J., concurring), the court held that the case was not ripe for review because it did not present an "actual controversy" required for the district court to assume jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action. The court found that NMED has yet to act on HRI's renewal permit and that HRI has not begun any construction or activity in Section 8. The court agreed with the district court that the matter is not yet ripe for review and any damage to the plaintiffs' interests is only speculative at this stage. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' action will not be ripe for review until one of the "triggering events" outlined in the district court's order occurs. The court was not persuaded by the plaintiffs' argument that NMED's determination that the 1989 permit is valid and enforceable is a "final agency action" currently affecting them, stating that the renewal process is ongoing and the plaintiffs will not be impacted unless and until HRI takes steps to begin preparation for discharge.