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 petitioned the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission to revise the groundwater quality standard for uranium, reducing it from 5 mg/L to 0.007 mg/L due to its toxic effects on public health, particularly in Native American and Hispanic populations. After public hearings and deliberations, the Commission adopted a revised standard of 0.03 mg/L, aligning it with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's drinking water standard (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission, June 2004: The Commission voted unanimously to amend the uranium groundwater standard from 5 mg/L to 0.03 mg/L (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (New Mexico Mining Association and New Mexico Oil and Gas Association): Argued that the revised standard was unattainable and economically infeasible, particularly for abatement at uranium mills or mines. They contended that the Commission acted arbitrarily and violated the Water Quality Act by failing to consider technical feasibility, economic reasonableness, and the availability of demonstrated control technology (paras 5-6).
- Appellees (New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission, New Mexico Environment Department, and New Mexico Department of Health): Defended the revised standard as necessary to protect public health and supported by credible scientific data. They argued that the Commission acted within its statutory authority under Section 74-6-4(C) of the Water Quality Act (paras 3, 11-16).
- Intervenor-Appellee (Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining): Supported the revised standard, emphasizing the health risks of uranium contamination, particularly for vulnerable populations (para 3).
Legal Issues
- Did the Commission act in accordance with the law when it adopted the revised uranium groundwater standard under Section 74-6-4(C) of the Water Quality Act?
- Was the Commission's decision arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence?
- Did the Commission fail to consider technical feasibility and economic reasonableness in adopting the revised standard?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Commission's decision to adopt the revised uranium groundwater standard of 0.03 mg/L (para 38).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Alarid and Fry JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the Commission acted within its statutory authority under Section 74-6-4(C) of the Water Quality Act, which allows the adoption of water quality standards to protect public health without requiring a determination of technical feasibility or economic reasonableness. The Court distinguished between water quality standards and regulations governing effluent limits, noting that the revised standard measures contaminants in groundwater rather than directly regulating discharges (paras 11-20).
The Court found that the Commission's decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The Commission considered relevant factors, including the use of groundwater for drinking water by 90% of New Mexicans, the health risks of uranium, and the alignment of the revised standard with the EPA's drinking water standard. The Commission also weighed scientific evidence, public health concerns, and the economic implications of the standard (paras 22-26).
The Court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Commission's decision. The revised standard was based on credible scientific data, including peer-reviewed studies on uranium's toxic effects and testimony from experts. The Court emphasized that the standard was protective of public health and consistent with federal guidelines (paras 30-34).
The Court rejected the Appellants' arguments that the standard was unattainable or economically infeasible, noting that such concerns could be addressed on a case-by-case basis when the standard is applied to specific discharges or abatements. The Court also dismissed claims that the alternative abatement standards process was arbitrary, finding that it provided clear guidelines for addressing technical infeasibility (paras 20-21, 35).
Finally, the Court found no merit in the argument that the Commission failed to consider the impact of the revised standard on the oil and gas industry, as the Oil Conservation Division was represented on the Commission and the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association had adequate notice of the proceedings (paras 36-37).