New Mexico Environmental Law Center

San Augustin Plains Water Grab Motions to be Heard

2012-02-03T20:30:33Z

WHO: New Mexico Environmental Law Center

WHAT: Hearing before State Engineer addressing motions to dismiss the water rights application

WHERE: Socorro County Courthouse, 200 Church Street, Socorro, New Mexico, 87801. 575-835-0050

WHEN: Tuesday, February 7th, 10:00 a.m.

INTERVIEWS AND IMAGES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST

CONTACT:
Juana Colón
Wk: 505-989-9022, ext. 21

###

NMELC Appeals Roll Back of Energy Efficient Building Codes

2012-01-24T16:16:50Z

“The original Energy Efficient 2010 codes were adopted after over a year of weekly meetings and extensive review of technical, energy, and economic feasibility studies,” says Tammy Fiebelkorn, President of eSolved, Inc. “After all of this, consensus was achieved. The Commission did none of these things when it rolled back the codes. If the rollback wasn’t based on technical feasibility, energy use analysis or financial impacts, what was it based on?”

Representing Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, Environment New Mexico, Sundancer Creations Custom Builder, LLC., eSolved, Inc., the Sierra Club, and individuals, the NMELC asks the Court of Appeals to reverse the Commission’s roll back of the 2010 Codes and rule that changes made in June 2011 have no force or effect.

The filed brief argues that the Commission must meet the requirements of the Uniform Licensing Act, the Open Meetings Act, and the Solar Collectors Act when adopting or amending its regulations. The comments that the Commission received in public meetings and in written submissions show the Commission had no substantial evidence to support the rollback of the 2010 codes. The records also show that the Commissioners made their decisions before their meeting on the codes, thereby violating the Open Meetings Act. Because of these and other violations, the Court of Appeals should reverse the Commission’s decisions.

“The Energy Efficient 2010 codes would have resulted in a $14 per month net savings for homeowners. That means utility bill savings would have outweighed increased mortgage costs from day one of ownership,” says Shrayas Jatkar, Organizing Representative of the Sierra Club. “It’s too bad that the Commissioners decided to take away that savings from New Mexicans without any analysis or process.”

“It seems that these commissioners do not understand how New Mexico law handles rulemakings,” says Douglas Meiklejohn, NMELC Executive Director and lead counsel on the case. “They do not have the power to change regulations that have been adopted simply to suit the current political climate. Agencies must follow the basic laws governing substantial evidence and public processes. Otherwise, regulations could drastically change with every election.”

Responses by those mentioned in the appeal are due in 48 days.

INTERVIEWS AND IMAGES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST

Contacts:

Juana Colón
Communications and Public Education
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
jcolon@nmelc.org
505-989-9022, ext 21

###

Pit Rule Public Hearing Delayed

2012-01-16T23:30:55Z

KSFR: Judge Denies Further Court Action on Oil-Gas Drilling Rule

2012-01-11T20:29:43Z

Judge Approves Stay in NM Pit Rule Case, Oil and Gas Industry Wants Regulators to Revamp Rule

2012-01-11T14:00:25Z

How Far Will Politics Bend the Law Before it Breaks the Law?

2012-01-06T22:30:21Z

According to Bruce Frederick, NMELC Staff Attorney, “In 2010, EIB commenced a formal proceeding, very much like a trial, and only adopted Rule 350 after hearing hundreds of hours of sworn expert testimony, both on direct and cross examination by a dozen lawyers. This year, at substantial waste of time and taxpayer money, the EIB reheard the same testimony. The only difference between the prior proceeding and this is the politics and membership of the EIB. But under the law that’s not a legitimate reason to repeal a rule. Repeal requires new evidence, which simply does not exist. If the EIB reverses itself and now repeals Rule 350, it will be acting arbitrarily and should be reversed on appeal.”

“Martinez promised to cut waste. But she has done the opposite,” says Mariel Nanasi, NEE Executive Director. “She wasted tax payer money to protect the polluters. Rather than holding the polluters accountable and protecting New Mexicans, Martinez turned her back on our families.”

“The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) urged the EIB to adopt Rule 350 in 2010. This year, due solely to the election of Governor Martinez, the NMED reversed itself and advocated for repeal of the same Rule that it had developed, drafted and supported. But,” says Frederick, “the NMED’s efforts last year were not in vain. Our arguments against repeal of Rule 350 this year are identical to the solid arguments that NMED made last year in support of Rule 350. ”

The EIB is scheduled to deliberate and decide whether to repeal Rule 350 on February 7th.

INTERVIEWS AND IMAGES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST

Contacts:

Mariel Nanasi
Executive Director
New Energy Economy
505-469-4060

Bruce Frederick,
Staff Attorney
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
bfrederick@nmelc.org
505-989-9022, ext. 26

The mission of the New Mexico Environmental Law Center is to protect New Mexico’s natural environment and achieve environmental justice for New Mexico’s communities through legal representation, policy advocacy and public education. The New Mexico Environmental Law Center’s attorneys have handled over 100 critical cases in low-income and minority communities fighting pollution and environmental degradation. The NMELC charges few, if any, fees to its clients, most of who are from Hispanic and Native American communities. The NMELC celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2008. Membership and gifts help New Mexico communities protect their natural environment and their health from toxic pollution, the degrading effects of growth and liabilities created by irresponsible mining.

###

URANIUM: Local Activists, Industry Officials Clash Over New Mining Process

2011-12-26T18:50:23Z

Water Hearing on Augustin Plains Ranch Application Set for February

2011-12-20T14:00:39Z

New Dairy Groundwater Discharge Regulations Have Been Adopted in New Mexico!

2011-12-06T21:18:30Z

Martinez Too Cozy with Industry

2011-12-04T13:00:41Z

For instance, in June, the Environmental Improvement Board worked with industry to short-circuit the judicial review of carbon emissions limits. Halting the court case allowed PNM and others the unprecedented opportunity to go back to the Board (now staffed by Martinez appointees) and ask that the regulations be repealed. Moreover, in the subsequent board proceeding, the NMED argued that limits on carbon emissions should not be enacted, a position directly contradictory to that asserted by the NMED in 2010.

Also in June, the Construction Industry Commission (consisting of Martinez appointees) summarily repealed energy conservation codes that would have made New Mexico construction more efficient, and that would have helped the environment and new home owners alike.

Last week, the Oil Conservation Commission (2 of 3 members are Martinez appointees) adopted a meaningless fracking disclosure rule submitted by the oil and gas industry. The new rule requires that companies disclose some of the fluids that they inject into the ground – and that they do it within 45 days after they frack.

NMED also did an about face in certifying a standby permit for the Mt. Taylor Mine. The NMED under Richardson reluctantly agreed to certify the mine to go on standby for two years (out of a maximum of five) because the mine had polluted groundwater with uranium. In May, without any change in the mine operation, NMED certified the mine for a five year standby.

And earlier this year, NMED quietly rescinded language prohibiting another mining company from discharging pollutants without a permit, after that company complained to NMED that the prohibition hindered its efforts to find investors.

The one bright spot this year concerns regulations protecting aquifers from industrial dairy contamination. It is an important gain, but it is not enough.

So, yes, New Mexicans who care about the quality of the water we drink and the air we breathe have indeed criticized the Administration’s coziness with industry. We have good reasons for doing so, and the penalties touted by NMED General Counsel Ryan Flynn do not change our minds. The assessed penalties were largely non-discretionary and miniscule compared to prior administrations. NMED is not entitled to an award for assessing penalties required by law. Nor does Mr. Flynn’s smokescreen hide the Administrations blatantly anti-environment policies and unquestioning support of industry’s quest to gut environmental protections. A little change may have fallen out, but the Administration remains in industry’s pocket.

R. Bruce Frederick is a Staff Attorney at the New Mexico Environmental Law Center, a public-interest, non-profit law firm based in Santa Fe. The Law Center and its clients are challenging the Administration in several administrative and court proceedings.

A Citizen Activist Forces New Mexico’s Dairies to Clean Up Their Act

2011-11-28T16:51:06Z

NM Regulators Approve Fracking Disclosure Rule

2011-11-18T14:18:32Z

We Need Full Disclosure of the Chemicals Used in Fracking!

2011-11-14T13:46:00Z

BACKGROUND AND TALKING POINTS:

Fracking is the high-pressure injection of enormous amounts of water, sand and chemicals into underground oil and gas formations to force the production of oil and gas.

Fracking has been used since the 1940s throughout the United States and around the world. Currently, 95% of all oil and gas wells are fracked. Most oil and gas wells are fracked several times over the life of the well.

In 2005 Congress voted to exempt fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act, which means that the practice is largely unregulated and companies do not have to disclose the chemicals they use.

States do have the authority to require disclosure. Colorado, Michigan, Texas and Wyoming have, or are in the process of, developing such rules. Pennsylvania asks companies to voluntarily disclose the content of fracking fluids.

New Mexico has tens of thousands of oil and gas wells that have been fracked and will be re-fracked in the future. New Mexico stands to have oil and gas development and new drilling for decades to come. Many wells are drilled near people’s homes, ranches, in neighborhoods and on native and public lands. New Mexicans deserve to know what chemicals are being injected in the oil and gas wells near their homes and trucked through their neighborhoods and ranches.

The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association has proposed a weak rule that only requires companies to disclose about half of the contents of fracking fluids, 45 days after a fracking operation, to the FracFocus website. Also see: Frac Out of Focus: Industry and the Slippery Slope of Voluntary Disclosure and Frack Fluids: Injected and Left Behind

Earthworks’ OGAP has proposed that companies be required to:

1) notify landowners prior to a fracking operation and that companies be required to disclose all fluids and substances to be used in hydraulic fracturing operations to the surface owner before hydraulic fracturing begins;

2) disclose the type and volume of base fluids used in hydraulic fracturing, each additive used, the chemical ingredients in the additives, the additives’ associated chemical abstracts service (CAS) registry numbers, and the actual or maximum concentration of each chemical ingredient used in hydraulic fracturing; and,

3) report the required information to the FracFocus website or to the successor of that website so that the relevant information will be available even if the FracFocus website is no longer operative.

If you cannot attend the hearing, you can still be heard:
Send a letter to the OCC before November 17. Address your letter to:
Jami Bailey, Chairperson;
New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission
1220 South St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505

or email Florene Davidson: florene.davidson@state.nm.us

Please copy OGAP so we know how many people send letters:
gwen@ogap.org;

or mail to: OGAP; P.O. Box 22003; Albuquerque, New Mexico 87154

Staff Attorney Eric Jantz Talks to the Santa Fe Radio Café About Upcoming Fracking Hearing

2011-11-11T20:00:43Z

New Mexico EIB Receives Testimony Evaluating Public Costs of Carbon Pollution Rules’ Repeal

2011-11-10T20:27:53Z

The expert testimony filed yesterday includes Dr. Robert A. Goldstein, former Chair of the Division of Pulmonary Disease at Lovelace Medical Center in Albuquerque, provided testimony on the negative health impacts of coal pollution. The largest sources of carbon pollution in New Mexico are PNM’s coal-fired power plants. And testimony from Dr. David Gutzler, a well-respected climate scientist and professor at the University of New Mexico, provided testimony on the scientific consensus that increasingly severe climate change is being caused by rising levels of carbon pollution.

Highlights from Dr. Goldstein’s testimony include:

One in four New Mexico high school students has asthma.
Direct health care costs for asthma in the US total more than US $11.5 billion annually.
Health effects linked to coal combustion emissions damage the respiratory, cardiovascular, and nervous systems and contribute to four of the top five leading causes of death in the US: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases.

Highlights from Dr. Gutzler’s testimony include:

Adverse effects of climate change include increased frequency and severity of drought, less snowpack and streamflow, and more heat waves.

Bruce Frederick, staff attorney with the New Mexico Law Center, said “Last year, the EIB said climate change is expected to result in large economic costs, which for New Mexico, are estimated at $3.2 billion per year, or $3,430 per household in 2020, rising to $5,410 per household in 2040. The costs will only rise the longer we wait to act.”

Frederick added: “We’ll also present the very recent confirmation by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project that confirms the fact that surface temperatures have increased significantly over the last 100 years. BEST is a group of scientists, including Professor Richard A. Muller from U.C. Berkeley, who were partially funded by the Koch Brothers, climate change skeptics.”

New Energy Economy and the New Mexico Environmental Law Center led a two-year public process that led to the creation of New Mexico’s landmark carbon pollution reduction law. The rule requires facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon pollution per year to reduce these emissions by 3 percent per year from 2010 levels starting in 2013.

INTERVIEWS AND IMAGES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST

Contacts:

Mariel Nanasi,
Executive Director
New Energy Economy
505-469-4060

Bruce Frederick,
Staff Attorney
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
bfrederick@nmelc.org
505-989-9022, ext. 26

New Energy Economy is a registered 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization established in 2004 to create economic opportunity in New Mexico with less carbon pollution and more clean energy. New Energy Economy works in partnership with diverse allies to encourage job growth, investment and innovation in a more efficient, sustainable and equitable energy sector. New Energy Economy grounds its work in the research and findings of the world’s leading scientific and technological authorities including Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories. Learn more at http://www.newenergyeconomy.org

The mission of the New Mexico Environmental Law Center is to protect New Mexico’s natural environment and achieve environmental justice for New Mexico’s communities through legal representation, policy advocacy and public education. The New Mexico Environmental Law Center’s attorneys have handled over 100 critical cases in low-income and minority communities fighting pollution and environmental degradation. The NMELC charges few, if any, fees to its clients, most of who are from Hispanic and Native American communities. The NMELC celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2008. Membership and gifts help New Mexico communities protect their natural environment and their health from toxic pollution, the degrading effects of growth and liabilities created by irresponsible mining.

###