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 involves an appeal against the Water Quality Control Commission's (the Commission) order adopting regulations related to groundwater protection and supplemental permitting requirements for copper mine facilities. The appellants, including the State and a group comprised of Gila Resources Information Project (GRIP), Amigos Bravos, Turner Ranch Properties, L.P., and William C. Olson, challenged the Commission's regulations, arguing they violated the Water Quality Act (WQA) and were unsupported by sufficient evidence (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION, Butch Tongate, Chair.
• Certiorari Granted, July 13, 2015, Nos. 35,279; 35,289; 35,290. Released for Publication September 8, 2015.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (State and Gila): Argued that the regulations violate the WQA by allowing copper mines to pollute groundwater wherever the mines operate, regardless of whether the groundwater is or will be withdrawn for uses requiring potable water. They also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting aspects of the Order and argued that the Commission improperly circumvented the Decision and Order on Remand in the Permit Adjudication (para 18).
• Appellee (Commission) and Intervenors-Appellees (Freeport): Filed answer briefs in support of the regulations, arguing that they do not violate the WQA and that the Commission's reasons for adopting the regulations were supported by sufficient evidence (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the regulations adopted by the Commission violate the Water Quality Act (WQA).
• Whether the Commission's reasons for adopting the regulations were supported by sufficient evidence.
• Whether the Commission improperly circumvented the Decision and Order on Remand in the Permit Adjudication by adopting the regulations (paras 2, 18-19).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's order adopting the regulations, holding that the regulations do not violate the WQA and that the appellants' challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the alleged circumvention of the Decision and Order on Remand do not warrant reversal (para 19).

Reasons

• The Court found that the regulations are consistent with the WQA and that the Commission was not required to include factors or policies for determining places of withdrawal within the regulations. The Court also held that the regulations' containment strategy for controlling discharge at mining units does not permit widespread groundwater pollution and is an appropriate balance between preventing water pollution and allowing mining operations. The Court rejected the appellants' arguments that the Commission's findings were unsupported by sufficient evidence or contrary to law, noting that the Commission had considered all parties' submissions and that the appellants had not demonstrated that the findings were erroneous. The Court concluded that the appellations' attacks on the Commission's findings and the sufficiency of the evidence do not warrant reversal (paras 22-61).