1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Apr il 8, 201 5 4 N O. 33, 237 5 (c on sol id at ed with N os. 33, 238 an d 33, 245) 6 GILA RES OUR CES INF ORM ATION PR OJECT , 7 AMIG OS BRAVOS , TURNER RANCH 8 PR OPE RTIE S, L. P. , S TAT E OF NE W MEX ICO, 9 ex rel. Gary King, At torney 10 Gen era l, a nd WI LLI AM C. OLSON, 11 Appe llants , 12 v. 13 NEW MEX ICO WA TER QU ALIT Y 14 CONTROL COMMI SSI ON, 15 Appellee, 16 an d 17 FREEP ORT -MC MOR AN CH INO M INES 18 COM PA NY , F REE POR T-M CM ORA N T YR ONE , 19 INC., FREEPORT- MCMORAN COBRE 20 MINI NG COMPANY, and NE W MEXI CO 21 ENV IRON MEN T D EP AR TME NT, 22 In te rv en or s- Appe lle es . 23 AP PE AL FR OM T HE WA TER QU ALIT Y C ONT ROL CO MM ISSION 24 Bu tc h To ng at e, C ha ir1 N. M. E nvironm ental Law C enter

2 R. Bruce F rederic k 3 D ougl as Me ikl ej ohn 4 San ta Fe, NM 5 fo r Appe llant G ila

Re sour ce s I nf

orm at ionP ro

j ec t and T ur

ne r Ranc h P ro pe rt ie s, 6 L. P. 7 High De sert E nergy

+ E nvironm ent Law P artners 8 Tr acy Hughes 9 San ta Fe, NM 10 fo r Appe llant A m igo s B ravos 11 W at er , E nvi ro nm en t and U til iti es D ivi sio n 12 Of fice of the N. M. A ttorney Ge neral 13 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 14 Tannis L. F ox, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 15 San ta Fe, NM 16 for Appellant State of N ewMexico 17 High De sert E nergy

+ E nvironm ent Law P artners 18 Ch ar le s F

. N obl e 19 San ta Fe, NM 20 fo r Appe llant W ill ia m C. O lso n 21 Hin kl e Sh an orLLP 22 T hom as M. H na sko 23 Julie A. Sakura 24 San ta Fe, NM 25 fo r Appe lle e N

. M. W at er Q ua lity Co ntr ol C om

m iss ion1 Mo dr al l, Sp erl in g, Ro eh l, Harr is & Si sk , P.A.

2 JohnJ. K el ly 3 Stuart R. Butzier 4 E m il J. K ie hne 5 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 6 Gall ag he r & Ken ne dy, P.A. 7 Da lva L. Moellenberg 8 A nth ony

( T

. J. ) J. T ru

j ill o 9 San ta Fe, NM 10 fo r In te rv en or s- Appe lle es F re ep ort M cM oR anCh ino Mi ne s C o. , F re ep ort11 Mc MoR anT yro ne , I nc . , a nd F re ep ort- Mc MoR anCo br e Mi nin g C o. 12 N

. M. E nvi ro nm en t D ep ar tm en t 13 AndrewP. Knight, A ssistant Ge neral Counsel 14 Ka thryn S. Becker , A ssistant Ge neral Counsel 15 San ta Fe, NM 16 fo r In te rv en or -Appe lle e N

. M. E nvi ro nm en t D ep ar tm en t1 OPIN ION

2 SU TIN, Judge. 3 { 1} T he A tto rn e y

G e n e r a l ( h e r e a f

t e r t h e S t a t e ) a n d , s e p a r a t e l y , ag r o up of 4 ap pe llants c om

pr ise d of G ila Re sour ce s Inf

orm at ionP ro

j ec t ( G RI P) , A m igo s B ravos, 5 T ur ne r Ranc h P ro pe rt ie s, L

. P. , a nd W ill ia m C. O lso n ( co lle ct ive ly G ila ) ap pe al ed

the 6 W a t e r Q u a l i t y C o n t r o l C o m m i s s i o n ’ s ( t h e C o m

m i s s i o n ) o r d e r a d o p t i n g a s etof 7 regulations cod ified at 20.6. 7 NMA C (12/1/20 13) pertaining to ground water 8 pr ote ct ion an d supple m en ta l per m itt ing r equir em en ts f

or c oppe r m ine f

ac ili tie s ( the 9 Reg ul a t i on s)

. T he C om m i ss i ona nd , s e par a t e l y , ag r ou p of I nt e rve no r s- App e l l e es 10 com prised of Free port-McMoRan Chino Mines Co., Fre eport-McMoRan T yrone, 11 In c. , F re ep ort- Mc MoR anCo br e Mini ng Co

. , a nd the N ewMe xic o E nvi ro nm en t 12 D ep ar tm en t ( co lle ct ive ly

F re ep ort) f

ile d answ er

br ie fs

. W e c o n s o l i d at e d

th r e e a p pe al s 13 an d a ddr es s bo th the S ta te ’ s and G ila ’ s c ont en tio ns i n th is O pin ion

. 14 { 2} Pr im ar ily

a t i ss ue in thi s a

ppe al is w he the r the Re gul at ion s a dopt ed by the 15 Co m m iss ionvio la te the W at er Q ua lity A ct (the W Q A ), N MS A 1978 , §§ 7 4- 6- 1 to - 17 16 (1 967, a s am en de d th ro ugh 2013 ), a nd wheth er th e Co m m iss ion ’ s r ea sons f

or 17 ad opt ing the Regu la tio ns w er e supp orte d by suf fi ci en t e vid en ce . W e hol d th at the 18 Re gul at ion s do not

vio la te the W Q A

. A ddi tio na lly , we conc lud e that Appe llants ’ 19 vari ous atta ck s on the Co m m iss ion ’ s state m en t of

r ea sons in supp ort of

it s a dopt ion2

1 of the Regulations do not wa rr an t reversal. W e af firm the Com

m issio n’ s order 2 ad opt ing the Re gul at ion s. 3 BACKGRO UND 4 The S ignificance and Eff ect of the 2009 Am endm ents t o the WQ A 5 { 3} Pr ior

to 2009 , the W Q A did not a llo wthe Co m

m iss ion to p ro m

ulg at e 6 re g u l a t i o n s t h a ts p e c i f i e dt h e m e t h o d s t o p r e v e n to r ab a t e w a t e r

p o l l u tio n. 7 A cc or din gly , the Co m

m iss ion , w hic h is r equir ed to pr ev en t or

aba te w at er

pol lut ion , 8 di d s o a s p art of th e co pp er m in e pe rm it ti ng pr oc es s th ro ug h i ts “ co ns ti tu en t ag en cy ,” 9 th e New Mex ic o En vi ro nm en t Dep art m en t (NM ED). See § 74 -6 -2 (K)( 1) ( statin g in 10 an appropriate context, “ constitu ent agency ” m eans the departm ent of environm ent); 1 1 § 7 4

- 6

- 5 ( A ) ( s t a t i n g t h a tt h e C o mmi s s i o n “may r e qu i r e p e r s o n s t o o b t a i n f r o m a 12 co nst itu en t a ge nc y

de sig na te d by t he co m

m iss ionape rm it fo r the dis ch ar ge of a ny 13 w at er c ont am inant” ). I n th e pe rm itt ing pr oc es s, a n appl ic an t wa s re qui re d to pr opos e 14 pol lut ion-c ontro l m ea sur es to N ME D f or appr ova l and, if

ne ed ed , N ME D w oul d 15 re qui re spe ci fi c pol lut ion -con tr ol p er m it co ndi tio ns. P ar

tie s w ho w er e adve rs el y 16 af fe ct ed by the pe rm itt ing a ct ionw er e en tit le d to appe al N MED ’s dec isi on t o th e 17 Com m issio n. Se ction 74 -6-5(O ). 18 { 4} In200 9 th e L eg isl at ur e am en de d the W Q A to re qui re the Co m m iss ionto ad opt 19 re gul at ion s part ic ular to the co ppe r ind ustry that w oul d sp ec if

y “ the m ea sur es to be3

1 taken to pre vent w ater pollu tion and to m onito r wa ter quality .” Section 7 4-6-4(K)

. 2 Pro sp ect iv e reg ul at io ns were t o b e d ev el op ed by a co ns ti tu en t agen cy , her e NMED, 3 w hic h w as ch ar ge d w ith es ta bli shi ng “ ana dvi sor

y c om m itt ee c om

pose d of pe rs ons 4 with knowledge and expertise particular to the [copper] indus try

. . . and other 5 interested stakehold ers to advise [ NME D] on approp riate r egulation s to be propo sed 6 for adop tion b y

the [C] omm issio n.” Id

. Further, the Le gislature m andated that, af ter 7 the regulations were a dopt ed, “perm its for fac ilities in th at i ndus try shall be sub j ect 8 to condi tions contained in th e re gulatio ns.” Se ction 74 -6-5(D ). 9 Th e 2012 -2 013 R eg ul at ion -M ak in g P ro ce ed in gs 10 { 5} N ME D f

orm ed two co mm itt ee s to a dvi se it on a ppr opr ia te r eg ulatio ns t o 11 propos e to the Co m

m issio n: a “ Copper Rule A dviso ry Com m ittee” (the a dviso ry 12 co mm itt ee ) an d ate ch nic al c om m itt ee . T he a dvi sor

y c om m itt ee inc lud ed , a m ong 13 oth er s, r ep re se ntativ es f ro m e nvi ro nm en ta l gr oups ( inc lud ing G RI P an d A m igo s 14 Bravos), m ine owners and operators (includin g Free port), and form er G round W ater 15 Q ua lity

Bure auCh ie f of

N ME D , W ill ia m

C. O lso n, w ho w as hir ed by N ME D in thi s 16 instance as a contractor to assist the advisory com m ittee. The tw o comm i t tees m et 17 re gul ar ly

over t he co ur se of

se ve n m onths t o r ev ie wdr af t l an gua ge a nd d if

fe re nt 18 approaches to regulating cop per m ining , and i n Au g u st 201 2, Mr . O lson p rovided 19 N ME D w ith a dr af

t of co ppe r m ine re gul at ion s. N ME D c au se d th e dr af t r eg ulatio ns4

1 to be edited by

instructing Mr. Olson to incorporate m odifications that had been 2 s u g g es t ed b y Fr ee p o rt , an d al t h o u g h M r. Ol s o n ar g u ed t h at a n u mb e ro f Fr ee p o rt ’s 3 sugg es te d m odi fi catio ns w oul d vi olate the W Q A , he e ve ntu al ly c om pli ed by 4 inc or por at ing F re ep ort’ s c hange s in to the dr af t r eg ulatio ns. N ME D sub m itt ed the 5 ed ite d ve rs ionf

or pub lic com

m en t i n S ep te m

be r 2012

. A ft er

hol din g tw o publi c 6 m ee tin gs at w hic h it

too k publ ic c om

m en ts o n th e dr af

t r eg ulatio ns and a ft er

m ee tin g 7 with interested stakeholders, NME D prepared proposed regulation s, and in Oc tober 8 2012 , N ME D pe tit ion ed the Co m m iss ionto ad opt

it s pr opos ed

r eg ulatio ns. 9 { 6} G RI P, A m igo s Br av os, an d Tur ne r Ranc h Pr ope rt ie s subm itt ed a re spon se to 10 N ME D ’ s peti tio n in w hic h they a rg ue d th at

the Co m m iss ionsho uld

r ej ec t the pe tit ion 11 because NME D’ s propos ed regulations violated the W QA

. The Com m issio n voted 12 to a cc ep t the pe tit ion , ass ig ne d a he ar ing of fi ce r to the m atte r, a nd s ch ed ule d a 13 hearing on the petition to be held in April 2013 . P rior to the hearing, the S tate m oved 14 to rem and NME D’ s propos ed regulations to NME D on the ground that the propos ed 15 re gul at ion s w oul d vio la te the W Q A

. O n the sa m e gr ound s, G RI P, Am ig os Bravos, 16 and Turner

Ranch Properties m oved to d ism iss the petiti on. T he Com m issio n denied 17 the se r es pe ct ive m oti ons. 18 { 7} A ddi tio na lly , the Co m m iss iongr an te d, in part, a pr etri al m oti on b y the S ta te 19 to a dm it portio ns o f the r ec or d f ro m a200 7 a dj udi cator

y pr oc ee din g ti tle d “

In the5

1 M att er of A ppe al o f Su ppl em en tal

D isc harge P erm it for

Closur e (D

P 134 1) for 2 Phelps Dodg e Tyrone, Inc. ” (the Pe rm it A dj udi catio n)

. Sp ec if ic al ly , the Co m

m iss ion 3 ru le d th at

it s Febr uary

4, 200 9, “ D ec isi on and O rd er on R em an d” in the P er m it 4 Adj udication would be adm itted at the hearing, while all other portion s of the rec ord 5 fr om the P er m it A dj udi catio n w oul d be e xc lud ed so a s to avoid

c onf usi on and t o save 6 unne ce ssary

e xpe ndi tur e of

the Co m m iss ion ’ s ti m e an d r es our ce s. A lth oughit w ill 7 be dis cu sse d m or e tho ro ughl y la te r in this O pin ion , the P er m it A dj udi catio n and the 8 2009 D ec isi on and O rd er on R em an d pr oc ee de d f

ro m thi s Court’ s Opi nio n in200 6 9 in Phe lps D odge Ty ro ne , Inc

. v . Ne w M ex ic o W ate r Q ual ityCo ntr ol C

om m iss ion , 10 2006 -N MC A -1 15, 140 N

. M. 464 , 143 P

. 3d 5 02. 11 { 8} Following further review s by NME D staf

f and expert witnesses, N MED edited 12 the propos ed regulations and filed a n otice of am ended petition in February 2013 that 13 inc l ud e d ar e dl i ne d ve r si ono f t he p r op os e d r e gu l a t i on s ( t he a m e nd e d r e gu l a t i ons), 14 show ing all change s. O ve r the c our se of te n day s inApr il an d M ay 201 3, the 15 Co m m iss ionhe ld a

he ar ing on N ME D ’ s pr opos ed a m en de d r eg ulatio ns . All of the 16 part ie s to thi s ap pe al pr es en te d te ch nic al te sti m ony dur ing the he ar ing

. F oll ow ing the 17 he ar ing , the he ar ing of fi ce r ga ve a ll part ie s th e oppo rt uni ty to subm it w ri tte n c los ing 18 ar gum en ts and p ro pose d stat em en ts o f re as ons fo r the Co m m iss ion ’ s c onsi de ratio n. 19 Attac hed to its p roposed statem ent of reasons , NME D propo sed additio nal changes6

1 to the am ended r egulation s. W e will refe r to this draft as the “ fi n al p ro p osed 2 reg ul at io ns .” 3 { 9} A f

t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d i n c l u d i n g t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e wr i t t e n t e s t i mo n y, 4 ex hib its , he ar ing tr an sc ri pt, pub lic c om m en ts, a nd the he ar ing of fi ce r’ s or de rs , a nd 5 af te r he ar ing f

ina l or al a rg um en ts f

ro m the part ie s duri ng a

pub lic m ee tin g, the 6 Co m m iss ion iss ue d its O rd er an d St at em en t of Re as ons (the O rd er ) on Se pte m be r 25, 7 2013 , adoptin g NME D’ s final propos ed regulations. The Or der, which is the subject 8 of th is app ea l, is a 214- pa ge doc um en t tha t i nc lud es , a m ong oth er thi ngs, the 9 Co m m iss ion ’ s state m en t of

1, 306 re as ons supp ortin g it s de ci sio n to a dopt the 10 Re gul at ion s. N ME D ’ s f ina l pr opos ed

r eg ulatio ns, to w hic h w e re fe r in thi s O pin ion 11 as “ the Regulations ,” we re c odified in Decem ber 2013 at 20.6.7 NMA C. 12 Le gal C on te xt an d Te rm in olo gy 13 { 10} T he obj ec tiv e of the Re gulat ion s is “ to s uppl em en t the ge ne ra l pe rm itt ing 14 re qui re m en ts” of the pe rm itt ing an d gr ound w at er standard s r eg ulatio ns, 20. 6. 2. 3000 15 to .3114 NMA C (12 /1/19 95, as am ended through 8/1/2 014), “ to control di scharges 16 of w at er c ont am inants spe ci fi c to c oppe r m ine f ac ili tie s and the ir oper at ion s to 17 prevent wa ter pollutio n.” 20. 6.7.6 N MAC . I n the context of t he W QAand the related 1 8 r e g u l a t i o n s , t h e p h r a s e “ g r o u n d w a t e r ” r e f e r s t o “ i n t e r s t i t i a l w a t e r w h i c h o c c u r s in 19 sa tur at ed

e ar th m at er ia l and whic h is c ap ab le of e nte ri ng a we ll in suf

fi ci en t am ount s7

1 to be ut i l i z e d a s a w a t e r su pp l y [

. ] ” 20

. 6. 2. 7( Z ) N M A C ( 8/ 1/ 20 14 )

. The te rm 2 “ discharge” m eans “ spilli ng, leaking, pu m ping , pouring, em itting , or dum ping of a 3 w at er c ont am inant i n aloc at iona nd m an ne r w he re the re is a r ea sona ble pr oba bil ity 4 that the water

contam inant m ay

rea ch groundwater. ” 20.6. 7.7(B) (18) NM AC. 5 { 11} Dis ch arg e is reg ul at edth ro ug h a pe rm it ti ng pro ces s. See § 74 -6 -5 (A ) (s ta tin g 6 t h at t h e Co m

m issio n m ay

require “persons,” i. e, the owner or operator of a copper 7 m ine facility , to obtain a perm i t fo r t he discharge of any water contam inant (a 8 discharge perm it)). Any person, in this case, a m ine owner or operator, who w ishes 9 to d isc harg e “ ef

fl ue nt o r le ac ha te

. . . so that it m ay m ove dir ec tly

or ind ir ec tly

int o 10 gr ound

w at er ” is r equir ed

to ap ply to NMED f

or adis ch ar ge pe rmit. 20. 6. 2. 3104 11 NMAC ( re qui ri ng a

dis ch ar ge pe rmit ). The R eg ul at io ns rei te rat e th is req ui rem en t. See 12 20.6.7. 8(A) NMA C (“ No person shall discharge effluent or le ac h at e from a copper 13 m ine f

ac ili ty so tha t i t m ay

m ove dir ec tly

or ind ir ec tly

int o gr ound

w at er w ith out a 14 di sc ha rg e p erm it ap pr ov edby [NMED] .”). 15 { 12} Gr ound wate r q u ality standards are provided by 20.6.2. 3103 NMA C that 16 spe ci fi es the pH r an ge a nd the m ax imum c onc en tr at ionof

vari ous co ntam inants 17 applicable to ground wa ter for various uses, including hum an health, dom estic water 18 supp ly , a nd i rr igatio n us e. F or e as e of r ef er en ce in thi s Opin ion , w e re fe r to the 1 9 sta nda rd s s e tf

o rt h i n 2 0

. 6

. 2

. 3 1 0 3 N M A C a s “ t h e 3 1 0 3 s t a n d a r d s . ” P u r s u a n tt o t he8

1 W Q A , N ME D is re qui re d to de ny anappl ic at ionf or adis ch ar ge pe rm it if

, in re le vant 2 part , its appr ova l w oul d vi olate a ny pr ovi sio n of

the W Q A or

if “ the dis ch ar ge w oul d 3 cause or contribute to wa ter contam inant levels in excess of [ the 3103 standards] ” as 4 “ m ea sur ed

a t any pla ce of w ith dr aw al of

w at er f or pr es en t or

r ea sona bly f or es ee ab le 5 future use.” Sec tion 7 4-6-5(E) (2), (3). 6 { 13} “ Co ppe r m ine f

ac ili ty ” re fe rs to “ al l are as w ith in whic h c oppe r m ini ng and i ts 7 re la te d a ct ivi tie s th at

m ay dis ch arg e w at er

c ont am inants oc curs a nd whe re the 8 discharge will or does take place[ .]” 2 0 .6. 7.7(B) (13) NM AC. The phrase “ copper 9 m ining and its related activities” includes, am ong other thing s, open pits, wa ste rock 10 pil es , or e sto ck

pil es , le ac hin g op er at ion s, ta ili ngs im poun dm en ts, a nd t ai lings or 11 im pa ct edst or m

wate r. Id

. An “ open pit ” is “ the area within which ore and waste rock 12 ar e ex pose d an d r em ove d by sur fa ce m ini ng. ” 20. 6. 7. 7( B) (4 1) N MA C. “ W as te r oc k” 13 is “ al l m at eri al ex cav at ed fro m a co pp er m in e fac il it y th atis no t o re o r cl ean to p s oi l.” 14 20. 6. 7. 7( B) (6 5) N MA C. “ T ai lin gs” m eans “ fi ne ly c ru she d an d gr ound

r oc k r es idu e 15 an d a ssoci at ed

f lui ds d isc harg ed

f ro m a n or e m ill ing , f

lot at ionbe ne fi ci at ion [, ] a nd 16 co nc en tra ti ng pro ces s” ; t he “ fin al rep os it ory of t ai li ng s” is a “ ta il in gs im po un dm en t.” 17 20. 6. 7. 7( B) (5 9) , ( 60) N MA C. “ Im pa ct ed sto rm w at er ” is “ dir ec t pr ec ipi ta tio n and 18 runof f that co m es int o c ont ac t w ithw at er c ont am inants w ith in a

c oppe r m ine f

ac ili ty9

1 wh i ch ca u s es t h e s t o rmwat ert o ex ce ed o n e o r mor e o f t h e . . . 3 1 0 3 [s t an d ar d s .]” 2 20 .6.7 .7(B )(2 9) NMAC. 3 { 14} “ L ea ch ing ” re fe rs to the pr oc es s of “ pla ci ng ac idi c le ac h sol uti on on the top s 4 an d si de s of

[ sto ck pil es ] ” of or e an d othe r ro ck pi le s such tha t “ [t ] he sol uti on 5 percolates through th e piles . .

. disso lv[ing] the c opper[.] ” Phe lps D odge , 200 6- 6 NMC A- 115, ¶ 5 ; 20.6.7. 7(B)( 33) NMA C (defining a “ leach stockpile” as “ stockpi les 7 of ore and all other r ock piles asso ciated w ith m ining disturbances that have been 8 le ac he d, a re c ur

re ntl y be ing le ac he d[ , ] or ha ve be enpla ce d inapil e fo r the pur pose 9 of be ing le ached ”). T he le ac h so lut ionis the n c oll ec te d and “pum pe d to asol ve nt 10 ex tra ct io n a nd ele ct ro win ni ng pl an t whe re th e co pp er is rem ov edfro m th e so lu ti on .” 11 Phe lps D odge , 200 6- N MC A -1 15, ¶ 5. 12 “Place of Wit hdraw al” and the Earlier P he lps D odge

A pp ea ls 13 { 15} T he phr as e “ pla ce of w ith dr aw al ” in Se ct ion 74- 6- 5( E )( 3) is not de fi ne d by

the 14 W Q A nor is i t de fi ne d ina ny r el at ed r eg ulatio n. T he L eg isl at

ur e’ s in te nde d m eanin g 15 of “ pla ce of w ith dr aw al ” w as the subj ec t of thi s C ourt’ s di sc uss ionin Phe lps D odge , 16 2006 -N MCA -115, ¶¶ 2, 7-8, 2 6-38, in which we con sidered Phelps Dodge’ s appeal 17 from the Com m issio n’ s im

posit ion of cond ition s on its discharge perm it for its copper 18 m ine

. I n Phe lps D odge , thi s Court conc lud ed that w hil e “ the [ L ] eg isl at ur e m eant t o 19 ca pture the c onc ep t tha t c le anw at er that i s c ur

re ntl y be ing w ith dr awn f

or use , or10

1 cl ean w at er

that i s li ke ly

to be use d inthe r ea sona bl y for es ee ab le f

uture , m ust be 2 pr ot ect ed [,]” thi s s ta nd ardis “ di ffi cu lt to ap pl y to a [co pp er m in e faci li ty be cau se ]

. . . 3 it raises the question

. . . as to the poin t at w hich the [L] egislature intended to m easure 4 co m pli an ce . . . . T ha t is, shou ld w at er qua lity be m ea sur ed at the bot tom of aw as te 5 ro ck pil e, a t the bot tom of the m ine pit , at w el ls loc at ed at the pe ri m et er boundary

of 6 the m ine property , or at som e other point or poi nts? ” Id

. ¶¶ 27-28. Recognizing that 7 as a Court, and lacking the “ technical expertise in hy drology , geology , o r other 8 ap pli ca ble sc ie nti fi c top ic s[ , ] ” w e w er e ill -e qui ppe d to de fi ne “ pla ce of w ith dr aw al ” 9 in the co nte xt of a co ppe r m ine f ac ili ty , w e re m an de d th e m atte r to the Co m m iss ion 10 to “ create som e general factors or policies to guide its d eterm i n at ion” of what 11 constitu ted a “ place of w ithdrawal. ” Id

. ¶¶ 35- 37. In so doi ng, w e of fe re d “ no o pin ion 12 as to w he the r the Co m m iss ionsho uld

do so by way

of r ule [- ] m ak ing or

by sim ply 13 deciding th e fa ctors as a part of [a] specific ca se, or both.” Id

. ¶ 35

. 14 { 16} On re m and from our Phe lps D odge O pin ion , in 2007 the Co m m iss ionhe ld a 15 he ari ng, a nd i n it s F eb ru ar y 4, 200 9, D ec isi on and O rd er on R em an d r ef

er re d to 16 earl ie r in this O pin ionide nti fi ed se ve ra l f

ac tors that N ME D sho uld c onsi de r in 1 7 i d e n t i fyi n g p l ac es o f w i t h d ra wa l at t h e c o p p erm i n e f ac i l i t y. Th e C o m

m i s s i o n ’s 18 D ec isi on and O rd er on R em an d r equir ed N ME D to ac t c onsi ste ntl y w iththe or de r in 19 ide nti fy ing pla ce s of wi thd raw al an d appr opr ia te loc at ion s at wh ic h the ef fe ct s of the11

1 m ine ’ s di sc harg es on g ro und w at er w er e to b e m ea sur ed an d re qui re d NM E D an d th e 2 facility to “ negotiate” perm it condit io n s t h at appropriately reduced ground water 3 co ntam inatio n a t those pla ce s of w ith dr aw al

. 4 { 17} Inase co nd a

ppe al , in 2009 , P he lps D odge appe al ed the Co m m iss ion ’ s 20 09 5 D ec isi on and O rd er

on R em an d to thi s C ourt. D ur ing the pe nde nc y of that se co nd 6 ap pe al , som e of

the part ie s, inc lud ing NMED an d P he lps D odge , sou ght the 7 Com m issio n’ s perm issio n to depart from the rem and order so as to pursu e re gulatory 8 solut ions to determ ine places o f w ithdrawal, thereby avoidin g further litigation ov er 9 the m eanin g of

that ph ra se . T he Co m

m iss iongr an te d th e part ie s r el ie f fr om the 10 dir ec tiv es of

the D ec isi on and O rd er on Rem an d to a llo wthe part ie s to r ea cha 11 se ttl em en t thr oughvari ous re gul at or y a ct ion s and p ro ce sse s, a nd P he lps D odge 12 subs eque ntl y

w ith dr ewit s se co nd a

ppe al

. O ne suc h r eg ulator y ac tio n w as the 13 pr oc ee din g to e sta

bli sh the Re gul at ion s th at a re a t i ssu e in this appe al

. 14 Th e P re se ntC on sol id at ed A pp ea l 15 { 18} In the co nsol idate d ap pe al now be fo re us, G ila an d the St at e (Ap pe llants ) 16 co nte nd tha t the O rd er sho uld be r ev ersed

. A lth oughthe y e ac h pr es en t vari ous 17 ar gum en ts i n suppor

t of this ove rarc hin g c ont en tio n, the m ai n c ru x of the ir r es pe ct ive 18 ap pe al s is that the Re gul at ion s vi olate the W Q A by al low ing c oppe r m ine s to pol lut e 19 gr ound w at er w he re ve r the m ine s ope rate r eg ar dle ss o f w he the r the gr ound w at er is12

1 or w ill be w ith dr awn fo r use s that re qui re pot ab le w at er . A ddi tio na lly , Appe llants 2 c h a l l e n g e t h e s u f

f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e s up p o rt i n g a s p e c t s o f th e O r d e r . A n df

i n a l l y, 3 al tho ugh the y

appr oa chit

dif fe re ntl y , Appell ants arg ue that by a dopt ing the 4 Re gul at ion s th e Co mm iss ionim pr ope rl y c ir cu m ve nte d th e D ec isi on and O rd er on 5 Re m an d inthe P er

m it A dj udi catio n. 6 { 19} W e conclude that the Regulations do not violate t h e WQA, and we rej ect 7 Appe llants ’ c ha lle nge s t o th e suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce sup portin g th e 8 Co m m iss ion ’ s de ci sio n to a dopt the Re gul at ions. W e furthe r co nc lud e that the 9 D ec isi on and O rd er on Re m an d ha d no be ar ing on the Co m m iss ion ’ s auth or ity

to 10 ad op t t he Reg ul at io ns . W e aff irm. 11 DISC US SION 12 Stand ard of R eview 13 { 20} Re gul at ion s th at ha ve be ene na ct ed

by a n a ge nc y

“ ar e pr es um

pti ve ly va lid

a nd 14 will be upheld if [they are] reasonably consist ent with the authorizing statutes.” N.M. 15 Mining A ss’n v

. N.M

. W ater Quality Contro l Comm ’n , 200 7- N MC A -0 10, ¶ 11, 141 16 N. M. 41, 150 P.3d 991. “ A par ty challenging [regulat i o n s ] adopted by an 17 adm inistrative ag en cy has the burden of establish ing [their] invalidi ty [. ] ” N.M. 18 Mining Ass’n v. N. M. Mining Comm ’n , 199 6- N MC A -0 98, ¶ 8, 122 N

. M. 332 , 924 19 P.2 d 7 41

.13

1 { 21} T his Co urt w ill se t a sid e the Co m m iss ion ’ s or de r ad opt ing re gul at ion s on ly if 2 the order is “ (1) ar

bitrary , c apricious[,] or an abuse of discretion; (2) not sup p o rted 3 by sub st an ti al ev id en ce in th e reco rd ; or (3) oth erwi se no t i n a cco rd an ce wi th law.” 4 S e c t i o n 7 4

- 6 -7 (B ); s ee G ila R es . I nfo

. Proj ec t v

. N. M

. W ate r Q ual ityCo ntr ol 5 Comm ’n , 2005-NMC A- 1 3 9 , ¶ 1 6, 138 N. M. 625, 124 P. 3d 11 64 (stating that an 6 agency action is arbitrary o r capricious “ if it is unreasonable or without a rational 7 ba sis , w he n vi ew ed

in lig ht o f th e whole re co rd

. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and 8 ci ta tio n om itt ed )) ; R eg en ts o f the U niv

. of Ca l. v . N. M

. W ate r Q ual ityCo ntr ol 9 Comm ’n , 2004-NMC A- 073, ¶ 29, 136 N. M. 45, 94 P .3d 788 (stating that an agency 10 de ci sio n i s su

ppor te d by sub stanti al e vid en ce w he re “ re le vant e vid en ce that a 11 reasonable m i n d m ight accept as adequate” supports the conclu sion (int ernal 12 qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 13 The R egulations Do N ot Violate t he WQA 14 { 22} Ap p e l l a n t s ma k e a n u mb e r o f a r g u me n t s i n s up p o rto f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c l a i ms 15 that the Re gul at ion s vi olate the W Q A

. W e ad dr es s th es e arg um en ts in tur n, 1 6 co m b i n i n g t h em wh er e i ti s re as o n ab l e t o d o s o i n o rd ert o a v o i d d u p l i ca t i o n . We 17 be gi n, h owe ve r, by des cri bi ng th e Reg ul at io ns , gen eral ly. 18 { 23} Bec au se th e p hr as e “ pl ace o f wit hd rawal ” is n o t d e fin edin th e WQ A, 1 9 d es i g n at i n g p l ac es o f wi t h d ra wa l i s a m at t erl ef tt o NM ED’s an dt h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s14

1 expe rt ise. Se e Phe lps D odge , 20 06 -NMCA- 11 5, ¶ 3 7 (r eco gn iz in g NM E D ’ s a uth or ity 2 t o d e t e r mi n e t h e l o ca t i o n s o f p l ac es o f w i t h d ra wa l , s ub je ct t o t h e C o m

m i s s i o n ’s 3 re vie wa nd a

uth or ity to de fi ne r el ev an t f

ac tor s)

. A s w e re co gni ze d in Phe lps D odge , 4 in determ ining places of withdraw al, two com peting in terests are at stake: the need 5 t o p ro t ec t wa t er s o u rc es an d t h e n ee d t o al l o w m i n i n g o p er at i o n s , wh i c h a r e “a 6 necessary

and im portant com

ponent of our econom

y and our m odern way

of life. ” Id

. 7 ¶¶ 27, 29. Further, we recognized that because m ining has inevitable environ m ental 8 im pa ct s, it w oul d be unr eal ist ic a nd o ve rb ro ad to co nc lud e that an e nti re m ini ng 9 facility is a place of with d raw al such that water quality standards m

ust be m et 10 ev erywhe re wi th in th e fac il it y ’s bo un da rie s. Id

. ¶ 33

. 11 { 24} U nde r the Re gul at ion s, the pr im ar y m ethod fo r pr ote ct ing gr oundw at er dur ing 12 the m ine ’ s op er at ion is thr ough dis ch ar ge co ntr ol at ea ch m ini ng “ uni t, ” that i s, a t the 13 pla ce of

e ac h m ini ng- re la te d a ct ivi ty , by c ont ai nin g gr ound

w at er that e xc ee ds 14 applicable standards. Although th e cont ai n m en t strategy m ay allow ground water 15 unde rl y ing cert ai n units to ex ce ed the 310 3 st an dard s duri ng m ini ng o pe ratio ns, 16 pur suant t o th e Re gul at ion s, tho se a re as a re not a va ila ble a s “pla ce s of

w ith dr aw al ” 17 dur ing m ini ng ope ratio ns. T he e ff ec tiv en es s of

the dis ch ar ge c ontro l a t e ac h m ini ng 18 uni t is dete rm ine d by m oni tor w el ls tha t ar e loc at ed on the pe ri m et er of e ac h un it, a nd 1 9 shou ld am o n i t o r

w e l l d e t e c ta n e x c e e d a n c e o f t h e 3 1 0 3 s t a n d a r d s , t h e R e g u l a t i o ns18 “ D ow ngr ad ie nt” m eans “ [t ] he dir ec tio n th at gr ound [] w at er f low s[

. ] ” E co m ii 1 19 Gr een D ictionary

a to z, http://

www . e c omi i

. c om

/ di c t i on ar y / do wng r a di e nt

( l a st v i si ted 20 Mar. 12, 2015). 15 1 re qui re e m er ge nc y

r ep ai r, c or

re ct ive ac tio n, an d, if ne ce ssary , aba te m en t m ea sur es . 2 See 20. 6. 7. 30( A ) N MA C (g ove rn ing the co nti nge nc y re qui re m en ts fo r co ppe r m ine 3 facilities in the event of an excee dance of the 3103 stand ards). 4 { 25} T he Re gul at ion s r equir e m oni tor w el ls t o be ins ta lle d “ as c los e as pr ac tic ab le 5 around the perim eter and do wngradient of eac h open pi t, lea ch stockpil e, wa ste rock 1 6 stockpi le, tailings im poun dm ent, proce ss water im poun dm ent, and im

pacted 7 sto rm w at er i m poun dm en t. ” 20. 6. 7. 28( B) N MA C ( fo otn ote a dde d)

. Mo nit or w el ls 8 m ust be located in su ch a m an ner as to “ detect an exce edance[] or a tre nd toward 9 exceedance[ ] o f t he [3103] standards at the e arliest possib le occurre nce, so that 10 inv es tig at ionof

the e xte nt o f co ntam inatio n and a ct ion s to a ddr es s th e sour ce of 11 contam ination m ay

be im plem ented as soon as po ssibl e. ” Id

. T he pr ospe ct ive 12 loc at ion s of

am oni tor

w el l m ust be state d ina n a

ppl ic at ionf

or adis ch ar ge pe rm it fo r 13 N ME D ’ s r ev ie wa nd m ust inc lud e, a m ong oth er

thi ngs, inf

orm at io n pe rta ini ng t o 14 “ [t ] he gr ound

w at er f lowdir ec tio n be ne ath th e cop pe r m ine f ac ili ty use d to de te rm ine 15 the m oni tor ing w el l l oc at ion s[ ] , inc lud ing sup portin g do cum en ta tion us ed to 16 determ ine ground water flowdirection.” 20. 6.7.28(A )(2) N MAC . I n the event that 17 m onito r re sults refle ct that the 3103 standards are exce eded, the R egulation s require16

1 correc t i v e action , and if NME D deter m ines that a m onito r w ell “ is not lo cated 2 dow ngr ad ie nt o f or

doe s no t a de qua te ly

m oni tor the co ntam inatio n so ur ce [ that] it is 3 intended to m on i t o r, ” the Regulations require its replacem ent. 20.6. 7.30(A) , ( B) 4 N MA C. A ft er

the m ine c los es , the dis ch ar ge pe rm itt ee is re qui re d by the Re gul at ion s 5 to tak e a n um

be r of st ep s to en su re co nt in ue d g ro un d wat er p ro te ct io n. Se e ge ne ral ly 6 20. 6. 7. 33 N MA C ( gove rn ing the clo su re r equir em en ts a ppl ic ab le to a co ppe r m ine 7 fa ci lity ); 20. 6. 7. 35 NM A C (g ove rn ing the pos t- cl osur e re qui re m en ts a ppl ic ab le to a 8 co pp er m in e fac il it y ). 9 { 26} Appellants argue that, in contravention of the W QA , the R egulation s create a 10 “ poi nt o f co m

pli an ce sy ste m ” th at al lo ws a m ine f ac ili ty to pol lut e w at er

und er the 11 en tir e m ine f

ac ili ty up t o ade sig na te d po int (a po in t of

c om pli an ce ) at

w hic h a 12 m onito r we ll is used to e nsure com pliance with the 3103 standards. Appellants argue, 13 furthe r, that the Re gul at ion s vi olate the W Q A be ca use the y a llo wdi sc harg e 14 pe rm itt ee s to pol lut e gr ou nd wate r unde rn eath a m ini ng f ac ili ty w ith out r eg ar d f or 15 pla ce s of

w ith dr aw al

. 16 Point -of-C om pliance A rgum ent 17 { 27} W e be gin

b y a d dr e s s i n g A

p p e l l an ts’ poi nt- of

-c om pli an ce a rg um en ts. I n Phe lps 18 D odge , w e noted the phrase “ poin t of com pliance” as being “ a vertica l surface located 19 at th e hy dr au lic al ly

downgr ad ie nt l im it of

the w as te m an ag em en t are a that e xte nds17

1 dow n in to the upp er

m ost a qui fe r unde rl y ing the re gul at ed uni ts[

. ] ” 2006 -N MC A -1 15 2 ¶ 36 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks an d ci ta tio n om itt ed ). A poi nt o f co m pli an ce w as one 3 “ poss ibl e fa ct or [] ” thi s C ourt su gge ste d th at the Co m

m iss ionm igh t c onsi de r in 4 es ta bli shi ng a se t of fa ct or s that co uld be use d to de te rm ine pla ce s of w ith dr aw al in 5 th e Perm it Adju di cat io n o r in fut ur e ru le -m ak in g p ro ceed in gs . Id

. ¶ ¶ 35- 37. I n 20 09 6 t h e Le g islature instructed the Comm issio n to establis h regulations for the copper 7 indu stry

based upon scientific and statutory considerations ; however, the Le gislature 8 ha s r em ai ne d silen t on the iss ue of w he the r a poi nt- of

-c om pli an ce sy ste m

is 9 ap pr op ria te forNew Mex ic o c op pe r m in in g o pe rat io ns . See § 7 4- 6- 4( E), (K). 10 { 28} Whether Appellants’ char ac terization of the Regulations as a point -of11 co m pli an ce sy ste m

is or is not pr ope r is not sign if ic an t to the o utc om e of

thi s a ppe al

. 12 A ssu m ing that the Re gul at ion s c re at ed asy ste m that is p ro pe rl y

c hara ct er iz ed

a s a 13 poi nt- of

-c om pli an ce sy ste m , nothin g inthe W Q A pr ohi bit ed the Co m m iss ionf ro m 14 doi ng s o. W e ar e unpe rs uade d by Appe llants ’ c itatio ns t o ou t- of -s ta te statut es a nd 15 re gul at ion s by w hic h they a tte m pt t o de m onstrate that w he re le gis la tor s in te nde d to 16 cr eate poi nt- of

-c om pli an ce sy ste m s, they

did so e xpr es sly

a nd/ or w ithc er

ta in 17 provisi ons th at are not found in N ew Mexico’ s laws or regulations. W e assum e, based 18 on o ur Phe lps D odgedis cu ssi on, a nd b as ed on the pe rv as ive ne ss i n othe r j ur isd ic tio ns 19 of law s and r eg ulatio ns p er taining t o po int -o f- co m pli an ce sy ste m s, that our18

1 Le gislature was awar e o f th e con cept o f a poin t-of-com pliance sy stem when it vested 2 th e Co m

m is si on wit h a ut ho rit y

to est ab li sh co pp er m in e reg ul at io ns . A tto rne y G en . 3 v . P ub

. R e

gu l at i on C

om m’ n , 2 01 1- N MS C- 034, ¶ 10, 150 N

. M. 174 , 258 P

. 3d 4 53 4 (s ta tin g th at

appe llate c ourts p re sum e tha t the L eg isl at ur e is ful ly aw ar e of

r el ev an t 5 statut or

y a nd c om m on law ). W e furthe r as sum e that ha d th e L eg isl at ur e int en de d to 6 ex pr es sly

pr ohi bit the Co m m iss ionf rom esta bli shi ng s uc h asy ste m , it w oul d have 7 do ne so . Instea d, our L eg isl at ur e ch ose to le av e the de ci sio n w he the r to es ta bli sh a 8 poi nt- of

-c om pli an ce sy ste m or an al te rn at ive to the ex pe rt ise of the Co m m iss ion , a nd 9 Appellants’ argum ent to the contrary , that the W QA prohibi ts a point-of-com pliance 10 sy ste m , is not supp orte d by the langua ge of the W Q A

. W e tur n now t o Appel lants ’ 11 ad dit ion al a rg um en ts tha t the Re gul at ion s vi olate vari ous spe ci fi c pr ovi sio ns o f the 12 W QA. 13 Places- of-Withd raw al Argum ent 14 { 29} Se ct ion 74- 6- 5( E )( 3) re qui re s N ME D to de ny an y appl ic at ionf

or adis ch ar ge 15 pe rm it if

the dis ch ar ge wou ld ca

use or c ontri but e to w at er

c ont am inant l ev el s in 16 ex ce ss of the 3103 standard s at an y pla ce of w ith dr aw al

. In tur n, the Reg ul at ions 17 expressly

conditio n approval of a discharge perm it upo n the applicant’s c om pliance 18 wit h S ect io n 7 4- 6- 5( E)(3 ). See 20. 6. 7. 10( J) (3 ) N MA C ( re co gni zi ng tha t N ME D m ust 19 deny a discha rg e p er m i t if so required by Subsection E of Se ction 74 -6-5(E )).19

1 N ev er the le ss, a lth oughthe y

appr oa chit

dif fe re ntl y , Appe llants arg ue that the 2 Re gul at ion s vi olate S ec tio n 74 -6 -5 (E )( 3) be ca use the y pe r m i t w at e r p o l l ut ionw ith out 3 re gard to pla ce s of

w ith dr aw al

. 4 { 30} Appe llants a rg ue that the Re gul at ion s vi olate S ec tio n 74 -6 -5 (E)(3) a nd 5 dis re gard

thi s C ourt’ s Phe lps D odge “ m an da te ” be ca use the Re gul at ion s do not 6 pr ovi de a ny

ba sis f or ide nti fy ing places of w ith dr aw al

. Rathe r, G ila a rg ue s, the 7 Regulations perm it “ extensive groun d water pollu tion at all copper m ines so lon g as 8 ‘ applicable standards’ are m et in distant m onito ring we lls” and they “ blind ly perm it[] 9 w ide spr ea d gr ound

w at er pol lut ionw he re ve r co ppe r m ine s ha ppe n to be loc at ed .” 10 The S tate shares G ila’ s view regarding the extent of ground water pollution perm itted 11 under the Regulations and argues t hat the Regulations allow c opper m ining fac ilities 12 to pol lut e gr ound w at er und er ne ath “ its sit e up t o ac er

ta in p oin t, be it

am oni tor ing 13 well

. . . ora pr op ert y bo un da ry .” 14 { 31} Appellant s ’ a rg u m ent that, pursuant to ou r Phe lps D odge O pin ion , the 15 Co m m iss ionw as r equir ed

to inc lud e in the Re gul at ion s f ac to rs to be use d in 16 ide nti fy ing pla ce s of

w ith dr aw al is pr em ise d onam isunde rs tandi ng of our ho ldi ng 17 in Phe lp s Do dg e. In Phe lps D odge , thi s Co urt re qui re d th e Co m m iss ion , on r em an d, 18 to c re at e som e ge ne ra l fa ct or s or pol ic ie s to gui de its de te rm inatio n of the loc at ionof 19 pla ce s of

w ith dr aw al on the m ine sit e; how ev er , “ [w ] e of fe r[ ed ] no o pin iona s to20

1 w he the r the Co m

m iss ionsho uld

do so by w ay of ru le [- ] m ak ing or by sim ply de ci din g 2 the factors as a p art of [the Perm it Adj udication ] .” Phe lps D odge , 200 6- N MC A -1 15, 3 ¶ 35. T he Co m

m iss ion ’ s D ec isi on and O rd er on R em an d inw hic h th e Co m m ission 4 ide nti fi ed

a num be r of f ac tor s to be use d by

N ME D a nd the m ini ng f ac ili ty to 5 establish p laces of withdraw al at the m ine site refle cts the Com m issio n’ s com

pliance 6 with our Phelps D odge Opinion. The Regulations that are the subject of this appeal 7 refle ct further com

pliance with our Phelps D odge O pin ion , a nd a s w e disc uss ne xt, 8 the y r ef le ct c om pli an ce wit h the W Q A , ins of ar a s th e Co m

m iss ionc re at ed

ase t of 9 co nc re te r eg ul at io ns via the r ule -m ak ing pr oc es s th at

spe ci fi ca lly

pr ote ct gr ound 1 0 w a t e r u n d e r l y i n g m i n e f

a c i l i t i e s s o t h a ta r e a s w i t h i n ami n e f a c i l i t y ma y b e c o me 11 pl aces of wi th dr awal

. 12 { 32} As discuss ed earlier in this Opinio n, near ly

three y ears a fter our Phe lps D odge 13 O pin ionw as pub lis he d, the L eg isl at ur e am e n d e d

th e W Q At o r equir e the Co m m iss ion 14 to est ab l i s h regulations particular to the copper m ine indu stry . See § 74-6-4(K). 15 N ota bly , how ev er , the L eg isl at ur e did not r equir e the Co m

m iss ionto inc lud e in those 1 6 re gul at ion s al i s to f

f a c t o r s o r p o l i c i e s t h a tm

u s tb e u s e dt o d e t e rm i n e p l a c e s of 17 wit hd rawal

. See id . Af ter the 200 9 a m en dm en ts t o th e W Q A , de te rm ini ng the 18 locations o f places of withdraw al under Sec tion 7 4-6-5( E) (3 ) was, a s it alway s had 19 be en , lef

t t o t he Co m

m is si on ’s di sc ret io n. Se e Phe lps D odge , 200 6- N MC A -1 15, ¶ 3521

1 (r ec ogni zi ng tha t purs uant t o Se ct ion 74- 6- 5( E )( 3) the Co m m iss ionm

ust de te rm ine 2 pla ce s of

w ith dr aw al ). I n sum , the Co m m iss ion ’ s de ci sio n no t t o in cl ude in the 3 Re gul at ion s f

ac tor s or pol ic ie s to be use d f

or de te rm ini ng p la ce s of

w ith dr aw al did 4 not vio la te the W Q A nor

did it dis re gard

a“ m an da te ” fr om

thi s C ourt. 5 Th e R eg ul at ion s D o N ot P er m itWi de sp re ad Gr ou nd Wa te r P oll ut ion 6 { 33} Ne xt we c onsid er Appellants’ ar gum e nt s tha t the R e gu l at i on s a l l ow

w idespread 7 gr ound w at er pol lut ion in exc es s of the 3103 standard s un de r ane nti re m ine f ac ili ty 8 up t o “ dis tant” m oni tor w el ls o r ev ento the pr ope rty boun dary . A s dis cu sse d late r in 9 this Opinio n, and having reviewed the R egulation s, w e conclude that the notio ns that 10 the Re gul at ion s al lo w wid es pr ea d po llu tio n or that the y a llo wam ine f

ac ili ty to 11 pol lut e gr ound

w at er und er ly ing the e nti re f

ac ili ty or that the m oni tor

w el ls m ay

be 12 “ dis tant” a re unf

ound ed or oth er w ise e xa gge rate d. 13 { 34} Pursuant to the Regulations , all area s within a m ine facility except are as that 14 fal l w ith in the pe ri m et er of the m oni tor

w el ls m ust m ee t the 310 3 st an da rd s. See 15 20.6.7. 28(B) N MAC (governing th e placem e nt o f m onito ring wells and requiring that 16 the 310 3 st an dard s be m et a t e ac h m oni tor ing w el l and o uts ide the m oni tor ing -w el l 17 pe ri m et er ). T hus, w it hi n a m ine f ac ili ty , a ny

pla ce a t or

be y ond the m oni tor -w el l 18 pe ri m et er

is w at er that m ay now an d m ay in the fu tur e be w ith dr awn f or hum anuse s. 19 A cc or din gl y , e very

pla ce w ith in a

m ine f ac ili ty a t and b ey ond the m oni tor -w el l22

1 perim eters is protected fr om ground water pollution , and therefore, m ay b e u s ed as 2 a “place of w ithdrawal. ” Se e Phe lps D odge , 2006 -N MC A -1 15, ¶ 27 ( statin g th at the 3 L eg isl at

ur e’ s us e of

the phr as e “ pla ce of

w ith dr aw al ” in S ec tio n 74 -6 -5 (E )( 3) 4 ca pture d “ the c onc ep t tha t cle an w at er that is cur re ntl y be ing w ith dr awn for use , or 5 cl ean w at er

that i s li ke ly

to be use d inthe r ea sona bly f or es ee ab le f

ut ur e, m ust be 6 protected”). 7 { 35} Appe llants ’ co nte nti ons that the m oni tor w el ls w oul d be “ dis tant” f ro m the 8 m ini ng unit s or

that the m oni tor ing w oul d on ly oc cur at the pe rimeter of

the m ine 9 fa cili ty, thus a llo w ing the e nti re a re a w ith in the m ine f ac ili ty to ex ce ed

the 310 3 10 standard s are not

sup porte d by

the langua ge of the Re gul at ion s. T he m oni tor w el ls 11 m ust be placed as close as p ractica ble around the perim eter and do wngradient of ea ch 12 m ining unit, and the placem ent of m onito r w ells and the num ber of m onito r w ells that 13 are r eq ui redat e a c h u n i t i s s ub ject t o NM ED’ s ap pr ov al

. See 20.6.7. 28 (A), (B) 14 NMA C. In the hy

poth etical event that a p ro s p ec t i ve perm ittee intended to p lace 15 m onito r we lls at a distance that any interested party

deem ed excessive, that party m ay 16 rai se th e is su e dur in g t he pe rm it ti ng pro ces s. See § 74 -6 -5 (G ) (“ N o r uli ng s ha ll be 17 m ade on any a p p l ication for a perm it without op portuni ty for a publ ic hearing at 18 which all interested persons shall be given a reasonable chance to subm it evidence,23

1 da ta , vie w s[ , ] or

a rg um en ts or al ly or in w ri tin g an d to ex am ine w itn es se s te sti fy ing 2 at the hearing.” ). 3 { 36} W e ne xt a ddr es s Appe llants ’ a rg um en ts re gard ing the e xte nt t o w hic h th e 4 Re gul at ion s a llo wgr ound w at er pol lut ion

. H av ing r ej ec te d th e not ionthat the 5 Reg ul at io ns pe rm it wate r po ll ut io n with in th e en ti re b ou nd ary of a m in e fac il it y , we 6 focus on the State’ s argum ent that the Regulations violate the W QA becaus e th ey 7 al low co ppe r m i n i n g f a c i l i t i e s t o p o l l u t e g r o u n dw a t e r w i t h i n au n i tup t o t h e p o i nt 8 of am oni tor

w el l. W e al so a ddr es s th e re la te d arg um en t, r ai se d by G ila , that the 9 Re gul at ion s “ fr

ustrate [] the [ W Q A ’ s] ba sic pur pose ” be ca

use the Re gul at ion s pe rm it 10 rathe r than a

ba te a nd p re ve nt g ro und w at er pol lut ionw ith in m ini ng unit s. 11 { 37} In pr om

ulg at ing the Re gul at ion s, the Co m m iss ion w as a ct ing pur suant t o th e 12 Le gislature’ s m andate that it form ula t e re g u lations to “ prevent or abate w ater 13 pol lut ion ” w hil e sim ult an eo usl y

w ei ghi ng, a m ong oth er thi ngs, th e “ soc ia l and 14 econom ic value of the sources of w ater c ontam inants” and th e “ technical 15 pr ac tic a

b i l i ty an d e c o nom ic r ea sona

ble ne ss o f re duc ing or

e lim inatin g” the m . S ec tio n 16 74- 6- 4( E )( 2) , ( 3)

. T hus, the Co m m iss ion w as re qui re d to str ike w ha t i t de em ed to be 17 anappr opr ia te ba lanc e be tw ee n the ne ed to pr ev en t or aba te w at er

pol lut iona nd the 18 ne ed to cr eate r eg ulatio ns w ithw hic h th e m ini ng i ndus tr y c oul d r ea sona

bly a nd 19 pr ac tic ab ly

c om ply

. T o th e ex te nt tha t Appe llants ’ a rg um en ts are im pli ci tly ba se d on24

1 the pr em ise that the Co m m iss ion w as re qui re d by the W Q A to e sta bli sh r eg ulatio ns 2 that would totallyprevent m ining operations f rom pollu ting ground w ater, we rej ect 3 th em . Se e Phe lps D odge , 200 6- N MC A -1 15, ¶ 33 (r ec ogni zi ng that it is unr ea lis tic to 4 require that all ground water underly ing a m ine site m eet drinkable standards). 5 { 38} Appe llants c ite vario us pr ovi sio ns o f the Re gul at ion s purs uant t o w hic h th e 6 gr ound w at er und er ly ing dis cr ete m in in g units is not r equir ed to m ee t the 310 3 7 standards to exem

plify their point th at t h e Re g u lations p erm it ground water 8 co ntam inatio n. Whil e the Co m m iss ion ac know le dge d that the c ont ai nm en t strate gy 9 re qu i r e d b y t h e R e g u l a t i o n s m a y a l l o w g r o u n d w a t e r u n d e r l y i n g c e rt a i n u n its to 10 ex ce ed the 3103 standard s dur ing m ini ng ope ratio ns, to say that t he Regu la tio ns 11 therefore pe rmit g ro und water c ontam ination goes too far. As noted earlier , 12 co nt ai ni ng gr ound

w at er that e xc ee ds the 310 3 st an dard s is the pr im ar y m ethod of 13 co ntr oll ing dis ch ar ge . P ur suant t o th e Re gul at ion s, e ac h m ini ng unit is gove rn ed

by 14 re qui rem en ts tha t sp ec if ic al ly ide nti fy the m ethod by

w hic h c ont am inate d w at er is 15 co nt ro ll ed

. 16 { 39} For exam

ple, Appellants argue that the Regulatio ns perm it g ro u n d water 17 pol lut ionbe ca

use , dur ing m ini ng ope ratio ns an d af te r cl osur e, the 3103 standard s do 18 not ap ply to gr ound w at er that is loc at ed ins ide the “ ‘ ar ea of op en pi t h y dr olo gic 1 9 c o n t a i n me n t ’ an d r e l a t e d‘o p e n p i ts u r f a c e dr a i n a g e a r e a . ’ “ See 20 .6.7 .24 (D) NMAC25

1 (“ During o peration of an open pit, t he [3103 stand ards] do not apply within the area 2 of op enpi t h y dr ol og ic co nt ai nm en t.”) . An 3 “ [a] rea of open pit hy drologi c containm ent” m eans, f or an open pit th at 4 int er ce pts the w at er ta ble , the a re a w he re gr ound wate r dr ai ns t o th e 5 ope n pi t and i s r em ove d by e va por at ionor

pum pin g, a nd i s in te ri or

to 6 the de partm en t a ppr ove d m oni tor ing w el l netw ork in sta lle d aro und the 7 p er i m et ero f a n o p en p i t [. ]” 8 20. 6. 7. 7( B) (5 ) N MA C. A n “ ‘ [o ] pe n pi t su rf ac e dr ai na ge a re a’ m eans the a re a in 9 w hic h st orm

w at er dr ai ns i nto a n op enpit

a nd c an not

f ea sib ly be div er te d by gr av ity 10 outsi de the pit perim eter , and the und e rly ing grou nd water is hy drologi cally

contained 11 by pum ping or ev ap o ra t ion of water from the open pit.” 20.6.7. 7(B)( 42) NMA C. 1 2 T hus, a l t h o u g hi ti s t r u e t h a tt h e 3 1 0 3 s t a n d a r d s d o n o tap p l y t o o p e n p i t s dur ing 13 m ini ng o pe ratio ns, Appe llants f ai l t o a cknow le dg e th e Re gul at ion s’ pr ovi sio n f or 14 gr ou nd wate r pr ote ct ionin that are a by r em ovi ng the c ont am inate d w at er f ro m the 15 op en pi t. See 20.6.7. 33(D) N MAC

. 16 { 40} A ft er

c los ur e of

m ini ng o pe ratio ns, P art 20.6

. 7. 33( D ) N MA C o f the 17 Regulations requires a perm ittee to provide a detailed closure plan for open pits th at 18 will “ m inim ize the potential to cause an exceedance of” the 3103 sta n d ar d s . Under 19 that part

of the Re gul at ion s, an y w at er w ith in an ope n pit tha t i s pr ed ic te d to f lowint o 20 th e g ro un d wat er m us t m eet t h e 31 03 st an da rd s. 2 0.6 .7.3 3( D)(2 ) NMAC. An 21 ex ce pti on app lie s only to ope n pits tha t ar e det er m ine d to be “ hy dr olo gic e va por at ive26

1 sin k[ s] , ” m eanin g th at

e va por at ion of the w at er

in the ope n pi t w ill e xc ee d th e inf low 2 an d w ill , the re fo re , not f lowint o th e gr ound

w at er . 20. 6. 7. 33 (D )( 1) N MA C. T hus, 3 Appellants’ assertion that the Regulation s perm it the wa ter from open pits to exceed 4 the 3103 standards perpetually after closure is inaccurate. 5 { 41} G ila

a rg ue s, f urthe r, that the Re gul at ion s vi olate the W Q A be ca use the y pe rm it 6 w ide spr ea d gr ound

w at er pol lut ionabov e the 310 3 st an dard s w ith out r equir ing the 7 perm ittee to apply

for a variance. Sec t i o n 74-6-4(H) provides th at under particular 8 ci rc um stance s, the Co m m iss ion“ m ay

gr an t an in div idu al vari an ce f ro m a ny 9 re gul at ion [. ] ” N oth ing in the Re gul at ion s purp ort t o a lte r the Co m m iss ion ’ s a

bil ity 1 0 o r d i s cr et i o n t o g ra n t a v ar i an ce u n d erSe ct i o n 7 4 -6 -4 (H ), an dh av i n g re je ct ed Gi l a’s 11 pr em is e th atth e Reg u l a t io ns “ pe rm it [] wides pr eadgro un d wat er p ol lu ti on [,]” we 12 decline to consid er this argum ent further. 13 { 42} Insum , Appe llants ha ve f ai le d to de m onstrate that the Re gul at ion s vi olate a ny 14 pr ovi sio n of

the W QA. A lth oughthe Re gul at ion s’ pr ovi sio ns are not pe rf ec tly 15 protective of ground wat er u n derly ing a m ining fac ility , the W QAdid no t require 16 th em to be

. See § 74 -6 -4 (E ). T he Co mm is sion de te rm ine d th at the Re gul at ion s 17 es ta bli she d “ ef

fi ci en t m ea su res a nd c le ar pr ovi sio ns t o pr ev en t and c ont ai n gr ound 18 wate r co nt am in at io n[ ,] ” an d h av in g re vi ewed t he va rio us at- is su e p ro vi si on s, we 19 cannot conclud e that the Com m issio n reac hed this con clusion in error.27

1 Collateral Estopp el D oes Not A ppl y to the Com m issio n’s R ule-M ak ing 2 Pr ocedur e 3 { 43} Appe llants e ac h arg ue that c oll at er al e sto ppe l pre cl ude d th e Co m m iss ionf ro m 4 “ re [- ] lit igatin g” or “ re[ -] ad j udi catin g” f

ac ts o r iss ue s th at

w er e re sol ve d inthe 5 Com m issio n’ s Dec ision and Or der o n Re m an d. Y et, the State a cknowledges that 6 iss ue s r el at ed

spe ci fi ca lly

to the m ine a t i ssu e in Phe lps D odge “ we re not in fact 7 re [- ] lit ig at edin th e Co m m is si on ’s rul e[-]m ak in g” an d t ha t t he pu rp os e o f ru le -m ak ing 8 pr oc ee din gs tha t ulti m at el y re sul te d in the Co m m iss ion ’ s adop tio n of the Re gul at ion s 9 at i s s u e i n t h i s ap p ea l wa s “ en t i re l y d i ff er en t ” fr o m t h e p u rp o s e o f th e C o m m i s s i o n ’s 10 proceedings on rem and from our Phe lps D odge O pin ion

. W e dis ag re e w ith 11 Appe llants ’ inv oc at ionof the doc tr ine of

c oll at er al e sto ppe l i n th e co nte xt o f thi s 12 ap pe al

. 13 { 44} Co llate ra l e sto ppe l bars “ the r e[ -] lit igatio n of

. . . f ac ts o r iss ue s a ct

ua lly a nd 1 4 n e c e s s a r i l y

d e t e rm i n e di n [ a ] p r e v i o u s l i t i g a t i o n ” w h e r e , a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , th e s ame 1 5 i s s u e w a s p r e s e n t e da n d f i n a l l y a d j u d i c a t e di n ap r e v i o u s l a w s u i tb e t w e e n t h e s a me 16 pa rti es . R ose tte, In c. v. U nit ed Sta tes D ep ’t

of the I nte rio r , 200 7- N MC A -1 36, ¶ 39, 17 142 N

. M. 717 , 169 P

. 3d 7 04. U nli ke the Pe rm it A dj udi catio n that inv olv ed adis put e 18 be tw ee n P he lps D odge T yro ne , I nc . a nd N ME D c onc er nin g asin gle dis ch ar g e p e rm it, 19 the Com

m issio n’ s adoptio n of t h e Re g u l ations at issu e in this case wa s not an 20 ad j udi cato ry

pro ceed in g. Phe lps D odge , 200 6- N MC A -1 15, ¶ 2; see Rauscher, P ierce,28

1 Re fsnes , I nc. v . T axation & Re venue D ep’t , 200 2- N MS C- 013, ¶ 42, 132 N

. M. 226 , 2 46 P

. 3d 6 87 ( re co gni zi ng tha t r ule -m ak ing a nd a dj udi catio n are c hara ct er ist ic al ly 3 dis tin ct be ca use , a m ong oth er thi ngs, ru le -m ak ing af fe ct s th e ri ght s of

abr oa d c la ss 4 of ind ivi dua ls, w he re as a dj udi catio n in vol ve s c onc re te dis put es a ff ec tin g spec if

ic 5 ind ivi dua ls)

. Be ca

use the a t- iss ue r

ule -m ak ing pr oc ee din g w as not a n a dj udi catio n, 6 the pr inc ipl e of co llate ra l est oppe l has no beari ng on the Com m iss ion ’ s de ci sio n to 7 ad opt the Re gul at ion s. 8 { 45} Se tti ng a sid e the “ co llate ra l e sto ppe l” la be l, it is cl ear that Appe llants ’ 9 argum ent is actually

an attack on the Com

m issio n’ s decision, as stated in the O rder, 10 to a llo wthe P he lps D odge T yro ne m ine to ope rate pr osp ect iv ely und er the 11 Regulations instead of under the directives of t he Com m issio n’ s Dec ision and Or der 12 on Rem and. T his argum ent is not p ersuasive. 13 { 46} Th e C o m

m issio n’ s Dec isionand Or d ero n Re m an dp re ce d ed t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s 14 ru le -m ak ing a ct ivi ty

a t i ssu e in this appe al

. Be fo re the Co m m iss ion ’ s D ec isi on and 15 O rd er on R em an d w en t i nto e ff ec t, a nd whil e it w as the sub j ec t of ape ndi ng a

ppe al , 16 the Co m

m iss ion gr an te d th e part ie s in Phe lps D odge r el ie f fr om the dir ec tiv es of

the 17 or de r, inc lud ing a ny

dir ec ti ve s a

ppl ic ab le to de te rm ini ng whe re , w ith in the P he lps 18 D odge T yro ne m ine f ac ili ty the n a t i ssu e, place s of

w ith dr aw al w er e loc at ed

. T he 1 9 Co mm iss io n ’ s s t a t e dp u r p o s e f o r r e l i e v i n g t h e p a rt i e s f

r o m t h e d i r e c t i v e s o f

t he29

1 D ec isi on and O rd er

on R em an d w as , in re le vant part , to al lowthe part ie s to a ch ie ve 2 a se ttl em en t by

a llo w ing the a t- iss ue r

ule -m ak ing pr oc es s to oc cu r. Ac co rd ing to 3 legislative m andate, after the Regulations we re adopted, copper m ine p er m i t s we re 4 to be su bjec t to th e co nd it io ns of t he Reg ul at io ns . See § 74 -6 -5 (D ) (“ A ft er r eg ulatio ns 5 have been adopted .

. . per m its for fac ilities in [the copp er] indus try shall be subject 6 to con dit ion s c ont ai ne d inthe r eg ulatio ns. ”)

. T hus, c ontrary to the S ta te ’ s arg um en t 7 that the Co m

m iss ionvio la te d th e W Q A by pe rm itt ing the P he lps D odge T yro ne 8 m ini ng s ite a t i ssu e in Phe lps D odge to ope rate sub j ec t t o th e Re gulat ions, the 9 Com m issio n is, in fac t com ply ing with Section 74-6-5(D). To the e xtent that 10 Appe llants w ishto ch al le nge that m ine ’ s f uture appl ic at ionf

or ape rm it unde r the 11 Reg ul at io ns , th ey

m ay do so in th e rel ev an t p erm it pro ceed in gs . See § 7 4- 6- 5( G) 12 (req ui rin g a pu bl ic he ari ng be fo re a ru li ng is m ad e o n a pe rm it ap pl ic at io n)

. 13 Th e Or de r D oe s N ot R eq ui re R ev er sal 14 { 47} Appe llants a rg ue that be ca use the Co m

m iss ion ad opt ed Fr ee port’ s ve rs ionof 15 the regulations v erbatim , the O rder a dopt ing th e Regulations sho uld no t be aff orded 16 de fe re nc e. F urthe r, the S tate ur ge s th is C ourt t o a dopt a n a lte rn at ive ve rs ionof the 17 Re gul at ion s th at

w as sub m itt ed

j oin tly by Appe llants to w hic h th ey r ef er a s th e “ Joi nt 18 Pr opos al

. ” G ila

arg ue s th at

the O rd er doe s not supp ort its ad opt ion of the Re gul at ion s30

1 be ca use m an y of it s 1, 388 fi ndi ngs ar e co ntr ar y to la w , ar

bitrary an d cap ri ci ous, a nd 2 not sup porte d by

sub stanti al e vid en ce . W e ad dr es s th es e ar gum en ts i n turn . 3 { 48} Appe llants ’ a rg um en t tha t the O rd er is n ot e nti tle d to de fe re nc e de ri ve s f ro m 4 the propos ition that co u rt s and adm inistrative agencies acting in an adjudicatory 5 ca pa ci ty sho uld a voi d “ w hol es al e ve rb at im a dopt ionof

aparty ’ s pr opos ed

f ind ing s 6 [o f fac t] and co nc lu si on s” of l aw. Be rnier v. B ernier ex rel. Be rnier , 20 13 -NMCA7 074, ¶ 15 n

. 4, 305 P

. 3d 9 78 ( “ T he pr ac tic e of f ull sc al e ve rb at im

a dopt ionof 8 ex te nsi ve r eque ste d f ind ing s of

f ac t and r eque st ed co nc lus ion s of lawof the 9 p r e v a i l i n g p a rt y . . . c a n c au s e t h i s C o u rt o n ap p e a l t o g r a n tl e s s d e f e r e n c e t o [ t h e m] 10 than is oth er

w ise a cc or de d. ”) ; Nu ne

z v. Sm ith ’s M

gm t. Co rp . , 198 8- N MC A -1 09, ¶ ¶ 1, 1 1 4, 108 N

. M. 1 8 6 , 7 6 9 P

. 2 d 9 9 ( i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e ap p l i e s a s w e l l t o 12 adm ini str at ive a ge nc ie s a ct ing in the ir a dj udi cator

y c ap ac ity ). T he St at e doe s no t c ite 13 an y au tho ri ty to show that this pr inc ipl e app lie s to an age nc y ’ s sta te m en t of r ea sons 14 in s uppo rt

of it s a dopt ed r eg ulatio ns whic h are “ pr es um ed va lid a nd w ill be uph el d 15 if reasonably consist ent with the statutes that they im plem ent.” W

ilc oxv . N. M

. B d. of 16 A cu punc tur e & O rie nta l M ed

. , 2012-NMC A- 106, ¶ 7, 288 P. 3d 90 2 (internal 17 qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 18 { 49} Furthe r, w e sum m ar ily r ej ec t the S ta te ’ s su gge stion tha t this Co urt “ shou ld” 19 adopt th e Joint Proposal. The authority to adopt regulations pertaining to the copper31

1 in du st ry

was g ran te d e xc lu si ve ly to t he Co m m is si on by the Legi sl atur e. See § 74 -6

- 2 4(K)

. This Court’ s authority is lim ited to reviewing the Regulations, and if called f or, 3 un de r pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces , s et ti ng as id e th e Co m m is si on ’s act io ns . See § 74 -6

- 4 7(B). 5 { 50} W e tur

n no wto G ila’s at ta ck

on the O rd er . G ila

a rg ue s th at

anum be r of the 6 Com m issio n’ s reasons for adopting th e Regulations sho uld be set aside because they 7 ar e based on an incorrect interpretation of the W QA

. To the extent that Gi l a’s 8 ar gum en t i n th is r eg ard rei te rate s c ont en tio ns tha t w er e ad dr es se d e ar lie r in this 9 O pin ion , w e do n ot a ddr es s th em a ga in. 10 { 51} Gila attacks a portion of the Order adoptin g Part 20.6. 7.21(B) N MAC . P art 11 20. 6. 7. 21( B) N MA C g ove rn s th e “ [e ] ngi ne er ing de sig n r equir em en ts f or ne ww as te 12 ro ck stockpi les[, ] ” and it enum erate s the m inim um requirem ents that m

ust be “ m et 13 in design ing engineered s tructures for wa ste rock stockpil es at copper m ine facilities 14 unl es s th e ap pli cant o r pe rm itt ee can dem onstrate that an a lte rn at e de sig n w ill pr ovi de 15 an equa l or gr eate r le ve l of co nta inm en t. ” Inr el ev an t part , the Co m m iss ionstate d in 16 its reasons for adopting that provisi on that 17 [an N ME D w itn es s] te sti fi ed that, dur ing m ini ng o pe ratio ns, w at er use 18 within the m ine area would be controlled bythe m ine operator and that 1 9 w a t e r

p r o du c e dw o u l d b e u s e df o r mi n i n g p u r

p o s e s . C o n s e qu e n t l y, 20 during th e period of m ine operation, g round wa ter within th e m ine area , 21 inc lud ing the a re a of aw as te r oc k stoc kpi le , w oul d not be ava ila ble f or 22 dom es tic or

a gric ultur al use . [ T he w itn es s] f urthe r te sti fi ed

that,32

1 fo llo w ing c los ur e, the a re a ar ound a nd un der a w as te r oc k st oc kpi le 2 co uld

be co m e a pla ce of

w ith dr aw al of wate r fo r dom es tic or 3 agricultural use. 4 { 52} G ila

a rg ue s th at

the Co m m iss ion re lie d onthe f

or eg oin g w itn es s te sti m ony to 5 find that “ places of w ithdrawal are lim ited to pre sent dom estic and agricultural uses 6 of w at er that oc cur som ewhe re out sid e the c oppe r m ine f ac ili ty

. ” G ila

doe s no t 7 dem onstrate wher e, in the record or in the Re gu l at ions, the Com m issio n stated that 8 “ pla ce s of wi thdraw al ar e lim ite d to [are as ]

. . . out sid e the c oppe r m ine f ac ili ty

. ” N or 9 c a n s u c h af

i n d i n g o r p r o v i s i o n b e r e a s o n ab l y i n f e rr e d f r o m th e f o r e g o i n g t e s t i mo n y. 10 W e d o n ot co ns id er t hi s u ns up po rte d a rg um en t fu rth er. See Ru le 12 -2 13 (A)( 4) 11 NMR A ( requiring an appellant to provide r ecord proper citations in supp ort of eac h 12 argum ent). 13 { 53} Gila a lso a rg ue s th at the w itn es s’ s te sti m ony

sup ports a

c onc lus ionthat the 14 ground wa ter un derly ing a waste rock stockpi le i s entitled to protection because it has 15 a re as ona

bly f or es eeab le fu tur e use . G ila ’ s arg um en t i n th is r eg ar d do es not 16 dem onstrate a conflict. The Com m issio n found th at a newwa ste rock stockpil e that 17 is d es ign ed

in ac co rd an ce w ithP ar

t 20

. 6. 7. 21( A ) an d ( B) N MA C w ill “ not ty pic al ly 18 re sul t i n gr ound w at er co ntam inatio n. ” T hus, al tho ugh, ac co rd ing to the w itn es s, the 19 m ine w ill use the unde rl y ing gr ound w at er fo r its ow n purp ose s, the a re a unde rl y ing 20 w as te r oc k s to ckpi le s coul d be use d a s apla ce of w ith dr aw al a ft er

the m ini ng33

1 ope ratio ns b ec au se the r equis ite de sig n of the w as te ro ck sto ck

pil es is ex pe ct ed

to 2 pr es er ve the gr ound w at er qua lity . T he re fo re , to the ex te nt that G ila co nte nds that the 3 gr ound w at er underl y in g aw as te r oc k st oc kpi le is en tit le d to pr ote ct ion , the 4 Reg ul at io ns co m

po rt wi th Gil a’s co nt en ti on . 5 { 54} G ila

a rg ue s, f urthe r, that the Co m

m iss ion ’ s f

ind ing that an N ME D w itn es s 6 “ te sti fi ed

that r equir ing avari an ce ve rs us a ppr ovi ng p ro ve n tec hnol ogi es by r ule is 7 a distinctio n without a differe nce” was “ contrary to law and no t based on su bstantial 8 ev ide nc e. ” Insup port of thi s arg um en t, G ila cl ai m s th at th e w itn es s w as not 9 co m pe te nt t o test if

y re gard ing ru le -m ak ing or vari an ce pr oc ee din gs. Co ntr ar y to the 10 Ru le s of

Appe llate pr oc ed

ur e, G ila doe s no t s ho w wh ethe r, a nd i f so, w he re in the 11 re co rd it r ai se d the iss ue of the co m pe te nc e of N ME D ’ s w itn es s to te sti fy r eg ar din g 12 a di st in ct io n bet ween a va ria nc e an d t he Reg ul at io ns . See Ru le 12- 213( A )( 4)

. W e w ill 13 not se ar chthe r ec or d to de te rm ine w he the r the arg um en t w as r ai se d be fo re or 14 re sol ve d by t he Co m

m iss ion , a nd the re fo re thi s arg um en t pr es en ts n o is sue f or our 15 rev ie w. 16 { 55} G ila

a lso a tta ck s th e O rd er

on sub st antia l e vid en ce gr ound s. O n a ppe al , the 17 partyc ha lle ngi ng the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce sup portin g an a dm ini str at ive 18 a ge nc y ’ s a c t i on “ m

us t se t f or t h t he su bs t a nce of all ev ide nc e be ar ing upo n th e 19 propos ition ” in the light m os t favo rable to the agency ’ s decision and “ then34

1 de m on st r at e why, on b al an ce, t he ev id en ce fa il s t o s up po rt t he fin di ng m ad e.” 2 Martinez v. Sw. Landfills , I nc. , 1993 -N MC A -0 20, ¶¶ 8- 11, 115 N

. M. 181 , 848 P

. 2d 3 1108 ; see Ru le 12-213 (A )( 3)

. I nst ea d of pr es en tin g it s arg um en t i n th e fo re goi ng 4 m an n er , Gi l a p o i n t s t o t h e e v i d en ce i n t h e r ec o rd t h at co n t ra d i ct s t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s 5 fi ndi ngs an d th at , in G ila ’ s vie w , supp orte d ad opt ion of an al te rn at ive ve rs ion of the 6 Re gul at ion s and r ep eate dly a sse rt s th at

“ subs tant ia l e vid en ce c ontra dic ts” vari ous 7 fi ndi ngs of

the Co m m iss ion

. 8 { 56} Gila’ s decisions to om it citations to the evidence in the rec ord that sup ported 9 the ag en cy ’ s de ci sio n an d to p re se nt the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to its el f 10 le av es to thi s C ourt the ta sk of digg ing thr oughthe vol um ino us r ec or d to de te rm ine 11 whe th er, “ on ba la nc e, th e ev id en ce fai ls to supp or t t he [Co m m is si on ’s] fin di ng [s ]. ” 12 Mar tinez , 199 3- N MC A -0 20, ¶ 10; se e M

cN ei ll v. B url ing ton R es . O il & G as C o. , 13 2007 -N MCA -024, ¶ 16, 141 N.M. 212, 153 P.3d 46 (“Th e q u es t ion is n ot whether 14 subs tantial evidence exists to s uppo rt the opp osite result, but rather whether such 15 ev ide nc e supp orts the r es ult r ea ch ed

. ” (i nte rn al quo tatio n m ar ks and c itatio n 16 om it te d) ), aff’d , 2008 -N MS C- 022, 143 N

. M. 740, 182 P

. 3d 1 21. T his w e w ill not do. 17 Martinez , 1993 -N MC A -0 20, ¶¶ 13, 15 ( statin g th at

“ it is n ot the r es pons ibi lity of the 18 review ing court to s earc h throug h the record t o determ ine whether subs tantial 19 ev ide nc e ex ist s to supp ort a f ind ing [, ] ” re co gni zi ng tha t i n aw hol e re co rd r ev ie wthi s35

1 Co urt “ shou ld b e ab le to re ly e nti re ly on the ap pe llant’ s bri ef

-i n- ch ie f in c an va ssi ng 2 al l the ev ide nc e beari ng on a fi ndi ng or a dec isi on, ” and not ing that “ the r ev ie w ing 3 court shou ld [not] have to sup plem ent the appellant’ s presentation of the evidence”). 4 G ila ’ s su

bst an tia l e vid en ce a rg um en ts d o no t w ar rant r ev er sa l. 5 { 57} G ila

a lso a rg ue s that the Co m m iss ionf ai le d to r ev ie wAppe llants ’ Joi nt 6 Pr opos al or

a ny of Appe llants ’ “ cl osi ng s ubm itt al s, ” an d a s ar es ult , the Co m m iss ion 7 “ m ad e num er ous er

ro ne ous fi ndi ngs in whic h it m isc hara ct er iz e[ d]

. . . Appell ants’ 8

. . . re co m

m en de d [r eg ulatio n] ch an ge s or state s that the y fa ile d to s ub m it a ny 9 re co m m en de d c hange s. ” Insup port of thi s arg um en t, G ila ci te s m or e than 100 of the 10 Co m m iss ion ’ s a lle ge dly

e rr one ous find in gs and

hun dr ed s of

pa ge s of Appe llants ’ 11 supp ortin g do cu m en ta tio n. Appare ntl y G ila ’ s e xpe ct at ionis that a s to e ac h o f the 12 100- plu s fi ndi ngs, thi s Co urt w ill f er re t ou t the r el ev an t po rt ion s f ro m the hun dr ed s 13 of pa ge s of

Appe llants ’ br oa dly

c ite d do cu m en tati on t o de te rm ine w he the r the 14 Co m m iss ion ’ s f

ind ing s w er e er

ro ne ous. A ddi tio na lly , ha vin g it se lf not ab ly f ai le d to 15 se t ou t th e evi de nc e be ar ing upo n th e pr opos iti on i n th e lig ht m ost f av or ab le to the 16 ag en cy ’s dec is io n, Gi la ad m on is he s t hi s C ou rt t ha t af te r we rev ie w t h e reco rd , we 17 m ust refra in from

“ supp ly ing th e re asons” sup porting the Or der. 18 { 58} A ga in, w e re m ind G ila that i t i s Appe llants ’ bu rd enin ch al le ngi ng the 19 suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to se t ou t a ll of the ev ide nc e beari ng on a pr opos iti on and36

1 to sp eci fic al ly at ta ckco nt es te d fi nd in gs . Martinez , 1993 -N MC A -0 20, ¶ 9; see Ru le 2 12- 213( A )( 3) , ( 4)

. E ve n w he n un de rt ak ing a w hol e- re co rd re vie w , it is n ot the duty 3 of thi s C ourt t o se ar chthr oughthe r ec or d se ek ing the ba se s f or r ev er sa l or

to re -w ei gh 4 th e ev id en ce. See M

artin ez , 1993 -N MCA -020, ¶¶ 12-15 (e xplaini ng that in awhole5 re co rd r ev ie w it is i nc um

be nt u pon the appe llant t o pr es en t “ al l the e vid en ce be ar ing 6 on a f i nd i ng o r ad e c i si on , f

a vo r abl e o r

u nf a vo r abl e ” t o sh owt hatt he e vidence 7 supp orting th e decision is no t subs ta n t i al “ when vi ew ed in the ligh t that the wh ole 8 re co rd furnishes” and “ it is not the responsib ility of the review ing court to s earc h 9 thr oughthe r ec or d to de te rm ine w he the r subs tanti al e vid en ce ex is ts to s uppo rt a 10 fi ndi ng” ( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed )) ; se e als o R eg en ts o f the 11 Univ. of Cal. v. N.M

. W ater Quality Contro l Comm ’n , 200 4- N MC A -0 73, ¶ 29, 136 12 N

. M. 45, 94 P

. 3d 7 88 ( statin g th at in re vie w ing a n age nc y ’ s de ci sio n, thi s C ourt w ill 13 not re-w eigh the evidence). F urther, we need not search th e record to sup ply suppo rt 1 4 f o r t h e f i n d i n g s i n t h e O r d e r , i n t h e ab s e n c e o f as h o w i n g t o t h e c o n t r a ry, w e p r e s u me 15 th atth os e fi nd in gs were co rrec t. P ic ke tt R anc h, LLC v . Cu rry , 200 6- N MCA -0 82, 16 ¶ 57, 140 N

. M. 49, 139 P. 3d 209 (“ [C ] ourts pr es um e re gul ar ity a nd c or re ctne ss o n th e 17 part of adm inistrative [agencies.] ”). 18 { 59} Additionally , G ila’ s assertion that the Comm issio n failed to con sider 19 Appe llants ’ Joi nt P ro posa l and the ir “ cl osi ng subm itt al s” is dir ec tly c ontra dic te d by37

1 the r ec or d. T o th at

e nd, w e obse rv e the Co m m iss ion ’ s tr an sc ri be d de lib er at ion s in 2 wh i c h e a c h m e m

be r of the C om

m i ss i on c on f

i rm e d t hat t he y ha d r e vi e w e d each 3 party ’ s “ w ri tten cl osi ng arg um en ts and p ro pose d st at em en ts o f re as on” a nd d ur ing 4 w hic h th e co nte nts of

Appe llants ’ Joi nt P ro posa l w er e re vie w ed a nd d isc uss ed

. 5 { 60} Insum , Appe llants ha ve not de m onstrate d that the O rd er pr ovi de s any

ba sis f or 6 reversa l. W e conclude that Appel l an t s ’ attacks on the Com m issio n’ s finding s as 7 unsu ppor te d by suf fi ci en t e vid en ce or a s be ing c ontrary to lawdo n ot w ar

rant 8 re ve rs al

. 9 CON CLU SION 10 { 61} W e af

fi rm the Co m m iss ion ’ s or de r ad opt ing the Re gul at ion s. 11 { 62} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 13 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e 14 WE CO NCUR:

15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 16 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , C hi ef Ju dg e

17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 18 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, Ju dg e