Chapter 74, Article 6 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Water Quality Act".
History: 1953 Comp., § 75-39-1, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 190, § 1; 1993, ch. 291, §
1.
ANNOTATIONS
Cross references. — For the Pollution Control Revenue Bond Act, see 3-59-1 NMSA
1978 et seq.
The 1993 amendment, effective June 18, 1993, substituted "Chapter 74, Article 6
NMSA 1978" for "This act".
Water laws apply on Indian land. — Where non-Indians enter into long-term lease
with an Indian tribe under which the non-Indians are to develop the land as a
subdivision, state laws concerning subdivision control, construction licensing and water
cannot be held inapplicable to the lessee because of federal preemption. Norvell v.
Sangre de Cristo Dev. Co., 372 F. Supp. 348 (D.N.M. 1974), rev'd on other grounds,
519 F.2d 370 (10th Cir. 1975).
An implied private right of action does not exist under this section and a negligence
per se claim may not be predicated on a violation of this section. Schwartzman, Inc. v.
Atchison, Topeca & Santa Fe Ry., 857 F. Supp. 838 (D.N.M. 1994).
Provided Indian proprietary interest and self-government unimpaired. — The
application of state antipollution laws to industries located on Indian land is valid,
provided that the operation of those laws neither impairs the proprietary interest of the
Indian people in their lands nor limits the right of the tribe or pueblo to govern matters of
tribal relations. The regulation of industrial discharges is not a matter fundamental to
tribal relations, and the state supervision of environment pollution will not limit, in any
meaningful manner, the right of the several Indian peoples to govern themselves. The
extension of pollution controls to industries located on Indian land will not affect the
ownership or control of the land. 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 70-05.
Law reviews. — For comment, "Control of Industrial Water Pollution in New Mexico,"
see 9 Nat. Resources J. 653 (1969).
For note, "New Mexico Water Pollution Regulations and Standards Upheld," see 19 Nat.
Resources J. 693 (1979).
For article, "The Assurance of Reasonable Toxic Risk?," see 24 Nat. Resources J. 549
(1984).
For article, "Information for State Groundwater Quality Policymaking," see 24 Nat.
Resources J. 1015 (1984).
For article, "Transboundary Toxic Pollution and the Drainage Basin Concept," see 25
Nat. Resources J. 589 (1985).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Standing to sue for violation of state
environmental regulatory statute, 66 A.L.R.4th 685.
Measure and elements of damages for pollution of well or spring, 76 A.L.R.4th 629.
Liability insurance coverage for violations of antipollution laws, 87 A.L.R.4th 444.
Actions brought under Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean
Water Act)(33 U.S.C.A. § 1251 et seq.) - supreme court cases, 163 A.L.R. Fed. 531.
39A C.J.S Health and Environment § 131.
Notes of Decisions
New Mexico v. Gen. Elec. Co., 335 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (D.N.M. 2004).
· cites it 6× “The New Mexico Water Quality Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 74-6-1 et seq. (Repl. 2000), on the other hand, created the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (NMWQCC), empowering it to “adopt water quality standards for surface and ground waters of the state subject to the Water…”
NMAC New Mexico Mining Ass'n v. New Mexico Water Quality Control Comm'n, 150 P.3d 991 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “{6} Appellants contend that the Commission’s action was arbitrary and capricious and a violation of New Mexico’s Water Quality Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 74-6-1 to -17 (1967, as amended through 2005) (WQA), because the revised standard is unattainable.”
Faber v. King, 2015 NMSC 015 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “ended through 2003), of up to “(1) one hundred dollars ($100) per day [for] violation^] not directly related to the illegal recovery or use of stored water; or (2) ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per day [for] violation[s] directly related to the illegal recovery or use of stored…”
Friends of Santa Fe Cnty. v. LAC Minerals, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 1333 (D.N.M. 1995).
· cites it 2× “§ 1319 (g)(6)(A)(ii) because the New Mexico Department of the Environment (“NMED”) is exercising regulatory oversight pursuant to the New Mexico Water Quality Act, N.M.Stat.Ann. §§ 74-6-1 to -17 (1993). Since 1991, the NMED has compelled Defendants to remediate the site and…”
Defenders of Wildlife v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 415 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “, nonpoint source pollutants], numerical standards for temperature, dissolved solids content, dissolved oxygen, sediment or turbidity adopted under the Water Quality Act[, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 74-6-1 et seq.,] do not apply.”
Gila Res. Info. Proj. v. N.M. Water Quality Control Comm'n, 2018 NMSC 25 (N.M. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Petitioners argue that the Copper Rule violates the Water Quality Act (WQA), NMSA 1978, §§ 74-6-1 to -17 (1967, as amended through 2013) because it is premised on an impermissible construction of the statutory phrase “place of withdrawal of water for present or reasonably…”
State of New Mexico v. Gen. Elec., 467 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2006).
“§§ 300f thru 300j-26, the New Mexico Water Quality Act, N.M. Stat. Ann § 74-6-1 thru 74-6-17, and accompanying regulations.”
New Energy Econ., Inc. v. Martinez, 2011 NMSC 6 (N.M. 2011).
· cites it 2× “{3} On December 15, 2010, following a year-long rule-making process, the WQCC, pursuant to its authority under the Water Quality Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 74-6-1 to -17 (1967) (as amended through 2009), adopted a new set of regulations for discharges from dairy facilities, to be…”
Bybee v. City of Albuquerque, 896 P.2d 1164 (N.M. 1995).
· cites it 2× “” The Water Quality Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 74-6-1 to -17 (Repl.Pamp.1993), defines “wastes” as “sewage, industrial wastes or any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance which may pollute any waters of the state.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.