OUR LEGAL FIGHT CONTINUES

Judge Sugg has denied our motion for preliminary injunctive relief to prevent the start of construction of the proposed concrete batch plant.  We strongly disagree with Judge Sugg’s ruling and believe he is disregarding the uncontroverted evidence that the plant would cause excessive noise to the adjoining lots and surrounding properties. 

Part of Judge Sugg’s rationale is that the area surrounding the plant the plant is largely a commercial, not residential, area therefore EPA noise standards for residential areas are not applicable.  Those familiar with the area along and around the Billy the Kid Scenic Byway will no doubt find other questionable aspects of his order which can be read in full here.

Our Attorney Tom Hnasko is evaluating a potential appeal of Judge Sugg’s decision in the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

We continue to await a decision from New Mexico Court of Appeals in our appeal against the Environmental Improvement Board’s (EIB) decision to overturn the air quality permit denial, as issued by Deputy Secretary of the Environment in her Final Order last year.  We have also filed a motion to stay (prohibit) the start of construction of the proposed plant, while the EIB decision is reviewed by the appellate court.

We believe our case against the EIB decision is solid, given the haphazard manner in which the EIB conducted its deliberations, such as:

  • The Board’s lack of understanding as to which party was the plaintiff in the case and which party was required to prove the validity of its petition to overturn the Final Order.
  • The Board blatantly ignored evidence we presented demonstrating that the plant could not meet air quality requirements if EPA emission standards were applied, as well as other omissions and discrepancies in the analysis of the plant’s emissions
  • The absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law documenting the EIB’s rationale to  overturn Deputy Secretary’s Final Order

It will likely be several months before a decision is rendered by the Court of Appeals.   We will continue to provide updates on the status of our appeals when they become available.

Similar Posts

One Comment

  1. The EIB needs to explain its decision giving facts and data to support their conclusion. Their institutional Name, Environmental IMPROVEMENT Board, flies in the face of their ruling. Explain how the placement of a concrete batch plant IMPROVES the environment compared to it not existing. I would love to hear that explanation from the EIB.

Comments are closed.