FILED
1st JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
Santa Fe County
7/26/2019 12:04 PM
STEPHEN T. PACHECO
CLERK OF THE COURT
Leah Martinez

 Brancard, Esq, Cheryl L. Bada, Esq, and Dana David, Esq, and Intervenor Rio Grande
Resources Corporation being represented by Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris Sisk, P.A.
(Stuart R. Butzier, Esq. and Christina C. Sheehan, Esq.); the Court having determined that
oral arguments of counsel are not necessary and having reviewed the pleadings and all
matters of record and being fully advised in the premises, ?nds that the New Mexico Mining
Commission?s July 27, 2018 Decision and Order in In the Matter of Rio Grande Resources
Corporation?s Permit Revision to Permit No. 1 OOZRE, Petition 1801 (the ?Decision?),
should be af?rmed.
Based upon the pleadings and all matters of record, this Court ?nds:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof.
2. This review is governed by Rule 1-074, NMRA.
3. The Decision appealed from is not arbitrary or capricious and is otherwise in accordance
with law.
4. The Decision appealed from is supported by substantial evidence.
5. The Decision is not improper rulemaking.
6. The Decision prohibiting economic evidence was not arbitrary or capricious.
7. The Court cannot reverse a Decision because it may disagree with the result.
Such a ruling ?is arbitrary and capricious if it is unreasonable or without a
rational basis, when Viewed in light of the whole record.? Id 11 17
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Though we must perform
a whole record review, must be careful not to substitute our own
judgment for that of the agency . . . Id. Rather, ?we must consider all
evidence bearing on the ?ndings, favorable or unfavorable, to determine if
there is substantial evidence to support the result.? Tom Growney Equip.
Co. v. Jouert, 11 13, 137 NM. 497, 113 P.3d 320
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). ?Where the testimony is
con?icting, the issue on appeal is not whether there is evidence to support

a contrary result, but rather whether the evidence supports the ?ndings of
the trier of fact.? Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

 

 

Sais v. NM Dept. of Corrections, 1116, 275 P.3d 104.
8. In resolving ambiguities in a statute or regulation which an agency is charged with
administering, the Court will generally defer to the agency?s interpretation if it implicates
agency expertise.

A ruling by an administrative agency is arbitrary and capricious if it is
unreasonable or without a rational basis, when viewed in light of the
whole record. Snyder Ranches, Inc. v. Oil Conservation Comm 110
NM. 637, 639, 798 P.2d 587, 589 (1990); see Hobbs Gas Co. v. NM
Serv. Comm?n, 115 NM. 678, 680, 858 P.2d 54, 56 (1993) (stating that
burden on review of administrative decision under arbitrary and capricious
standard is to show that the decision is ?unreasonable or unlawful?) In
making these determinations, we must remain mindful that ?in resolving
ambiguities in the statute or regulations which an agency is charged with
administering, the Court generally will defer to the agency's interpretation
if it implicates agency expertise.? Atlixco, 34, 11 30, 125
NM. 786, 965 P.2d 370; see Chavez, 11 21, 122 NM.
579, 929 P.2d 971. Further, ?[t]raditionally, cases have uniformly held the
hearing of an administrative appeal at the district court level is an
appellate procedure, not a trial de novo.? Groendyke Transp, Inc. v. N.M
State Corp. Comm 101 NM. 470, 476, 684 P.2d 1135, 1141 (1984)
(emphasis added).

Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club v. New Mexico Mining Commission,
2003-NMSC-005, 1117, 133 NM. 97, 61 P.3d 806.
9. A court must exercise caution in applying the plain meaning rule.

?Its beguiling simplicity may mask a host of reasons why a statute, apparently
clear and unambiguous on its face, may for one reason or another give rise to
legitimate nonfrivolous) differences of opinion concerning the statute?s
meaning.? State ex rel. Helman, 117 NM. at 353, 871 P.2d at 1359. The plain
meaning rule ?must yield on occasion to an intention otherwise discerned in terms
of equity, legislative history, or other sources.? Sims v. Sims, 11
21, 122 NM. 618, 930 P.2d 153 (internal quotation marks and quoted authority
omitted). Our task is to determine how the original drafters would have applied
these amendments to the existing statute.

State v. Smith, 2004-NMSC-032, 11 9, 136 NM. 372, 98 P.3d 1022.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED BY THE COURT that

New Mexico Mining Commission?s July 27, 2018 Decision and Order in In the Matter of Rio
3

 

Grande Resources Corporation?s Permit Revision to Permit No. CIOOZRE, Petition 1801, is

AFFIRMED.

   

 

\w 7
Francis J. Plathew, District (We

xc: Counsel, e?served.