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 Plaintiff, a mining corporation, owns a mine in Santa Fe County historically used for gold, silver, and copper extraction. The mine was largely inactive during the 1980s and early 1990s. In 1991, Santa Fe County enacted a Land Development Code requiring permits for mining operations, with amendments in 1993. The ordinances included grandfathering provisions for "existing mines" and allowed temporary cessation of operations for up to three years without requiring a new permit. In 1994, the County determined that the Plaintiff's activities were illegal without a permit and ordered cessation (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, (N/A): The Plaintiff sought an injunction and declaratory judgment, arguing its mine was exempt from the permit requirements. The court ordered the County to hold administrative proceedings to determine the applicability of the ordinances (para 3).
- Board of County Commissioners, (N/A): Following administrative proceedings, the Board ruled that the Plaintiff's mine was subject to the permit requirements (para 3).
- District Court, (N/A): The Plaintiff appealed the Board's decision, and the district court affirmed the County's ruling (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the County's ordinances were preempted by the New Mexico Mining Act and its regulations. Alternatively, claimed exemption from the permit requirements under the ordinances' grandfathering provisions, temporary cessation rules, and prior zoning designations (paras 5, 15-16, 25).
- Defendants-Appellees (Board of County Commissioners): Contended that the ordinances were not preempted and that the Plaintiff's mine did not qualify for exemptions under the ordinances. They argued that the Plaintiff's activities constituted new mining operations requiring a permit (paras 6, 18, 24).
- Intervenors-Appellees (Neighborhood Association): Opposed the Plaintiff's plans to mine without a permit, supporting the County's regulatory authority (para 4).
- Amicus Curiae (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Mining Act did not preempt the County's zoning authority and supported the County's position (para 4).
Legal Issues
- Was the County's regulatory authority over mining preempted by the New Mexico Mining Act and its regulations?
- Did the Plaintiff's mine qualify for exemption from the County's permit requirements under the ordinances' grandfathering provisions or temporary cessation rules?
- Was the County's application of its ordinances to the Plaintiff's mine arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law?
- Did the County violate the Plaintiff's due process rights during the administrative proceedings?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the County's permit requirements were not preempted and that the Plaintiff's mine was subject to the ordinances (para 35).
Reasons
Per Alarid J. (Apodaca C.J. and Bustamante J. concurring):
Preemption: The Court held that the New Mexico Mining Act and its regulations did not expressly or impliedly preempt the County's authority to regulate mining through zoning ordinances. The Act primarily addressed reclamation and environmental concerns, leaving room for local regulation of land use and development issues (paras 7-14).
Grandfathering and Temporary Cessation: The Court deferred to the County's interpretation of its ordinances, finding it reasonable. The Plaintiff's submissions in 1991 established "existing mine" status only for exploration, not extraction. Additionally, the Plaintiff's extraction activities during the three-year temporary cessation period were sporadic and insufficient to avoid the permit requirement (paras 18-30).
Zoning Argument: The Court rejected the Plaintiff's claim that prior zoning under a 1980 ordinance exempted the mine from the permit requirements. The County's interpretation of the 1980 ordinance, which required additional zoning applications for mining, was reasonable and entitled to deference (paras 16-20).
Due Process: The Court found no evidence of bias or predisposition by the Board. The Plaintiff was afforded a fair and impartial hearing, with opportunities to present evidence and arguments (para 34).
The Court concluded that the County's decision to require a permit was lawful, supported by evidence, and consistent with its regulatory authority (para 35).