TY 2021 Form 990

- TIN:

SCHEDULE A
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Public Charity Status and Public Support

Complete if the organization is a section 501(c)(3) organization or a section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust.
right arrow

Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
right arrow

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2021

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER

Employer identification number

85-0360664

Part I

Reason for Public Charity Status (All organizations must complete this part.) See instructions.

The organization is not a private foundation because it is: (For lines 1 through 12, check only one box.)

A church, convention of churches, or association of churches described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i).

A school described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). (Attach Schedule E (Form 990).)

A hospital or a cooperative hospital service organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii).

A medical research organization operated in conjunction with a hospital described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii). Enter the hospital's name, city, and state:

An organization operated for the benefit of a college or university owned or operated by a governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv). (Complete Part II.)

A federal, state, or local government or governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(v).

An organization that normally receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or from the general public described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

A community trust described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

An agricultural research organization described in 170(b)(1)(A)(ix) operated in conjunction with a land-grant college or university or a non-land grant college of agriculture. See instructions. Enter the name, city, and state of the college or university:

An organization that normally receives: (1) more than 33 1/3% of its support from contributions, membership fees, and gross receipts from activities related to its exempt functions—subject to certain exceptions, and (2) no more than 33 1/3% of its support from gross investment income and unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 tax) from businesses acquired by the organization after June 30, 1975. See section 509(a)(2). (Complete Part III.)

An organization organized and operated exclusively to test for public safety. See section 509(a)(4).

An organization organized and operated exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the purposes of one or more publicly supported organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or section 509(a)(2). See section 509(a)(3). Check the box on lines 12a through 12d that describes the type of supporting organization and complete lines 12e, 12f, and 12g.

Type I. A supporting organization operated, supervised, or controlled by its supported organization(s), typically by giving the supported organization(s) the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the directors or trustees of the supporting organization. You must complete Part IV, Sections A and B.

Type II. A supporting organization supervised or controlled in connection with its supported organization(s), by having control or management of the supporting organization vested in the same persons that control or manage the supported organization(s). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and C.

Type III functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with, and functionally integrated with, its supported organization(s) (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A, D, and E.

Type III non-functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with its supported organization(s) that is not functionally integrated. The organization generally must satisfy a distribution requirement and an attentiveness requirement (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and D, and Part V.

Check this box if the organization received a written determination from the IRS that it is a Type I, Type II, Type III functionally integrated, or Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organization.

Enter the number of supported organizations ...............................

Provide the following information about the supported organization(s).

(i) Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	(iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document?		(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)
(i) Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	Yes	No	(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)


Total

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for
Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 11285F

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 2

Part II

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 5, 7, or 8 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part III. If the organization failed to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part III.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2017	(b) 2018	(c) 2019	(d) 2020	(e) 2021	(f) Total
1	Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") ..	1,018,643	1,043,633	1,401,296	1,161,823	1,038,195	5,663,590
2	Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf....
3	The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..
4	Total. Add lines 1 through 3	1,018,643	1,043,633	1,401,296	1,161,823	1,038,195	5,663,590
5	The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f) ..						528,732
6	Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4.						5,134,858

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2017	(b) 2018	(c) 2019	(d) 2020	(e) 2021	(f) Total
7	Amounts from line 4..	1,018,643	1,043,633	1,401,296	1,161,823	1,038,195	5,663,590
8	Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources...	3,125	9,375	11,949	29,032	9,337	62,818
9	Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on..
10	Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.)..
11	Total support. Add lines 7 through 10						5,726,408

Gross receipts from related activities, etc. (see instructions) ..................

First 5 years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization, check this box and stop here ........................................ right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2021 (line 6, column (f) divided by line 11, column (f)) .........

89.670 %

Public support percentage for 2020 Schedule A, Part II, line 14 ...............

90.550 %

16a

33 1/3% support test—2021. If the organization did not check the box on line 13, and line 14 is 33 1/3 % or more, check this box
and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....................... right arrow

33 1/3% support test—2020. If the organization did not check a box on line 13 or 16a, and line 15 is 33 1/3% or more, check this
box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ..................... right arrow

17a

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2021. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, or 16b, and line 14
is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here. Explain
in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported
organization ..................................................... right arrow

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2020. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, or 17a, and line
15 is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here.
Explain in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly
supported organization ................................................ right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, 17a, or 17b, check this box and see
instructions ..................................................... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 3

Part III

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Section 509(a)(2)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 10 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part II. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part II.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2017	(b) 2018	(c) 2019	(d) 2020	(e) 2021	(f) Total
1	Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .
2	Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose
3	Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513 .....
4	Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf...
5	The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge
6	Total. Add lines 1 through 5
7a	Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons
b	Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year.
c	Add lines 7a and 7b..
8	Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.)

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2017	(b) 2018	(c) 2019	(d) 2020	(e) 2021	(f) Total
9	Amounts from line 6...
10a	Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources..
b	Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975.
c	Add lines 10a and 10b.
11	Net income from unrelated business activities not included on line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.
12	Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) ..
13	Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.)..

First 5 years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization,
check this box and stop here............................................. right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2021 (line 8, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) .........

Public support percentage from 2020 Schedule A, Part III, line 15 ...............

Section D. Computation of Investment Income Percentage

Investment income percentage for 2021 (line 10c, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) ......

Investment income percentage from 2020 Schedule A, Part III, line 17 .............

19a

331/3% support tests—2021. If the organization did not check the box on line 14, and line 15 is more than 33 1/3%, and line 17 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....... right arrow

33 1/3% support tests—2020. If the organization did not check a box on line 14 or line 19a, and line 16 is more than 33 1/3% and line 18 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization .... right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 14, 19a, or 19b, check this box and see instructions .... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 4

Part IV

Supporting Organizations

(Complete only if you checked a box on line 12 of Part I. If you checked box 12a, of Part I, complete Sections A and B. If you checked box 12b, of Part I, complete Sections A and C. If you checked box 12c, of Part I, complete Sections A, D, and E. If you checked box12d, of Part I, complete Sections A and D, and complete Part V.)

Section A. All Supporting Organizations

Yes

Are all of the organization’s supported organizations listed by name in the organization’s governing documents?
If "No," describe in Part VI how the supported organizations are designated. If designated by class or purpose,
describe the designation. If historic and continuing relationship, explain.

Did the organization have any supported organization that does not have an IRS determination of status under section 509(a)(1) or (2)? If "Yes," explain in Part VI how the organization determined that the supported organization was described in section 509(a)(1) or (2).

Did the organization have a supported organization described in section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6)? If "Yes," answer lines 3b and 3c below.

Did the organization confirm that each supported organization qualified under section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) and satisfied the public support tests under section 509(a)(2)? If "Yes," describe in Part VI when and how the organization made the determination.

Did the organization ensure that all support to such organizations was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes? If "Yes," explain in Part VI what controls the organization put in place to ensure such use.

Was any supported organization not organized in the United States ("foreign supported organization")? If “Yes” and if you checked box 12a or 12b in Part I, answer lines 4b and 4c below.

Did the organization have ultimate control and discretion in deciding whether to make grants to the foreign supported organization? If “Yes,” describe in Part VI how the organization had such control and discretion despite being controlled or supervised by or in connection with its supported organizations.

Did the organization support any foreign supported organization that does not have an IRS determination under sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1) or (2)? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI what controls the organization used to ensure that all support to the foreign supported organization was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes.

Did the organization add, substitute, or remove any supported organizations during the tax year? If “Yes,” answer lines 5b and 5c below (if applicable). Also, provide detail in Part VI, including (i) the names and EIN numbers of the supported organizations added, substituted, or removed; (ii) the reasons for each such action; (iii) the authority under the organization's organizing document authorizing such action; and (iv) how the action was accomplished (such as by amendment to the organizing document).

Type I or Type II only. Was any added or substituted supported organization part of a class already designated in the organization's organizing document?

Substitutions only. Was the substitution the result of an event beyond the organization's control?

Did the organization provide support (whether in the form of grants or the provision of services or facilities) to anyone other than (i) its supported organizations, (ii) individuals that are part of the charitable class benefited by one or more of its supported organizations, or (iii) other supporting organizations that also support or benefit one or more of the filing organization’s supported organizations? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did the organization provide a grant, loan, compensation, or other similar payment to a substantial contributor (defined in section 4958(c)(3)(C)), a family member of a substantial contributor, or a 35% controlled entity with regard to a substantial contributor? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990) .

Did the organization make a loan to a disqualified person (as defined in section 4958) not described on line 7? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990).

Was the organization controlled directly or indirectly at any time during the tax year by one or more disqualified persons, as defined in section 4946 (other than foundation managers and organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or (2))? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did one or more disqualified persons (as defined on line 9a) hold a controlling interest in any entity in which the supporting organization had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did a disqualified person (as defined on line 9a) have an ownership interest in, or derive any personal benefit from, assets in which the supporting organization also had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

10a

Was the organization subject to the excess business holdings rules of section 4943 because of section 4943(f) (regarding certain Type II supporting organizations, and all Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations)? If “Yes,” answer line 10b below.

10a

Did the organization have any excess business holdings in the tax year? (Use Schedule C, Form 4720, to determine whether the organization had excess business holdings).

10b

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 5

Part IV

Supporting Organizations (continued)

Yes

Has the organization accepted a gift or contribution from any of the following persons?

A person who directly or indirectly controls, either alone or together with persons described on lines 11b and 11c below, the governing body of a supported organization?

11a

A family member of a person described on 11a above?

11b

A 35% controlled entity of a person described on line 11a or 11b above? If “Yes” to 11a, 11b, or 11c, provide detail in Part VI.

11c

Section B. Type I Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the officers, directors, trustees, or membership of one or more supported organizations have the power to regularly appoint or elect at least a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees at all times during the tax year? If “No,” describe in Part VI how the supported organization(s) effectively operated, supervised, or controlled the organization’s activities. If the organization had more than one supported organization, describe how the powers to appoint and/or remove directors or trustees were allocated among the supported organizations and what conditions or restrictions, if any, applied to such powers during the tax year.

Did the organization operate for the benefit of any supported organization other than the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised, or controlled the supporting organization? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI how providing such benefit carried out the purposes of the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised or controlled the supporting organization.

Section C. Type II Supporting Organizations

Yes

Were a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees during the tax year also a majority of the directors or trustees of each of the organization’s supported organization(s)? If “No,” describe in Part VI how control or management of the supporting organization was vested in the same persons that controlled or managed the supported organization(s).

Section D. All Type III Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the organization provide to each of its supported organizations, by the last day of the fifth month of the organization’s tax year, (i) a written notice describing the type and amount of support provided during the prior tax year, (ii) a copy of the Form 990 that was most recently filed as of the date of notification, and (iii) copies of the organization’s governing documents in effect on the date of notification, to the extent not previously provided?

Were any of the organization’s officers, directors, or trustees either (i) appointed or elected by the supported organization(s) or (ii) serving on the governing body of a supported organization? If "No," explain in Part VI how the organization maintained a close and continuous working relationship with the supported organization(s).

By reason of the relationship described in line 2 above, did the organization’s supported organizations have a significant voice in the organization’s investment policies and in directing the use of the organization’s income or assets at all times during the tax year? If "Yes," describe in Part VI the role the organization’s supported organizations played in this regard.

Section E. Type III Functionally-Integrated Supporting Organizations

Check the box next to the method that the organization used to satisfy the Integral Part Test during the year (see instructions):

The organization satisfied the Activities Test. Complete line 2 below.

The organization is the parent of each of its supported organizations. Complete line 3 below.

The organization supported a governmental entity. Describe in Part VI how you supported a government entity (see instructions)

Activities Test. Answer lines 2a and 2b below.

Yes

Did substantially all of the organization’s activities during the tax year directly further the exempt purposes of the supported organization(s) to which the organization was responsive? If "Yes," then in Part VI identify those supported organizations and explain how these activities directly furthered their exempt purposes, how the organization was responsive to those supported organizations, and how the organization determined that these activities constituted substantially all of its activities.

Did the activities described on line 2a, above constitute activities that, but for the organization’s involvement, one or more of the organization’s supported organization(s) would have been engaged in? If "Yes," explain in Part VI the reasons for the organization’s position that its supported organization(s) would have engaged in these activities but for the organization’s involvement.

Parent of Supported Organizations. Answer lines 3a and 3b below.

Did the organization have the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the officers, directors, or trustees of each of the supported organizations?If "Yes" or "No", provide details in Part VI.

Did the organization exercise a substantial degree of direction over the policies, programs and activities of each of its supported organizations? If "Yes," describe in Part VI. the role played by the organization in this regard.

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 6

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations

Check here if the organization satisfied the Integral Part Test as a qualifying trust on Nov. 20, 1970 (explain in Part VI). See instructions. All other Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations must complete Sections A through E.

	Section A - Adjusted Net Income		(A) Prior Year	(B) Current Year (optional)
1	Net short-term capital gain	1
2	Recoveries of prior-year distributions	2
3	Other gross income (see instructions)	3
4	Add lines 1 through 3	4
5	Depreciation and depletion	5
6	Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions)	6
7	Other expenses (see instructions)	7
8	Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4)	8

	Section B - Minimum Asset Amount		(A) Prior Year	(B) Current Year (optional)
1	Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year):	1
a	Average monthly value of securities	1a
b	Average monthly cash balances	1b
c	Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets	1c
d	Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c)	1d
e	Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI):
2	Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets	2
3	Subtract line 2 from line 1d	3
4	Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 0.015 of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions).	4
5	Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3)	5
6	Multiply line 5 by 0.035	6
7	Recoveries of prior-year distributions	7
8	Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6)	8

	Section C - Distributable Amount		Current Year
1	Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A)	1
2	Enter 85% of line 1	2
3	Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A)	3
4	Enter greater of line 2 or line 3	4
5	Income tax imposed in prior year	5
6	Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions)	6

Check here if the current year is the organization's first as a non-functionally-integrated Type III supporting organization (see instructions)

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 7

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations(continued)

Section D - Distributions		Current Year
1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes	1
2 Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity	2
3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations	3
4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets	4
5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required - provide details in Part VI)	5
6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions	6
7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6.	7
8 Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions	8
9 Distributable amount for 2021 from Section C, line 6	9
10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount	10

Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions)		(i) Excess Distributions	(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2021	(iii) Distributable Amount for 2021
1 Distributable amount for 2021 from Section C, line 6
2 Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2021 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions.
3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2021:
a From 2016.......
b From 2017.......
c From 2018.......
d From 2019.......
e From 2020.......
fTotal of lines 3a through e
g Applied to underdistributions of prior years
h Applied to 2021 distributable amount
i Carryover from 2016 not applied (see instructions)
j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f.
4Distributions for 2021 from Section D, line 7:
$
a Applied to underdistributions of prior years
b Applied to 2021 distributable amount
c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4.
5 Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2021, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions.
6 Remaining underdistributions for 2021. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions.
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2022. Add lines 3j and 4c.
8 Breakdown of line 7:
a Excess from 2017.....
b Excess from 2018.....
c Excess from 2019.....
d Excess from 2020.....
e Excess from 2021.....

Schedule A (Form 990) (2021)

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Page 8

Part VI

Supplemental Information. Provide the explanations required by Part II, line 10; Part II, line 17a or 17b; Part III, line 12; Part IV, Section A, lines 1, 2, 3b, 3c, 4b, 4c, 5a, 6, 9a, 9b, 9c, 11a, 11b, and 11c; Part IV, Section B, lines 1 and 2; Part IV, Section C, line 1; Part IV, Section D, lines 2 and 3; Part IV, Section E, lines 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b; Part V, line 1; Part V, Section B, line 1e; Part V Section D, lines 5, 6, and 8; and Part V, Section E, lines 2, 5, and 6. Also complete this part for any additional information. (See instructions).

Facts And Circumstances Test

Return Reference	Explanation

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

Schedule B
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Schedule of Contributors

Attach to Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2021

Name of the organization

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER

Employer identification number

85-0360664

Organization type (check one):

Filers of:

Section:

Form 990 or 990-EZ

501(c)( ) (enter number) organization

4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust not treated as a private foundation

527 political organization

Form 990-PF

501(c)(3) exempt private foundation

4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust treated as a private foundation

501(c)(3) taxable private foundation

Check if your organization is covered by the General Rule or a Special Rule.
Note: Only a section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) organization can check boxes for both the General Rule and a Special Rule. See instructions.

General Rule

For an organization filing Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF that received, during the year, contributions totaling $5,000 or more (in money or other property) from any one contributor. Complete Parts I and II. See instructions for determining a contributor's total contributions.

Special Rules

For an organization described in section 501(c)(3) filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that met the 33¹/3% support test of the regulations
under sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi), that checked Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ), Part II, line 13, 16a, or 16b, and that received from any one contributor, during the year, total contributions of the greater of (1) $5,000 or (2) 2% of the amount on (i) Form 990, Part VIII, line 1h, or (ii) Form 990-EZ, line 1. Complete Parts I and II.

For an organization described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that received from any one contributor,
during the year, total contributions of more than $1,000 exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. Complete Parts I, II, and III.

For an organization described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that received from any one contributor,
during the year, contributions exclusively for religious, charitable, etc., purposes, but no such contributions totaled more than $1,000. If this box is checked, enter here the total contributions that were received during the year for an exclusively religious, charitable, etc., purpose. Don't complete any of the parts unless the General Rule applies to this organization because it received nonexclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions totaling $5,000 or more during the year ......... Arrow Bullet

Caution: An organization that isn't covered by the General Rule and/or the Special Rules doesn't file Schedule B (Form 990,
990-EZ, or 990-PF), but it must answer “No” on Part IV, line 2, of its Form 990; or check the box on line H of its Form 990-EZ
or on its Form 990PF, Part I, line 2, to certify that it doesn't meet the filing requirements of Schedule B (Form 990,
990-EZ, or 990-PF).

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions
for Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.

Cat. No. 30613XSchedule B (Form 990) (2021)

Schedule B (Form 990) (2021) Page 2

Name of organization NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER

Part I Contributors	Contributors (see instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part I if additional space is needed.
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
RESTRICTED	,	$ RESTRICTED	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)

Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)

Page 3

Name of organization NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER		Employer identification number 85-0360664

Part II	Noncash Property (see instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part II if additional space is needed.
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)

Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)

Page 4


Name of organization NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER			Employer identification number 85-0360664
Part III Exclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions to organizations described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) that total more than $1,000 for the year from any one contributor. Complete columns (a) through (e) and the following line entry. For organizations completing Part III, enter the total of exclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions of $1,000 or less for the year. (Enter this information once. See instructions.) $ Use duplicate copies of Part III if additional space is needed.

(a)
No. from Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

(a)
No. from Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

(a)
No. from Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

(a)
No. from Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE C
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities

For Organizations Exempt From Income Tax Under section 501(c) and section 527

SchCMd Bullet

Complete if the organization is described below. SchCMd Bullet

Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
SchCMd Bullet

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2021

Open to Public
Inspection

If the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, Line 3, or Form 990-EZ, Part V, line 46 (Political Campaign Activities), then
Round Bullet

Section 501(c)(3) organizations: Complete Parts I-A and B. Do not complete Part I-C.
Round Bullet

Section 501(c) (other than section 501(c)(3)) organizations: Complete Parts I-A and C below. Do not complete Part I-B.
Round Bullet

Section 527 organizations: Complete Part I-A only.
If the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, Line 4, or Form 990-EZ, Part VI, line 47 (Lobbying Activities), then
Round Bullet

Section 501(c)(3) organizations that have filed Form 5768 (election under section 501(h)): Complete Part II-A. Do not complete Part II-B.
Round Bullet

Section 501(c)(3) organizations that have NOT filed Form 5768 (election under section 501(h)): Complete Part II-B. Do not complete Part II-A.
If the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, Line 5 (Proxy Tax) (see separate instructions) or Form 990-EZ, Part V, line 35c (Proxy Tax) (see separate instructions), then
Round Bullet

Section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) organizations: Complete Part III.

Name of the organization

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER

Employer identification number

85-0360664

Part I-A

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c) or is a section 527 organization.

Provide a description of the organization’s direct and indirect political campaign activities in Part IV. See instructions for definition of “political campaign activities."

Political campaign activity expenditures. See instructions .................................................................... SchCMd Bullet

Volunteer hours for political campaign activities. See instructions ..................................................................

Part I-B

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c)(3).

Enter the amount of any excise tax incurred by the organization under section 4955 ................................ SchCMd Bullet

Enter the amount of any excise tax incurred by organization managers under section 4955 ....................... SchCMd Bullet

If the organization incurred a section 4955 tax, did it file Form 4720 for this year? .........................................

Yes No

Was a correction made? ......................................................................................................................

Yes No

If "Yes," describe in Part IV.

Part I-C

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c), except section 501(c)(3).

Enter the amount directly expended by the filing organization for section 527 exempt function activities ..... SchCMd Bullet

Enter the amount of the filing organization's funds contributed to other organizations for section 527 exempt function activities ............................................................................................................................ SchCMd Bullet

Total exempt function expenditures. Add lines 1 and 2. Enter here and on Form 1120-POL, line 17b........... SchCMd Bullet

Did the filing organization file Form 1120-POL for this year? ...................................................................

Yes No

Enter the names, addresses and employer identification number (EIN) of all section 527 political organizations to which the filing
organization made payments. For each organization listed, enter the amount paid from the filing organization’s funds. Also enter the amount of political contributions received that were promptly and directly delivered to a separate political organization, such as a separate segregated fund or a political action committee (PAC). If additional space is needed, provide information in Part IV.

(a) Name	(b) Address	(c) EIN	(d) Amount paid from filing organization's funds. If none, enter -0-.	(e) Amount of political contributions received and promptly and directly delivered to a separate political organization. If none, enter -0-.
1
2
3
4
5
6

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the instructions for Form 990.

Cat. No. 50084S

Schedule C (Form 990) 2021

Page 2

Part II-A

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c)(3) and filed Form 5768 (election under section 501(h)).

A Check SchCMd Bullet

if the filing organization belongs to an affiliated group (and list in Part IV each affiliated group member's name, address, EIN, expenses, and share of excess lobbying expenditures).
B Check SchCMd Bullet

if the filing organization checked box A and "limited control" provisions apply.

Limits on Lobbying Expenditures (The term "expenditures" means amounts paid or incurred.)		(a) Filing organization's totals	(b) Affiliated group totals
1a	Total lobbying expenditures to influence public opinion (grass roots lobbying) ......................
b	Total lobbying expenditures to influence a legislative body (direct lobbying) ........................	6,393
c	Total lobbying expenditures (add lines 1a and 1b) ............................................................	6,393
d	Other exempt purpose expenditures ...............................................................................	1,207,629
e	Total exempt purpose expenditures (add lines 1c and 1d) ..................................................	1,214,022
f	Lobbying nontaxable amount. Enter the amount from the following table in both columns.	196,402
	If the amount on line 1e, column (a) or (b) is:The lobbying nontaxable amount is:
	Not over $500,00020% of the amount on line 1e.
	Over $500,000 but not over $1,000,000$100,000 plus 15% of the excess over $500,000.
	Over $1,000,000 but not over $1,500,000$175,000 plus 10% of the excess over $1,000,000.
	Over $1,500,000 but not over $17,000,000$225,000 plus 5% of the excess over $1,500,000.
	Over $17,000,000$1,000,000.

g	Grassroots nontaxable amount (enter 25% of line 1f) .................................................	49,101
h	Subtract line 1g from line 1a. If zero or less, enter -0-. ................................................	0
i	Subtract line 1f from line 1c. If zero or less, enter -0-. ................................................	0
j	If there is an amount other than zero on either line 1h or line 1i, did the organization file Form 4720 reporting section 4911 tax for this year? ...................................................................................................................		Yes No

4-Year Averaging Period Under Section 501(h) (Some organizations that made a section 501(h) election do not have to complete all of the five columns below. See the separate instructions for lines 2a through 2f.)
Lobbying Expenditures During 4-Year Averaging Period
	Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)	(a) 2018	(b) 2019	(c) 2020	(d) 2021	(e) Total

2a	Lobbying nontaxable amount	182,347	187,773	181,380	196,402	747,902

b	Lobbying ceiling amount (150% of line 2a, column(e))					1,121,853

c	Total lobbying expenditures	8,426	13,599	16,032	6,393	44,450

d	Grassroots nontaxable amount	45,587	46,943	45,345	49,101	186,976

e	Grassroots ceiling amount (150% of line 2d, column (e))					280,464

f	Grassroots lobbying expenditures

Schedule C (Form 990) 2021

Page 3

Part II-B

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c)(3) and has NOT filed Form 5768 (election under section 501(h)).

For each "Yes" response on lines 1a through 1i below, provide in Part IV a detailed description of the lobbying activity.

(a)

Yes|No

(b)

Amount

During the year, did the filing organization attempt to influence foreign, national, state or local legislation, including any attempt to influence public opinion on a legislative matter or referendum, through the use of:

Volunteers? ...........................................................................................................

Paid staff or management (include compensation in expenses reported on lines 1c through 1i)? ........

Media advertisements? ...................................................................................................

Mailings to members, legislators, or the public? .............................................................................

Publications, or published or broadcast statements? ...........................................................

Grants to other organizations for lobbying purposes? ..........................................................

Direct contact with legislators, their staffs, government officials, or a legislative body? .......................

Rallies, demonstrations, seminars, conventions, speeches, lectures, or any similar means? ..................

Other activities? ...................................................................................................................

Total. Add lines 1c through 1i ....................................................................................................

Did the activities in line 1 cause the organization to be not described in section 501(c)(3)? .....

If "Yes," enter the amount of any tax incurred under section 4912 ...........................................

If "Yes," enter the amount of any tax incurred by organization managers under section 4912 ...................

If the filing organization incurred a section 4912 tax, did it file Form 4720 for this year? ........................

Part III-A

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c)(4), section 501(c)(5), or section 501(c)(6).

Yes

Were substantially all (90% or more) dues received nondeductible by members? ...............................................

Did the organization make only in-house lobbying expenditures of $2,000 or less? ............................................

Did the organization agree to carry over lobbying and political expenditures from the prior year? .................................

Part III-B

Complete if the organization is exempt under section 501(c)(4), section 501(c)(5), or section 501(c)(6) and if either (a) BOTH Part III-A, lines 1 and 2, are answered "No" OR (b) Part III-A, line 3, is answered “Yes."

Dues, assessments and similar amounts from members ......................................................................

Section 162(e) nondeductible lobbying and political expenditures (do not include amounts of political expenses for which the section 527(f) tax was paid).

Current year .............................................................................................................................

Carryover from last year ............................................................................................................

Total ...........................................................................................................................................

Aggregate amount reported in section 6033(e)(1)(A) notices of nondeductible section 162(e) dues .

If notices were sent and the amount on line 2c exceeds the amount on line 3, what portion of the excess does the organization agree to carryover to the reasonable estimate of nondeductible lobbying and political expenditure next year? ......................................................................................................................

Taxable amount of lobbying and political expenditures. See Instructions .........................................

Part IV

Supplemental Information

Provide the descriptions required for Part l-A, line 1; Part l-B, line 4; Part l-C, line 5; Part II-A (affiliated group list); Part II-A, lines 1 and 2 (see instructions), and Part ll-B, line 1. Also, complete this part for any additional information.

Return Reference	Explanation

Schedule C (Form 990) 2021

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE D
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Financial Statements

Complete if the organization answered "Yes," on Form 990,
Part IV, line 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f, 12a, or 12b.
SchDMd Bullet

Attach to Form 990.
SchDMd Bullet

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2021

Open to Public Inspection

Name of the organization

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER

Employer identification number

85-0360664

Part I

Organizations Maintaining Donor Advised Funds or Other Similar Funds or Accounts. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 6.

		(a) Donor advised funds	(b) Funds and other accounts
1	Total number at end of year .........
2	Aggregate value of contributions to (during year)
3	Aggregate value of grants from (during year)
4	Aggregate value at end of year ........

Did the organization inform all donors and donor advisors in writing that the assets held in donor advised funds are the organization’s property, subject to the organization’s exclusive legal control? ............

Yes No

Did the organization inform all grantees, donors, and donor advisors in writing that grant funds can be used only for charitable purposes and not for the benefit of the donor or donor advisor, or for any other purpose conferring impermissible private benefit? ...................................

Yes No

Part II

Conservation Easements.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 7.

Purpose(s) of conservation easements held by the organization (check all that apply).

Preservation of land for public use (e.g., recreation or education) Preservation of an historically important land area

Protection of natural habitat Preservation of a certified historic structure

Preservation of open space

Complete lines 2a through 2d if the organization held a qualified conservation contribution in the form of a conservation easement on the last day of the tax year.


a	Total number of conservation easements ......................	2a
b	Total acreage restricted by conservation easements ....................	2b
c	Number of conservation easements on a certified historic structure included in (a) .....	2c
d	Number of conservation easements included in (c) acquired after 7/25/06, and not on a historic structure listed in the National Register ...	2d

Number of conservation easements modified, transferred, released, extinguished, or terminated by the organization during the
tax year SchDMd Bullet

Number of states where property subject to conservation easement is located SchDMd Bullet

Does the organization have a written policy regarding the periodic monitoring, inspection, handling of violations, and enforcement of the conservation easements it holds? ............

Yes No

Staff and volunteer hours devoted to monitoring, inspecting, handling of violations, and enforcing conservation easements during the year
SchDMd Bullet

Amount of expenses incurred in monitoring, inspecting, handling of violations, and enforcing conservation easements during the year
SchDMd Bullet

Does each conservation easement reported on line 2(d) above satisfy the requirements of section 170(h)(4)(B)(i) and section 170(h)(4)(B)(ii)? .............................

Yes No

In Part XIII, describe how the organization reports conservation easements in its revenue and expense statement, and
balance sheet, and include, if applicable, the text of the footnote to the organization’s financial statements that describes
the organization’s accounting for conservation easements.

Part III

Organizations Maintaining Collections of Art, Historical Treasures, or Other Similar Assets.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 8.

If the organization elected, as permitted under FASB ASC 958, not to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service, provide, in Part XIII, the text of the footnote to its financial statements that describes these items.

If the organization elected, as permitted under FASB ASC 958, to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service, provide the following amounts relating to these items:

(i)

Revenue included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 ......................... SchDMd Bullet

(ii)

Assets included in Form 990, Part X ............................... SchDMd Bullet

If the organization received or held works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets for financial gain, provide the
following amounts required to be reported under FASB ASC 958 relating to these items:

Revenue included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 .......................... SchDMd Bullet

Assets included in Form 990, Part X ............................... SchDMd Bullet

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.

Cat. No. 52283D

Schedule D (Form 990) 2021

Page 2

Part III

Organizations Maintaining Collections of Art, Historical Treasures, or Other Similar Assets (continued)

Using the organization’s acquisition, accession, and other records, check any of the following that are a significant use of its collection items (check all that apply):

Public exhibition

Loan or exchange programs

Scholarly research

Other

Preservation for future generations

Provide a description of the organization’s collections and explain how they further the organization’s exempt purpose in
Part XIII.

During the year, did the organization solicit or receive donations of art, historical treasures or other similar
assets to be sold to raise funds rather than to be maintained as part of the organization’s collection?...

Yes No

Part IV

Escrow and Custodial Arrangements. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 9, or reported an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21.

Is the organization an agent, trustee, custodian or other intermediary for contributions or other assets not
included on Form 990, Part X? ....................................

Yes No


b	If "Yes," explain the arrangement in Part XIII and complete the following table:		Amount
c	Beginning balance .............................	1c
d	Additions during the year ............................	1d
e	Distributions during the year ..........................	1e
f	Ending balance ................................	1f

Did the organization include an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21, for escrow or custodial account liability? ...

Yes No

If "Yes," explain the arrangement in Part XIII. Check here if the explanation has been provided in Part XIII ....

Part V

Endowment Funds.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 10.

		(a) Current year	(b) Prior year	(c) Two years back	(d) Three years back	(e) Four years back

1a	Beginning of year balance ....
b	Contributions ...
c	Net investment earnings, gains, and losses
d	Grants or scholarships ...
e	Other expenditures for facilities and programs ...
f	Administrative expenses ....
g	End of year balance ......

Provide the estimated percentage of the current year end balance (line 1g, column (a)) held as:

Board designated or quasi-endowment SchDMd Bullet

Permanent endowment SchDMd Bullet

Term endowment SchDMd Bullet

The percentages on lines 2a, 2b, and 2c should equal 100%.

Are there endowment funds not in the possession of the organization that are held and administered for the
organization by:

Yes

(i) Unrelated organizations .................

3a(i)

(ii) Related organizations .................

3a(ii)

If "Yes" on 3a(ii), are the related organizations listed as required on Schedule R? .........

Describe in Part XIII the intended uses of the organization's endowment funds.

Part VI

Land, Buildings, and Equipment.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 11a. See Form 990, Part X, line 10.

Description of property		(a) Cost or other basis (investment)	(b) Cost or other basis (other)	(c) Accumulated depreciation	(d) Book value

1a	Land .....
b	Buildings ....	3,495	1,550	1,945
c	Leasehold improvements
d	Equipment ....	33,003	30,828	2,175
e	Other .....	14,480	7,169	7,311
Total. Add lines 1a through 1e. (Column (d) must equal Form 990, Part X, column (B), line 10(c).)..				11,431

Schedule D (Form 990) 2021

Page 3

Part VII

Investments - Other Securities.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 11b. See Form 990, Part X, line 12.

(a) Description of security or category (including name of security)	(b) Book value	(c) Method of valuation: Cost or end-of-year market value
(1) Financial derivatives.........
(2) Closely-held equity interests........
(3) Other (A) MUTUAL FUNDS	417,561	F
(B) STOCKS	61,692	F
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col. (B) line 12.)	479,253

Part VIII

Investments - Program Related. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11c. See Form 990, Part X, line 13.

(a) Description of investment	(b) Book value	(c) Method of valuation: Cost or end-of-year market value

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 13.)

Part IX

Other Assets.
Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11d. See Form 990, Part X, line 15.

(a) Description				(b) Book value

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 15.)...........

Part X

Other Liabilities.
Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11e or 11f. See Form 990, Part X, line 25.

1.(a) Description of liability	(b) Book value
(1) Federal income taxes
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 25.)	70,042
2. Liability for uncertain tax positions. In Part XIII, provide the text of the footnote to the organization's financial statements that reports the organization's liability for uncertain tax positions under FIN 48 (ASC 740). Check here if the text of the footnote has been provided in Part XIII

Schedule D (Form 990) 2021

Page 4

Part XI Reconciliation of Revenue per Audited Financial Statements With Revenue per Return. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 12a.
1	Total revenue, gains, and other support per audited financial statements .......			1	1,082,983
2	Amounts included on line 1 but not on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12:
a	Net unrealized gains (losses) on investments ....	2a	26,593
b	Donated services and use of facilities .........	2b
c	Recoveries of prior year grants ...........	2c
d	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............	2d
e	Add lines 2a through 2d .....................			2e	26,593
3	Subtract line 2e from line 1..................			3	1,056,390
4	Amounts included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12, but not on line 1:
a	Investment expenses not included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 7b .	4a
b	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ...........	4b	3,664
c	Add lines 4a and 4b....................			4c	3,664
5	Total revenue. Add lines 3 and 4c. (This must equal Form 990, Part I, line 12.) ......			5	1,060,054

Part XII Reconciliation of Expenses per Audited Financial Statements With Expenses per Return. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 12a.
1	Total expenses and losses per audited financial statements ...........			1	1,210,358
2	Amounts included on line 1 but not on Form 990, Part IX, line 25:
a	Donated services and use of facilities .........	2a
b	Prior year adjustments ............	2b
c	Other losses ................	2c
d	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............	2d
e	Add lines 2a through 2d....................			2e	0
3	Subtract line 2e from line 1...................			3	1,210,358
4	Amounts included on Form 990, Part IX, line 25, but not on line 1:
a	Investment expenses not included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 7b ..	4a
b	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............	4b	3,664
c	Add lines 4a and 4b.....................			4c	3,664
5	Total expenses. Add lines 3 and 4c. (This must equal Form 990, Part I, line 18.) ......			5	1,214,022

Part XIII

Supplemental Information

Provide the descriptions required for Part II, lines 3, 5, and 9; Part III, lines 1a and 4; Part lV, lines 1b and 2b; Part V, line 4; Part X, line 2; Part XI, lines 2d and 4b; and Part XII, lines 2d and 4b. Also complete this part to provide any additional information.

Return Reference	Explanation
PART X, LINE 2:	THE LAW CENTER HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS AN OTHER-THAN PRIVATE FOUNDATION AND IS TAX-EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, ALTHOUGH SUBJECT TO TAX ON INCOME FROM UNRELATED BUSINESS. ON JANUARY 1, 2009, THE LAW CENTER ADOPTED THE RECOGNITION REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCERTAIN INCOME TAX POSITIONS AS REQUIRED BY GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPALS, WITH NO CUMULATIVE EFFECT ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2021, TAX YEARS 2018 THROUGH 2020 REMAIN SUBJECT TO EXAMINATION BY MAJOR TAX JURISDICTIONS.
PART XI, LINE 4B - OTHER ADJUSTMENTS:	INVESTMENT FEES INCLUDED WITH REVENUES ON THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES 3,664.
PART XII, LINE 4B - OTHER ADJUSTMENTS:	INVESTMENT FEES INCLUDED WITH REVENUES ON THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES 3,664.

Schedule D (Form 990) 2021

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE O
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Information to Form 990 or 990-EZ

Complete to provide information for responses to specific questions on
Form 990 or 990-EZ or to provide any additional information.
MediumBullet

Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
MediumBullet

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2021

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER

Employer identification number

85-0360664

Return Reference	Explanation
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 6	MEMBERS PAY DUES TO SUPPORT THE LAW CENTER IN PROTECTING NEW MEXICO'S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND DIVERSE COMMUNITIES. IN RETURN FOR THEIR DUES, MEMBERS RECEIVE PUBLICATIONS REGARDING NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND UPDATED ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS VIA THE WEB SITE.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B	FORM 990 IS REVIEWED WITH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE PRIOR TO FILING. A COPY OF THE 990 IS PROVIDED TO EACH MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BOARD. THE FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FORM TO THE BOARD.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C	ALL MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY AND MANAGEMENT ARE KEENLY AWARE OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS ARE DISCUSSED AT BOARD MEETINGS AND ANYONE WITH A POTENTIAL CONFLICT IS RECUSED.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15	THE ORGANIZATION CONDUCTS A REVIEW OF THE SALARIES PAID BY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ORGANIZATION'S SALARIES ARE COMPARABLE FOR COMPARABLE POSITIONS. THE REVIEW IS CONDUCTED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AS PART OF THE BUDGET PREPARATION PROCESS FOR THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR. DUE TO THE TIME COMMITTMENT REQUIRED TO CONDUCT SALARY REVIEWS, TO OBTAIN THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO CONDUCT SALARY REVIEWS, THE ORGANIZATION USUALLY PARTICIPATES IN ANNUAL SALARY INFORMATION SURVEYS SO THAT THE ORGANIZATION CAN RECEIVE COPIES OF THE RESULTS. COPIES OF THAT DOCUMENTATION IS RETAINED FOR SEVERAL YEARS. A LEVEL OF COMPENSATION FOR EACH STAFF POSITION IS PROPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR AND IS USUALLY PHRASED IN TERMS OF A PROPOSED RAISE OVER THE EXISTING SALARY FOR THAT POSITION. THAT PROPOSAL IS DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DURING AN EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT IS HELD DURING THE BOARD MEETING AT WHICH THE ANNUAL BUDGET IS ADOPTED. THE DELIBERATIONS DURING ECECUTIVE SESSIONS ARE NOT DOCUMENTED. THE SALARY PACKAGE IS VOTED UPON BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT THAT MEETING AS PART OF THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET. THE APPROVAL IS DOCUMENTED IN THE MINUTES.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19	GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY AND AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST.
FORM 990 - PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM STATUS OF CASES IN LITIGATION	NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER CASES IN LITIGATION DURING 2021 FISCAL YEAR (JANUARY 1, 2021 - DECEMBER 31, 2021) CASE #1 AMIGOS BRAVOS V. NEW MEXICO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS, A-1-CA-37531 BACKGROUND: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT ("NMED") FILED ITS PETITION TO AMEND THE GROUND AND SURFACE WATER PROTECTION REGULATIONS (20.6.2 NMAC) ("PETITION") ON MAY 1, 2017, IN WHICH IT PROPOSED A NEW VARIANCE RULE FROM THE WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. THE EXISTING VARIANCE RULE WAS LIMITED TO A FIVE-YEAR TERM, WITH A MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD FOR A VARIANCE RENEWAL OR EXTENSION. THE NEW RULE PROPOSED REMOVAL OF THE FIVE-YEAR TERM LIMIT, EXTENDING THE VARIANCE TERM TO "THE LIFE OF A FACILITY", OR IN OTHER WORDS, PERPETUITY. THE NEW RULE ALSO PROPOSED TO REMOVE THE MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARING FOR VARIANCE RENEWALS AND EXTENSIONS. THE COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING IN SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO ON NMED'S PETITION OVER THE COURSE OF FOUR DAYS, FROM NOVEMBER 14, 2017 THROUGH NOVEMBER 17, 2017. THE COMMISSION BEGAN DELIBERATIONS ON NMED'S PROPOSED VARIANCE RULE ON JULY 10, 2018. THE COMMISSION DECIDED TO ADOPT NMED'S PROPOSED VARIANCE RULE, REMOVING THE CURRENT FIVE-YEAR LIMIT ON VARIANCES AND THE MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARING HELD EVERY FIVE YEARS FOR VARIANCE RENEWALS AND MODIFICATIONS. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER'S CLIENTS, AMIGOS BRAVOS AND GILA RESOURCES INFORMATION PROJECT (COLLECTIVELY, AB/GRIP), APPEALED THE COMMISSION'S NEWLY ADOPTED VARIANCE RULE WITH THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS ON AUGUST 9, 2018. BRIEFING WAS COMPLETED IN 2020. ON AUGUST 31, 2021, THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE WQCC'S DECISION AND OUR CLIENTS CHOSE NOT TO PETITION THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOR CERTIORARI AND THE LAW CENTER CLOSED THE CASE. PUBLIC INTEREST: THIS CASE TOUCHES ON BOTH PROCEDURAL ISSUES WITH RULEMAKING PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL, AND SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES CONCERNING VIOLATION OF THE NEW MEXICO WATER QUALITY ACT AND POLLUTION OF NEW MEXICO'S MOST PRECIOUS PUBLIC RESOURCE - GROUNDWATER. AB/GRIP'S PROCEDURAL CONCERNS WITH THE COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF THE NEW VARIANCE RULE ARE: 1) THE COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTICE OF ITS ACTION AND A CONCISE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT, AND 2) THE COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO FILE THE NEWLY ADOPTED RULE WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THE RULE'S ADOPTION WITH THE STATE RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR. AB/GRIP'S SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS WITH THE COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF THE NEW VARIANCE RULE ARE THAT THE ISSUANCE OF VARIANCES "FOR THE LIFE OF A FACILITY" VIOLATES THE 1) NEW MEXICO WATER QUALITY ACT'S ("WATER QUALITY ACT OR "ACT") PURPOSE TO PREVENT AND ABATE GROUND WATER POLLUTION, 2) THE ACT'S REQUIREMENT THAT ABATEMENT OF GROUND WATER POLLUTION OCCUR WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME, AND 3) THE ACT'S MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANCE ISSUANCE, RENEWAL AND MODIFICATION PETITIONS. ADDITIONALLY, THE COMMISSION'S NEW VARIANCE RULE MAY BE AN UNLAWFUL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO A CONSTITUENT AGENCY AND MAY EXCEED THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT. AB/GRIP ARE ULTIMATELY CONCERNED THAT THE COMMISSION'S NEWLY ADOPTED VARIANCE RULE WOULD UNDO OVER THIRTY-SIX (36) YEARS OF GROUND WATER PROTECTION IN NEW MEXICO BY AUTHORIZING, THROUGH RULE, THE ISSUANCE OF LIFE-TIME VARIANCES, WHICH ALLOW INDUSTRIES TO POLLUTE OUR MOST PRECIOUS PUBLIC RESOURCE IN PERPETUITY. THE COMMISSION'S RADICAL SHIFT IN ITS INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT'S PURPOSE AND VARIANCE PROVISION COMES AT A TIME WHEN IT IS MORE CRITICAL THAN EVER TO PROTECT NEW MEXICO'S SCARCE WATER RESOURCES. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER SOUGHT NOR RECOVERED ANY ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM AN OPPOSING PARTY IN THIS CASE. CASE #2 AQUIFER SCIENCE, LLC., V. SCOTT VERHINES, NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER. NEW MEXICO SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CASE #CV-2014-07209 BACKGROUND: THIS CASE WAS TRIED IN THE NEW MEXICO DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT. IT WAS AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR WATER USE FROM THE AQUIFER SCIENCE COMPANY TO SUPPLY WATER TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON ITS CAMPBELL RANCH PROPERTY. BY STATUTE, THIS WAS A TRIAL DE NOVO (ESSENTIALLY A "DO OVER") ON THE UNDERLYING ISSUES UPON WHICH THE STATE ENGINEER DETERMINED TO DENY THE WATER USE APPLICATION. THE COURT DECIDED IN FAVOR OF OUR CLIENTS BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL. THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO RULED THAT THE AQUIFER SCIENCE COMPANY AND THE STATE ENGINEER ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO OUR CLIENTS FOR THE EXPENSES THAT THEY INCURRED DURING THE LITIGATION (FOR EXPENSES SUCH AS COPYING, EXPERT WITNESSES, ETC., BUT NOT FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES). THE AQUIFER SCIENCE COMPANY AND THE STATE ENGINEER REQUESTED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT RECONSIDER ITS RULING ON OUR CLIENTS' COSTS, BUT THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT CHANGE ITS RULINGS ON THOSE COSTS. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THAT RULING. FIRST, THE AQUIFER SCIENCE COMPANY APPEALED BOTH OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S RULINGS - THE RULING DENYING THE AQUIFER SCIENCE COMPANY'S APPLICATION AND THE RULING GRANTING OUR CLIENTS THEIR COSTS - TO THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS. THOSE APPEALS ARE PENDING. SECOND, THE STATE ENGINEER APPEALED THE DISTRICT COURT'S RULING GRANTING OUR CLIENTS THEIR COSTS AGAINST THE STATE ENGINEER. THIRD, WE AND OUR CLIENTS WERE ABLE TO REACH A SETTLEMENT WITH THE STATE ENGINEER. IT INVOLVES: 1) OUR CLIENTS DROPPING THEIR CLAIM FOR COSTS AGAINST THE STATE ENGINEER; 2) THE STATE ENGINEER MAKING A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER TO CLOSE THE GROUND WATER BASIN WHERE OUR CLIENTS' WELLS ARE LOCATED; 3) THE STATE ENGINEER DISMISSING ITS APPEAL TO THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS; AND 4) OUR CLIENTS REIMBURSING THE STATE ENGINEER (FOR A LIMITED AMOUNT) IF THE AQUIFER SCIENCE COMPANY HAS TO PAY OUR CLIENTS' COSTS AND THE AQUIFER SCIENCE COMPANY THEN IS ABLE TO REQUIRE THAT THE STATE ENGINEER PAY PART OF WHAT THE AQUIFER SCIENCE COMPANY HAD TO PAY OUR CLIENTS. ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT HAVE BEEN FULFILLED EXCEPT THE LAST ONE BECAUSE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE AQUIFER SCIENCE COMPANY WILL HAVE TO PAY OUR CLIENTS THEIR COSTS IS STILL BEING LITIGATED IN THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS. PUBLIC INTEREST: THE PUBLIC INTEREST HERE IS IN PROTECTING THE WATER SUPPLIES OF PERSONS WHO OBTAIN WATER FROM THE SANDIA BASIN--WHICH THE STATE ENGINEER DECLARED TO BE CLOSED TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT, AS ALL WATER RIGHTS WITHIN IT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED AND ARE USED. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER REPRESENTS TWO GROUPS OF CITIZENS FROM AREAS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WHOSE USABLE WATER WOULD BE THREATENED BY AQUIFER SCIENCE, LLC BEING ALLOWED TO PUMP WATER FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT. THE CASE ALSO APPEARS TO BE A SPECULATIVE VENTURE FOR THE PROPONENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN AN ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A WATER RIGHT THAT WOULD BE PUT TO BENEFICIAL USE. HERE, THE PURPOSE APPEARS TO BE TO UPGRADE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WITH WATER RIGHT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT MARKETABLE. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER SOUGHT NOR RECOVERED ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM AN OPPOSING PARTY IN THIS CASE.
FORM 990 - PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM STATUS OF CASES IN LITIGATION, CONTINUE	CASE #3 AUGUSTIN PLAINS RANCH, LLC V. TOM BLAINE, P.E. FORMERLY NEW MEXICO SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, D-728-CV-XXX-XX-XXXX; NOW NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS CASE #A-1-CA-38615. BACKGROUND: THE AUGUSTIN PLAINS RANCH, LLC ("APR") SUBMITTED A MATERIALLY IDENTICAL APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE 54,000 ACRE FEET OF WATER ANNUALLY FROM THE SAN AGUSTIN BASIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF "MUNICIPAL AND "COMMERCIAL SALES" WITH THE NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER. APR PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION IN 2007 WITH THE OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER THAT WAS ULTIMATELY DENIED BY THE STATE ENGINEER IN 2011. THAT DENIAL WAS UPHELD BY THE NEW MEXICO SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN 2012. APR FILED AN APPEAL OF THAT DECISION IN 2012 WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED. APR ALSO FILED A MATERIALLY IDENTICAL APPLICATION IN 2014. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER REPRESENTS ABOUT 80 WATER USERS IN THE SAN AGUSTIN BASIN OPPOSING APR'S APPLICATION. THEY ARE: GLADYS BACA; ROBERT AND MONA BASSETT; PATTI BEARPAW; SUE BERRY-FOX; ANN BOULDEN; DONALD AND JOAN BROOKS; JACK BRUTON AND BRUTON RANCH, LLC; LISA BURROUGHS AND THOMAS BETRAS, JR.; CHARLES AND LUCY CLOYES; MICHAEL D. CODINI, JR.; RANDY COIL; JAMES AND JANET COLEMAN; TERRI COOK; THOMAS A. COOK; WILDWOOD HIGHLANDS LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS; RANDY COX; NANCY CROWLEY; TOM CSURILLA AND ELK RIDGE PASS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC AND TOP OF THE WORLD LAND COMPANY, LLC; ROGER AND JEANNE DAIGGER; MICHAEL AND ANN DANIELSON; BRYAN AND BEVERLEY DEES; JOHN AND EILEEN DODDS; LOUISE AND LEONARD DONAHE; PATRICIA EBERHARDT; ROY FARR; PAUL AND ROSE GEASLAND; GILA CONSERVATION COALITION, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND GILA WATERSHED ALLIANCE; MARY RAKESTRAW GREIERT; MICHAEL HASSON; DON AND CHERYL HASTINGS; GARY AND CAROL HEGG; PATRICIA HENRY; CATHERINE HILL; ERIC HOFSTETTER; SANDY HOW; M. IAN AND MARGREET JENNESS; AMOS LAFON; MARIE LEE; CLEDA LENHARDT; RICK AND PATRICIA LINDSEY; VICTORIA LINEHAN; OWEN LORENTZEN; MIKE LOYA; SONIA MACDONALD; ROBERT AND SUSAN MACKENZIE; DOUGLAS MARABLE; THEA MARSHALL; SAM AND KRISTIN MCCAIN; JEFF MCGUIRE; MICHAEL MIDEKE; KENNETH MROCZEK AND JANICE PRZYLBYL MROCZEK; PETER NAUMNIK; JOHN NAUMNIK; REGINA NAUMNIK; ROBERT NELSON; VERONIKA NELSON; WALTER AND DIANE OLMSTEAD; KARL PADGETT; MAX PADGET; LEO PADGETT; PATRICIA PADGETT; WANDA PARKER; RAY AND CAROL PITTMAN; JOHN PRESTON AND PATRICIA MURRAY PRESTON; DANIEL RAEL; STEPHANIE RANDOLPH; MARY KATHERINE RAY; KENNETH ROWE; KEVIN AND PRISCILLA RYAN; RAY AND KATHY SANSOM; CHRISTOPHER SCOTT SANSOM; JOHN AND BETTY SCHAEFER; SUSAN SCHUDARDT; JANICE SIMMONS; JIM SONNENBERG; ANNE SULLIVAN; MARGARET AND ROGER THOMPSON; GLORIA WEINRICH; JAMES WETZIG AND MAUREEN M. MACART; DONALD AND MARGARET WILTSHIRE; AND THE FOLLOWING TWO ASSOCIATIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS: HOMESTEAD LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: JOSEPH AND JANET SIOMIAK, PATRICIA GERMAIN, BETTE DUGIE, JONATHAN BENEDICT, MICHAEL MURRAY, JOHN POHL, PARKER FILLION, BARBARA OWENS; AND ABBE SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: RAVEN REITSTETTER, NANCY CROWLEY, CHRIS AND HELEN DOSSETT, KRISTIN EKVALL, KENNETH AND DIANA FRY, ALBERT GOODMAN, WILLIAM GYSIN, JEFF MCGUIRE, ROZALYN MURPHY, JANICE SIMMONS, RONALD WILSON, PAUL G. KOTULA, KARL AND JANE MEARS, THOMAS AND LINDA PAMPINELLA, DAVID P. SMITH, CARMELA L. WARNER, LISA BURROUGHS, AND TOM BETRAS. THE OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER HELD A HEARING ON APR'S 2014 APPLICATION ON DECEMBER 13, 2017. THE STATE ENGINEER DENIED APR'S APPLICATION PRIMARILY ON THE BASIS THAT IT WAS SPECULATIVE. APR FILED AN APPEAL OF THE STATE ENGINEER'S DENIAL WITH THE NEW MEXICO SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ON OCTOBER 3, 2018. ON AUGUST 23, 2019, THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED THE STATE ENGINEER'S DENIAL OF THE APR APPLICATION. APR HAS APPEALED THAT RULING TO THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS. THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS OVERTURNED THE DISTRICT COURT DECISION REGARDING ONE OF ITS BASES FOR ITS DECISION. THE CLIENT GROUP WAS SPLIT UP WITH ANOTHER ATTORNEY, UNAFFILIATED WITH THE LAW CENTER, WHO FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT. APR AND CATRON COUNTY FILED PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI TO THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT AS WELL. ON OCTOBER 28, 2022, THE SUPREME COURT DENIED ALL THREE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI, MEANING THAT THE CASE WILL BE RETURNED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ADDITIONAL LITIGATION, LIKELY IN 2023. . PUBLIC INTEREST: GROUND WATER IN NEW MEXICO "BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC." NMSA 1978, 72-12-1 (2003). OUR STATE'S GROUND WATER DOES NOT BELONG TO THE OWNERS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY ABOVE GROUND WATER. ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES MAY USE GROUND WATER FOR "BENEFICIAL USE," SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORIZATION FROM THE STATE, ID., GROUND WATER IN NEW MEXICO IS A PUBLIC RESOURCE TO BE PROTECTED. ADDITIONALLY, THE CONSTITUTION DECLARES THAT "WATER AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES OF THIS STATE" ARE "OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HEALTH, SAFETY AND THE GENERAL WELFARE." N.M. CONST. ART. XX, 21. PUBLIC WATER IN NEW MEXICO IS HELD IN TRUST BY THE STATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC. NEW MEXICO V. G.E., 467 F.3D 1223, 1243 (10TH CIR. 2006). THIS CASE DEALS WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST REGARDING GROUNDWATER APPROPRIATIONS, AS WELL AS THE PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL WAYS OF LIFE IN RURAL NEW MEXICO. IF APR IS SUCCESSFUL AND ITS APPLICATION IS ULTIMATELY APPROVED, OVER 17 BILLION GALLONS OF WATER WILL BE TRANSPORTED OUT OF THE SAN AGUSTIN PLAINS, A TRADITIONAL RURAL COMMUNITY, TO THE GREATER ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF NEW MEXICO'S LARGEST CITY. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER SOUGHT NOR RECOVERED ANY ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM AN OPPOSING PARTY IN THIS CASE.
FORM 990 - PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM STATUS OF CASES IN LITIGATION, CONTINUE	CASES #4, #5, #6, #7, AND #8 THE FOLLOWING FIVE CASES RELATE TO THE PROPOSED SANTOLINA DEVELOPMENT. CASE #4 JAVIER BENAVIDEZ, JAMES SANTIAGO MAESTAS, ROBERTO ROIBAL, SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT, NEW MEXICO HEALTH EQUITY WORKING GROUP, AND PAJARITO VILLAGE ASSOCIATION V. BERNALILLO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND ART DE LA CRUZ, WAYNE JOHNSON, DEBBIE O'MALLEY, MAGGIE HART STEBBINS, AND LONNIE TALBERT, BERNALILLO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND CONSENSUS PLANNING, INC. AND WESTERN ALBUQUERQUE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS, A-1-CA-36979, FORMERLY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CASE D-202-CV-2015-04466 AND CASE D-202-CV-2015-05363, WHICH WERE CONSOLIDATED. CASE #5 JAVIER BENAVIDEZ, JAMES SANTIAGO MAESTAS, ROBERTO ROIBAL, SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT, NEW MEXICO HEALTH EQUITY WORKING GROUP, AND PAJARITO VILLAGE ASSOCIATION V. BERNALILLO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND ART DE LA CRUZ, WAYNE JOHNSON, DEBBIE O'MALLEY, MAGGIE HART STEBBINS, AND LONNIE TALBERT, BERNALILLO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND CONSENSUS PLANNING, INC. AND WESTERN ALBUQUERQUE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS, A-1-CA-37051, FORMERLY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CASE D-202-CV-2015-04466 AND CASE D-202-CV-2015-05363, WHICH WERE CONSOLIDATED CASE #6 JAVIER BENAVIDEZ, JAMES SANTIAGO MAESTAS, ROBERTO ROIBAL, SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT, NEW MEXICO HEALTH EQUITY WORKING GROUP, AND PAJARITO VILLAGE ASSOCIATION V. BERNALILLO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND ART DE LA CRUZ, WAYNE JOHNSON, DEBBIE O'MALLEY, MAGGIE HART STEBBINS, AND LONNIE TALBERT, BERNALILLO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND CONSENSUS PLANNING, INC. AND WESTERN ALBUQUERQUE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS, A-1-CA-37060, FORMERLY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CASE D-202-CV-2015-04466 AND CASE D-202-CV-2015-05363, WHICH WERE CONSOLIDATED CASE #7 SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT, NEW MEXICO HEALTH EQUITY WORKING GROUP, PAJARITO VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, DANIEL RICHARD "RIP ANDERSON, MARCIA BEAUREGARD FERNANDEZ, SANTIAGO JAMES MAESTAS, ROD MAHONEY, ROBERTO ROIBAL, AND KRISTINE SUOZZI V. BERNALILLO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION, WAYNE JOHNSON, DEBBIE O'MALLEY, STEPHEN MICHAEL QUEZADA, MAGGIE HART STEBBINS, AND LONNIE TALBERT, AND WESTERN ALBUQUERQUE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, AND CONSENSUS PLANNING, INC. NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT, S-1-SC-39398, FORMERLY NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS, A-1-CA-38717, FORMERLY NEW MEXICO SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CASE D-202-CV-2017-07037
FORM 990 - PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM STATUS OF CASES IN LITIGATION, CONTINUE	CASE # 8 SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT, PAJARITO VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, SOUTH VALLEY COALITION OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, CENTER FOR SOCIAL SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS, SOUTH VALLEY REGIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ACEQUIAS, DANIEL RICHARD "RIP ANDERSON, MARCIA BEAUREGARD FERNANDEZ, SANTIAGO JAMES MAESTAS, ROD MAHONEY, ROBERTO ROIBAL, DR. VIRGINIA NECOCHEA, AND KRISTINE SUOZZI V. BERNALILLO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION, WAYNE JOHNSON, DEBBIE O'MALLEY, STEPHEN MICHAEL QUEZADA, MAGGIE HART STEBBINS, AND LONNIE TALBERT, AND WESTERN ALBUQUERQUE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, AND CONSENSUS PLANNING, INC. NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT, S-1-SC-39398, FORMERLY NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS, A-1-CA-38742 AND CONSOLIDATED WITH A-1-CA-38717, FORMERLY NEW MEXICO SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CASE D-202-CV-XXX-XX-XXXX BACKGROUND: THESE FIVE CASES ALL INVOLVE THE PROPOSED SANTOLINA DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS A PROPOSED PLANNED COMMUNITY THAT, AT FULL BUILD OUT, WOULD BE HOME TO APPROXIMATELY 90,000 PEOPLE ON THE WEST MESA OF ALBUQUERQUE. EACH OF THE CASES WAS FILED IN THE NEW MEXICO SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT BY THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENTS LISTED ABOVE FOR EACH CASE. THE CASES WERE FILED AGAINST THE BERNALILLO COUNTY (NEW MEXICO) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE FIVE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THE TWO COMPANIES PROMOTING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, CONSENSUS PLANNING, INC. AND WESTERN ALBUQUERQUE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC. IN CASES #4, #5, AND #6 THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER'S CLIENTS SOUGHT TO HAVE THE DISTRICT COURT REVIEW AND VACATE THE FOLLOWING FIVE DECISIONS MADE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED SANTOLINA DEVELOPMENT: -THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' DENIAL OF THE APPEAL FILED BY SEVERAL OF THE CLIENTS TO THE BOARD FROM A DETERMINATION OF THE BERNALILLO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (THE "PLANNING COMMISSION") RECOMMENDING THAT THE SANTOLINA LEVEL A MASTER PLAN BE APPROVED. -THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' DENIAL OF THE APPEAL FILED BY SEVERAL OF THE CLIENTS TO THE BOARD FROM A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SANTOLINA DEVELOPMENT. -THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVAL OF THE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SANTOLINA DEVELOPMENT. -THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVAL OF THE SANTOLINA LEVEL A MASTER PLAN. -THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE LEVEL A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD AND WESTERN ALBUQUERQUE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC. THESE CASES WERE FILED AND LITIGATED DURING 2015-2017. IN THE COURSE OF THAT LITIGATION, THE CASES (CASE #D-202-CV-2015-04466 AND CASE #D-202-CV-2015-05363) WERE CONSOLIDATED. IN THE CONSOLIDATED CASES, THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED A MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON MAY 31, 2017, REVERSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' DECISION APPROVING THE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SANTOLINA DEVELOPMENT. BERNALILLO COUNTY AND THE SANTOLINA DEVELOPERS FILED MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S RULING ON THE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER FILED A MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE EFFECT OF THE COURT'S ORDER ON THE SANTOLINA LEVEL A MASTER PLAN AND THE SANTOLINA LEVEL A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED ALL THREE OF THOSE MOTIONS ON DECEMBER 19, 2017. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER'S CLIENTS FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION PERTAINING TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVAL OF THE SANTOLINA LEVEL A MASTER PLAN AND LEVEL A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS ON JANUARY 16, 2018. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED OUR PETITION ON APRIL 5, 2018, AND THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED CASE NO. A-1-CA-36979. BOTH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE SANTOLINA DEVELOPERS FILED THEIR OWN APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT COURT DECISION WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS. (CASE NOS. A-1-CA-37060 AND A-1-CA-37051). BRIEFING WAS COMPLETED AT THE END OF 2018 FOR ALL THREE APPEALS/PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. LATER, ALL THREE CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED UNDER THE CASE NO. A-1-CA-36979. THE COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED ITS DECISION IN THE THREE CONSOLIDATED CASES ON DECEMBER 23, 2020. IN ITS DECISION, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S THREE RULINGS - THE RULING INVALIDATING THE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT, THE RULING AFFIRMING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVAL OF THE LEVEL A MASTER PLAN, AND THE RULING AFFIRMING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVAL OF THE LEVEL A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. BOTH SIDES REQUESTED THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT REVIEW THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISIONS, BUT THE STATE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO DO THAT IN AN ORDER ISSUED ON APRIL 16, 2021. BERNALILLO COUNTY HAS CONTINUED ITS PROCEEDINGS ON THE PROPOSED SANTOLINA DEVELOPMENT. ON JUNE 7, 2017, THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE BOARD'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE LEVEL A MASTER PLAN PROPOSED BY THE SANTOLINA DEVELOPERS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER THEN FILED AN APPEAL OF THAT DECISION WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE BOARD HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER'S APPEAL OF THAT DECISION ON AUGUST 15, 2017. THE BOARD VOTED TO ADOPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVE THE SANTOLINA DEVELOPERS' PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, THEREBY DEFERRING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FULLY EXECUTED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE ALBUQUERQUE/BERNALILLO COUNTY WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY FROM LEVEL B TO LEVEL C PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. IN AUGUST 25, 2021, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD A REHEARING OF THE CLIENT'S APPEAL OF THE DECISION TO APPROVE THE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT, PURSUANT TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER INVALIDATING THE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT. AT THAT HEARING, THE BOARD AGAIN VOTED TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER'S CLIENTS AGAIN APPEALED THAT DECISION TO THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, ASKING THE COURT TO REVIEW THREE DECISIONS: 1) THE BOARD'S DECISION TO DENY THE CLIENT'S APPEAL OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT, 2) THE BOARD'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT, AND 3) THE BOARD'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONE MAP AMENDMENT. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE BRICKHOUSE UPHELD THE DECISIONS OF THE BOARD AND THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER'S CLIENTS DECIDED NOT TO APPEAL THE DECISION TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. IN CASE #7, THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER SOUGHT TO PERSUADE THE NEW MEXICO SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TO REVERSE THE FOLLOWING TWO DECISIONS OF THE BERNALILLO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: -THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' DENIAL OF THE APPEAL FILED BY SEVERAL OF THE CLIENTS TO THE BOARD FROM A DETERMINATION OF THE BERNALILLO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (THE "PLANNING COMMISSION") RECOMMENDING THAT THE SANTOLINA LEVEL B MASTER PLAN BE APPROVED. -THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' APPROVAL OF THE SANTOLINA LEVEL B MASTER PLAN. JUDGE NASH PRESIDING OVER THIS CASE RETIRED AT THE END OF 2018 AND JUDGE BRICKHOUSE WAS ASSIGNED. THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED A MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DECEMBER 23, 2019, AFFIRMING THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE LEVEL B MASTER PLAN. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER'S CLIENTS FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION PERTAINING TO THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE SANTOLINA LEVEL B MASTER PLAN WITH THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS ON JANUARY 22, 2020. FOR CASE #8, BERNALILLO COUNTY STAFF INTRODUCED THE SANTOLINA LEVEL B DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH SERVES TO CODIFY AND IMPLEMENT THE SANTOLINA LEVEL B MASTER PLAN, AT THE BOARD'S OCTOBER 23, 2018 "ADMINISTRATIVE MEETING". AT THE BOARD'S NOVEMBER 13, 2018 "ADMINISTRATIVE MEETING" PUBLIC COMMENT PERTAINING TO THE SANTOLINA LEVEL B DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS RECEIVED BY THE BOARD, WITH THE BOARD ULTIMATELY VOTING 3-2 IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE SANTOLINA LEVEL B DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
FORM 990 - PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM STATUS OF CASES IN LITIGATION, CONTINUE	THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER SOUGHT TO PERSUADE THE NEW MEXICO SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TO REVERSE THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE SANTOLINA LEVEL B DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON DECEMBER 12, 2018. JUDGE FRANCHINI ISSUED AN AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON JANUARY 13, 2020. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER'S CLIENTS FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL WITH THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS ON FEBRUARY 4, 2020. THIS CASE WAS CONSOLIDATED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH CASE #7 AND ON APRIL 20, 2022 THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DECISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER'S CLIENTS FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT ON MAY 24, 2022. UNFORTUNATELY THAT PETITION WAS DENIED ON AUGUST 8, 2022 AND A MANDATE HAS BEEN FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE CASE CLOSURE OF CASES #7 AND #8. PUBLIC INTEREST: THERE ARE SEVERAL PUBLIC INTEREST ISSUES AT STAKE IN THIS LITIGATION. THE FIRST IS WHERE THE WATER WILL COME FROM FOR THE PROPOSED SANTOLINA DEVELOPMENT. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER'S CLIENTS ARE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE BECAUSE THEY FEAR THAT USE OF WATER FOR THE PROPOSED SANTOLINA DEVELOPMENT WILL REDUCE THE WATER THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR OTHER USERS IN THE ALBUQUERQUE AREA, WHICH IS WHERE EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL CLIENTS IS LOCATED. THE SECOND PUBLIC INTEREST ISSUE IS WHETHER THE PROPOSED SANTOLINA DEVELOPMENT WILL LEAD TO SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN TRAFFIC FROM THE WEST SIDE OF ALBUQUERQUE TO CENTRAL ALBUQUERQUE, THEREBY CAUSING SIGNIFICANT POLLUTION ON THE ROADS THAT CONNECT ALBUQUERQUE TO THE WEST SIDE. THE THIRD PUBLIC INTEREST ISSUE IS WHETHER THE CHILDREN FROM THE PROPOSED SANTOLINA DEVELOPMENT WILL EXACERBATE OVERCROWDING THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOLS THAT SERVE STUDENTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF ALBUQUERQUE. THE FOURTH PUBLIC INTEREST ISSUE IS WHETHER THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED SANTOLINA DEVELOPMENT WILL CAUSE INCREASES IN TAXES FOR TAXPAYERS ELSEWHERE IN BERNALILLO COUNTY. FINALLY, THE FIFTH PUBLIC INTEREST ISSUE CONCERNS THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE BERNALILLO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE BOARD TREATED ITS PROCEEDINGS AS LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS DESPITE THE LAW THAT INDICATES THAT THEY WERE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, IN WHICH PARTICIPANTS HAVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER SOUGHT NOR RECOVERED ANY ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM AN OPPOSING PARTY IN ANY OF THESE THREE CASES. CASE # 10 NUCLEAR WATCH NEW MEXICO V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC, AND THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO CASE #1:16-CV-0043-JCH- SCY. BACKGROUND: IN 2005, THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT ("NMED") ENTERED INTO A CONSENT ORDER WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH WAS AT THAT TIME THE SOLE OPERATOR OF THE LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY ("THE LABORATORY"), ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, CONCERNING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REMEDIATION OF TOXIC WASTE BURIED IN UNLINED PITS AND TRENCHES (SO-CALLED LEGACY WASTE) FROM THE MAKING OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES AND RELATED WAR-TIME ACTIVITIES. UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, THE HAZARDOUS WASTE BUREAU OF THE NMED ALLOWED NUMEROUS MANDATORY DEADLINES FOR VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE REMEDIATION PROCESS TO EXPIRE OR BE EXTENDED OUTSIDE THE TERMS REQUIRED UNDER THE CONSENT ORDER. THE 2005 CONSENT ORDER, THE STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE ACT ("HWA") AND THE FEDERAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT ("RCRA") REQUIRED THAT THOSE DEADLINES BE MET AND IMPOSED PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO MEET THOSE DEADLINES. IN JUNE, 2016, THE NMED AND THE CURRENT OPERATORS OF THE LABORATORY (51% CONTINUING UNDER THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, THE REST DIVIDED AMONG BECHTEL, AECOM, AND ANOTHER COMPANY TO FORM A CONSORTIUM OPERATOR CALLED LANS OR LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC) ENTERED INTO A NEW CONSENT ORDER THAT VITIATED ALL OF THE DEADLINES IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER AND PUT THE CONSORTIUM AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IN CONTROL OF SETTING ALL FUTURE REMEDIATION DEADLINES. NUCLEAR WATCH NEW MEXICO SUED TO RESTORE AND ENFORCE THE CONSENT ORDER AND TO ENFORCE RCRA AND THE STATE HWA. THE LAWSUIT ALSO SEEKS TO IMPOSE PENALTIES - WHICH CONTINUE TO ACCRUE, BUT AT THE TIME OF FILING WERE APPROXIMATELY $275,000,000. THE CASE WAS FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE CASE ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY ALL PARTIES. ON THE BASIS OF THOSE MOTIONS, THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED OUR CLAIM THAT THE CONSENT ORDER SHOULD BE RESTORED AND ENFORCED, BUT REFUSED TO DISMISS OUR CLAIM THAT THE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE TO PAY THE PENALTIES THAT HAVE ACCRUED. THE CASE WAS SETTLED IN MARCH 2022 AND THE CASE WAS DISMISSED. PUBLIC INTEREST: THIS CASE INVOLVES ENFORCEMENT OF RCRA AND THE HWA WHICH ARE INTENDED TO PROTECT OCCUPATIONAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY BY ASSURING PROPER DISPOSAL AND REMEDIATION OF DISPOSAL SITES INVOLVING THE STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS SOUGHT ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS UNDER RCRA IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, FILING FOR SUCH FEES WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE IF THE CASE IS DISMISSED. IF THE CASE GOES FORWARD, FILING FOR FEES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE WOULD TAKE PLACE AT THE END OF THE CASE AND BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT. ALTERNATIVELY, ANY RECOVERY OF ATTORNEYS FEES COULD BE PART OF A SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE, AND WE AND OUR CLIENT ARE CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. IN SUMMER, 2022, THE LAW CENTER AND OUR CLIENTS SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATED A SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY THAT INCLUDED RECOVERY OF SOME ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR THE LAW CENTER. THIS CASE IS NOW RESOLVED AND CLOSED.
FORM 990 - PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM STATUS OF CASES IN LITIGATION, CONTINUE	CASE #11 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, EX REL. OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER V. H GRAY NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS, A-1-CA-37258, FORMERLY THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CASE #CV-96-888 THIS CASE WAS TRIED IN SANTA FE BY THE WATER JUDGE FOR THE NEW MEXICO DISTRICT COURT FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, AND A DISPOSITION FAVORABLE TO OUR CLIENTS WAS ACHIEVED. IT IS CURRENTLY UNDER APPEAL IN THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS ON AN APPEAL FILED BY THE NEW MEXICO COPPER COMPANY AND WILLIAM FROST AND HARRIS GRAY. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS FILED A CROSS-APPEAL IN THE MATTER. BACKGROUND: THIS IS A PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF WATER RIGHTS BELONGING TO THE NEW MEXICO COPPER COMPANY [NMCC]. AS THE RIGHTS CLAIMED ARE WITHIN THE LOWER RIO GRANDE, THE ADJUDICATION TAKES PLACE AS PART OF THE FIXING OF ALL WATER RIGHTS WITHIN THAT AREA. OUR POSITION IN THE MATTER WAS VINDICATED BY THE COURT'S DECISION LIMITING THE WATER RIGHTS OF THE CLAIMANTS. HOWEVER, THE WATER RIGHTS CLAIMANTS HAVE APPEALED, AND WE RESPONDED WITH CROSS APPEALS. THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS SET ORAL ARGUMENT IN THIS MATTER FOR APRIL 1, 2021, AND THE LAW CENTER HIRED OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO HANDLE THAT ORAL ARGUMENT. THE COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED ITS DECISION IN SEPTEMBER 2021, PARTIALLY REVERSING AND REMANDING. A PRETRIAL HEARING WAS HELD ON JANUARY 6, 2022 AND BRIEFING ON THE REMAND ISSUES WAS SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 28, 2022. ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HELD ON JUNE 16, 2022 AND A DECISION IS PENDING IN DISTRICT COURT. PUBLIC INTEREST: THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE IS IN PROTECTING THE WATER SUPPLIES FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN THE TOWN OF HILLSBORO, NEW MEXICO. NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER REPRESENTS THESE PROTESTERS. THEY ARE A GROUP OF CITIZENS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE PERCHA-ANIMAS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION AND A DOMESTIC WATER USERS ASSOCIATION IN THE TOWN OF HILLSBORO, NEW MEXICO. THEY ARE CONCERNED THAT IF THE TOTAL WATER RIGHTS CLAIMED BY THE NMCC IS ALLOCATED TO IT, THEIR WATER SUPPLIES WILL BE COMPROMISED. THEIR INTENTION IN THIS LITIGATION IS TO LIMIT THE NMCC WATER RIGHTS TO NO MORE THAN THE NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER OFFERED TO NMCC BASED UPON PROVEN BENEFICIAL USE. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER SOUGHT NOR RECOVERED ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM AN OPPOSING PARTY IN THIS CASE. CASE #12 SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT, ESTHER ABEYTA, AND STEVEN ABEYTA. V. ALBUQUERQUE- BERNALILLO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONTROL BOARD NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS CASE # A-1-CA-36398. BACKGROUND: THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ALBUQUERQUE-BERNALILLO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONTROL BOARD'S DECISION TO AFFIRM THE ISSUANCE OF AN AIR POLLUTION PERMIT BY THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPT. ("EHD"). THE EHD GRANTED AN AIR POLLUTION PERMIT TO HONSTEIN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, LLC ("HONSTEIN") FOR A BULK PETROLEUM FACILITY LOCATED IN THE SAN JOSE NEIGHBORHOOD IN ALBUQUERQUE. THE SAN JOSE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PREDOMINANTLY LATINO AND WORKING CLASS. THE HONSTEIN FACILITY WAS ALSO LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD LESS THAN 100 FEET FROM OCCUPIED RESIDENCES. SAN JOSE ALSO HAS A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF AIR POLLUTION SOURCES, I.E., INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS, LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT ("SWOP"), ESTHER ABEYTA, AND STEVEN ABEYTA, WE CHALLENGED THE BOARD'S DECISION BASED ON THE BOARD'S MISINTERPRETATION OF THE NEW MEXICO AIR QUALITY CONTROL ACT AND ITS REFUSAL TO CONSIDER QUALITY OF LIFE IMPACTS FROM THE EHD'S PERMITTING DECISION. SWOP'S CHALLENGE SEEKS TO REQUIRE THE EHD TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF MULTIPLE AIR POLLUTION SOURCES AND THOSE SOURCES' IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH WHEN CONSIDERING AIR POLLUTION PERMITS. THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED ITS DECISION ON OCTOBER 15, 2020. OUR CLIENTS DECIDED NOT TO PURSUE THIS CASE FURTHER AND WE CLOSED THE CASE IN FEBRUARY, 2021. PUBLIC INTEREST: THE PUBLIC INTEREST REPRESENTED IN THIS CASE IS THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO HAVE PUBLIC HEALTH AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CONSIDERED WHEN LOCAL AIR POLLUTION AGENCIES ISSUE AIR POLLUTION PERMITS. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER RECEIVED NOR SOUGHT ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS CASE. CASE #13 UNITED STATES V. CURRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO CASE #1:10-CF-01251. BACKGROUND: CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY IS AN INTERVENING DEFENDANT IN THIS MATTER. THE PLAINTIFF IS THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WHICH OVERSEES LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY (LANL), WHICH IS CURRENTLY OPERATED BY INTERVENING PLAINTIFF LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC. THE PRINCIPAL DEFENDANT IS THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT. CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY LITIGATED THE ISSUE OF PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION IN THE CASE AND WAS GRANTED THAT STATUS ON JULY 25, 2011. THE PARTIES OTHER THAN OUR CLIENT HAVE ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT OF THIS CASE, WHICH IS PENDING THE DECISION ON AN APPEAL OF PERMIT DP-1132, ON WHICH THE SETTLEMENT TERMS ARE CONTINGENT. LITIGATION CONTINUES RELATED TO DP-1132; HOWEVER, THE LAW CENTER IS NOT REPRESENTING CCNS IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS. INSTEAD, THE LAW CENTER CONTINUES TO MONITOR THE STATUS OF THE FEDERAL CASE UNTIL THE STATE PROCEEDINGS ARE RESOLVED. PUBLIC INTEREST: THE PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER IS IN THE ADEQUATE CLEAN UP OF THE POLLUTION CAUSED BY LANL. CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY INCLUDES MEMBERS OF THE PUEBLO COMMUNITIES LIVING AROUND THE LANL SITE, AS WELL AS PEOPLE WHO LIVE DOWNSTREAM AND DOWNWIND OF THE FACILITY. PROPER, ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE CLEAN-UP OF THE WEAPONS BUILDING LEGACY WASTE IS AN ABIDING INTEREST OF MANY MEMBERS OF THESE COMMUNITIES. WHILE CCNS, AS AN INTERVENING DEFENDANT, HAS NO BASIS FOR WINNING THIS CASE, BY BEING "ON BOARD" IT HAS A SEAT AT THE TABLE IN THE PROCESS OF NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT. THIS PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO STRIVE FOR A SETTLEMENT THAT WILL ASSURE ADEQUATE CLEAN-UP OF THE LANL WEAPONS BUILDING LEGACY WASTE. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER SOUGHT NOR RECOVERED ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS MATTER.
FORM 990 - PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM STATUS OF CASES IN LITIGATION, CONTINUE	CASE #15 TURNER RANCH PROPERTIES L.P., ET AL. V. NEW MEXICO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS, NO. A-1-CA-38478 BACKGROUND: NEW MEXICO COPPER CORPORATION (N.M. COPPER CORP.) SEEKS TO REOPEN AND OPERATE THE COPPER FLAT MINE, LOCATED NEAR THE TOWN OF HILLSBORO, IN SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. THE MINE OPERATED FOR ABOUT THREE MONTHS IN 1980, BUT HAS BEEN INACTIVE SINCE THEN. ON MARCH 31, 2011, N.M. COPPER CORP. SUBMITTED TO THE N.M. ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT (DEPARTMENT) AN APPLICATION FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT FOR THE MINE OPERATION. ON JANUARY 31, 2018, THE DEPARTMENT FORMALLY ISSUED A PUBLIC NOTICE ANNOUNCING ITS DECISION TO PROPOSE APPROVAL OF THE DISCHARGE PERMIT. THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED REQUESTS FOR HEARING FROM SEVERAL PARTIES, AND IT DECIDED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. FROM SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 28, 2018, THE DEPARTMENT HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED DISCHARGE PERMIT IN TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES. ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS, TURNER RANCH PROPERTIES L.P. AND HILLSBORO PITCHFORK RANCH LLC, THE LAW CENTER PARTICIPATED IN THE HEARING AS A PARTY, PRESENTING THE TESTIMONY OF FOUR WITNESSES. THE LAW CENTER GENERALLY OPPOSED THE PERMIT, AND ADVOCATED FOR STRONGER PERMIT CONDITIONS. ON DECEMBER 19, 2018, IN THE FINAL WEEKS OF THE TERM OF THE PREVIOUS GOVERNOR, THE DEPARTMENT ISSUED THE PERMIT. THE LAW CENTER, ON BEHALF OF THE RANCHES AND THE GILA RESOURCES INFORMATION PROJECT (GRIP), APPEALED THE PERMIT TO THE N.M. WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION. THE LAW CENTER BRIEFED AND ARGUED THE APPEAL IN THE SUMMER OF 2019. ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2019, SUMMARILY AND WITH LITTLE ANALYSIS, THE COMMISSION UPHELD THE PERMIT. ON OCTOBER 10, 2019, THE LAW CENTER, AGAIN ON BEHALF OF THE RANCHES AND GRIP, APPEALED THE COMMISSION'S DECISION TO THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS. DURING 2020, THE MATTER WAS FULLY BRIEFED. THE COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED A DECISION IN MAY, 2022, AFFIRMING THE WQCC'S DECISION. ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS, THE LAW CENTER FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITH THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT, BUT THAT PETITION WAS DENIED IN AUGUST, 2022. BECAUSE ALL APPEALS IN THIS MATTER HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED, THE LAW CENTER CLOSED THE CASE IN SEPTEMBER 2022. PUBLIC INTEREST: THE PROPOSED MINE COULD HAVE A VERY SERIOUS ADVERSE EFFECT ON LOCAL WATER RESOURCES, BY BOTH POLLUTING AND DEPLETING GROUND AND SURFACE WATER. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER REPRESENTS TWO RANCHES LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE MINE SITE, AS WELL AS A LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION. THE RANCHES CONTAIN SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS, INCLUDING LAS ANIMAS CREEK, CAVE CREEK, AND THE AVANT PASTURE. THE RANCHES ARE HOME TO NUMEROUS MAMMAL, BIRD, AND FISH SPECIES, INCLUDING NATIVE RIO GRANDE CUTTHROAT TROUT, ELK, MULE DEER, COUES WHITETAIL DEER, QUAIL, AND OTHER GAME SPECIES. THEY ARE ALSO HOME TO STANDS OF RARE ARIZONA SYCAMORE TREES. IN ADDITION TO BUFFALO AND CATTLE RANCHING, THE RANCHES ARE WIDELY USED FOR RECREATION, INCLUDING HUNTING, FISHING, HIKING, MOUNTAIN BIKING, AND GAME VIEWING. THE CASE ALSO FURTHERS THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN CHALLENGING THE RATHER CAVALIER AND POORLY-REASONED DECISIONS OF BOTH THE DEPARTMENT AND THE COMMISSION IN APPROVING THE PERMIT. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER SOUGHT NOR RECOVERED ANY ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM AN OPPOSING PARTY IN THIS CASE. CASE #16 SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT, ET AL V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, 1:20-CV-00098-KK-JFR BACKGROUND: ON FEBRUARY 4, 2020, THE LAW CENTER ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS (SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT, NEW MEXICO VOICES FOR CHILDREN, THREE INDIVIDUALS, AND THREE NEW MEXICO STATE LEGISLATORS) FILED A RCRA CITIZEN SUIT AGAINST THE U.S. AIR FORCE IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO FOR CLEANUP OF A JET FUEL SPILL FROM THE BULK FUELS FACILITY AT KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE. THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS, AND THE COURT HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT ON JULY 21, 2020. THE COURT GRANTED THE U.S. MOTION TO DISMISS IN MARCH 2021. OUR CLIENTS DECIDED NOT TO PURSUE ANY APPEALS AND THIS CASE IS CLOSED. PUBLIC INTEREST: THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE WAS TO PROTECT ALBUQUERQUE MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES FROM PETROCHEMICAL POLLUTION CAUSED BY THE AIR FORCE. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER SOUGHT NOR RECOVERED ANY ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM AN OPPOSING PARTY IN THIS CASE. CASE #17 NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS' ASSOC. V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, 1:19-CV-00988-RB-SCY BACKGROUND: THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ISSUED A FINAL RULE DEFINING WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS), OR THE SO-CALLED "NAVIGABLE WATER PROTECTION RULE", ON JANUARY 23, 2020. ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS, AMIGOS BRAVOS, GILA RESOURCES INFORMATION PROJECT (GRIP), AND THE NEW MEXICO ACEQUIA ASSOCIATION, THE LAW CENTER APPEALED THE FINAL RULE IN JUNE 2020 TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. THE LAW CENTER IS ALSO DISPUTING N.M. CATTLE GROWERS' CHALLENGE TO THE RULE AS BEYOND EPA JURISDICTION. IN AUGUST 2021, FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS VACATED THE 2020 "NAVIGABLE WATER PROTECTION RULE" NULLIFYING IT NATIONWIDE. ON DECEMBER 7, 2021 THE EPA AND THE USACE PUBLISHED A NEW PROPOSED RULE TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "WATERS OF THE US" IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. NMELC SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF AMIGOS BRAVOS, GRIP, AND NMAA, ON FEBRUARY 7, 2022. WE ARE WAITING TO SEE WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION WILL FILE A NEW APPEAL OF THE DEFINITION OF "WATERS OF THE U.S. OR AMEND ITS COMPLAINT IN THE CURRENT CASE. PUBLIC INTEREST: HOW "WATERS OF THE U.S." IS DEFINED IS CRITICAL TO WHICH WATERS ARE PROTECTED IN NEW MEXICO. BECAUSE NEW MEXICO DOES NOT REGULATE SURFACE WATER DISCHARGES BY STATE LAW, SURFACE WATER PROTECTIONS ARE ADMINISTERED BY THE U.S. EPA. EPA MUST ABIDE BY ITS OWN REGULATIONS AND DURING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THE EPA PROMULGATED REGULATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE EFFECTIVELY LEFT 90% OF NEW MEXICO SURFACE WATER UNPROTECTED FROM POLLUTING DISCHARGES. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER SOUGHT NOR RECOVERED ANY ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM AN OPPOSING PARTY IN THIS CASE.
FORM 990 - PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM STATUS OF CASES IN LITIGATION, CONTINUE	CASE #18 STATE OF COLORADO V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE UNITED STATES, 20-1238 BACKGROUND: ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS, AMIGOS BRAVOS, GILA RESOURCES INFORMATION PROJECT (GRIP), AND THE NEW MEXICO ACEQUIA ASSOCIATION, THE LAW CENTER SUBMITTED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE UNITED STATES TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ON AUGUST 18, 2020, ON APPEAL OF U.S. DISTRICT COURT (D. COLO.) GRANT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. IN MARCH, 2021, THE TENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT AND VACATED THE MATTER. THIS CASE IS NOW CLOSED. PUBLIC INTEREST: SEE, NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS' ASSOC. V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, 1:19-CV-00988-RB-SCY, ABOVE. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER SOUGHT NOR RECOVERED ANY ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM AN OPPOSING PARTY IN THIS CASE. CASE #19 NEW MEXICO V. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, 1:19-CV-00178-MV-JFR BACKGROUND: IN AN ACTION BY THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO AGAINST THE U.S. AIR FORCE, THE LAW CENTER PREPARED AND FILED AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT (D.N.M.) ON BEHALF OF THREE NEW MEXICO STATE LEGISLATORS (SENATOR MIMI STEWART, SENATOR ANTOINETTE SEDILLO LOPEZ, AND REPRESENTATIVE ANDRES ROMERO) ON DECEMBER 30, 2019, SUPPORTING NEW MEXICO'S RESPONSE TO THE U.S. CROSS MOTION TO DISMISS ON JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES. THE CASE HAS SINCE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT MULTI-DISTRICT PANEL, AND ALL PENDING MOTIONS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LAW CENTER WILL RE-FILE THE AMICUS BRIEF AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. PUBLIC INTEREST: CANNON & HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE PFAS AND PFOS ISSUE. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER SOUGHT NOR RECOVERED ANY ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM AN OPPOSING PARTY IN THIS CASE. CASE #20 JOHN D'ANTONIO, NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER V. ACEQUIA DE ANTON CHICO, ET AL. NEW MEXICO FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. D-412-CV-2020-00413 BACKGROUND: THE LAW CENTER IS REPRESENTING FOUR DIFFERENT ACEQUIA ASSOCIATIONS TO CHALLENGE THE STATE ENGINEER'S AUTHORITY TO REISSUE A FINAL DECISION AFTER ISSUING A DECISION REGARDING A WATER TRANSFER. THE ACEQUIAS ORIGINALLY PROTESTED THE APPLICATION OF STRICKLING RANCH PARTNERS, A TEXAS-BASED COMPANY, TO CHANGE THE POINT OF DIVERSION AND PLACE OF USE OF WATER WHICH WOULD CEASE THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM THE WEST PECOS DITCH CURRENTLY USED FOR IRRIGATION AND ALLOW WATER TO BE USED BY THE COMPANY, NEGATIVELY IMPACTING TRADITIONAL WATER USERS IN PECOS AND ANTON CHICO. THE APPEAL WAS FILED IN THE NEW MEXICO FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN DECEMBER 2020. THE PARTIES ARE CONDUCTING DISCOVERY AND ARE ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS. A TRIAL IS SCHEDULED IN OCTOBER 2021. PRIOR TO TRIAL, THE PARTIES WERE ABLE TO RESOLVE THE MATTER AND IN JUNE, 2022, THE STATE ENGINEER ISSUED A FINAL PERMIT REFLECTING THE PARTIES' SETTLEMENT TERMS. THIS CASE HAS BEEN CLOSED. PUBLIC INTEREST: THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS MATTER IS PROTECTING TRADITIONAL WATER USES, I.E., ACEQUIA IRRIGATION, FROM WATER GRABS TO BE USED FOR INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER SOUGHT NOR RECOVERED ANY ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM AN OPPOSING PARTY IN THIS CASE. CASE #21 SANTA BARBARA MARTINEZTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION V. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE NEW MEXICO SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. D-202-CV-2018-04504 BACKGROUND: THE SANTA BARBARA MARTINEZTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS CHALLENGING THE DISCRIMINATORY ZONING ESTABLISHED IN MARTINEZTOWN THAT HAS ALLOWED FOR INCOMPATIBLE AND DETRIMENTAL LAND USES THAT GO AGAINST RESIDENTS' DESIRES TO KEEP MARTINEZTOWN A TRADITIONAL VILLAGE. THE LAW CENTER IS WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL SEEKING TO CHANGE THE MARTINEZTOWN COMMUNITY'S ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL, AND ASKING THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE TO BUFFER THESE NEIGHBORHOODS FROM INCONGRUENT USES AND PROVIDE PROTECTIONS THAT OTHER HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN ALBUQUERQUE HAVE BEEN GRANTED. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS CURRENTLY IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER, AND LITIGATION DEADLINES HAVE BEEN STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF NEGOTIATIONS. PUBLIC INTEREST: THIS CASE ADDRESSES THE DISPARATE TREATMENT WITH REGARDS TO ZONING PROTECTIONS OF A PREDOMINANTLY COMMUNITY OF COLOR COMPARED WITH A SIMILARLY SITUATED COMMUNITY THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY WHITE. ATTORNEYS' FEES: THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER HAS NEITHER SOUGHT NOR RECOVERED ANY ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM AN OPPOSING PARTY IN THIS CASE.

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 51056K

Schedule O (Form 990) 2021

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

1	Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.
2	Check this box
3	Number of voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1a) ........	3	6
4	Number of independent voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1b) .....	4	6
5	Total number of individuals employed in calendar year 2021 (Part V, line 2a) ......	5	13
6	Total number of volunteers (estimate if necessary) .............	6	8
7a	Total unrelated business revenue from Part VIII, column (C), line 12 ........	7a	0
b	Net unrelated business taxable income from Form 990-T, Part I, line 11 .........	7b	0

		Prior Year	Current Year
8	Contributions and grants (Part VIII, line 1h) .........	1,161,823	1,039,500
9	Program service revenue (Part VIII, line 2g) .........	0	8,858
10	Investment income (Part VIII, column (A), lines 3, 4, and 7d ) ....	29,032	11,696
11	Other revenue (Part VIII, column (A), lines 5, 6d, 8c, 9c, 10c, and 11e)	388	0
12	Total revenue—add lines 8 through 11 (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12)	1,191,243	1,060,054
13	Grants and similar amounts paid (Part IX, column (A), lines 1–3 )...	0	0
14	Benefits paid to or for members (Part IX, column (A), line 4).....	0	0
15	Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits (Part IX, column (A), lines 5–10)	761,283	897,216
16a	Professional fundraising fees (Part IX, column (A), line 11e) .....	0	0
b	Total fundraising expenses (Part IX, column (D), line 25) 58,346
17	Other expenses (Part IX, column (A), lines 11a–11d, 11f–24e)....	302,517	316,806
18	Total expenses. Add lines 13–17 (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25)	1,063,800	1,214,022
19	Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 18 from line 12.......	127,443	-153,968
		Beginning of Current Year	End of Year
20	Total assets (Part X, line 16).............	1,903,807	1,644,813
21	Total liabilities (Part X, line 26).............	202,402	70,783
22	Net assets or fund balances. Subtract line 21 from line 20.....	1,701,405	1,574,030

Sign Here

	Signature of officer	Date

	Type or print name and title


4a	(Code: ) (Expenses $ 956,860 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ 8,858 )
	NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER IS A NON-PROFIT, PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM THAT PROVIDES FREE AND LOW-COST LEGAL SERVICES ON ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS THROUGHOUT NEW MEXICO. FOUNDED IN 1987, THE LAW CENTER WORKS WITH COMMUNITY GROUPS, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBES AND PUEBLOS, SEEKING TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. THE LAW CENTER'S MISSION IS TO PROTECT NEW MEXICO'S COMMUNITIES AND THEIR AIR, LAND, AND WATER IN THE FIGHT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. THE MAIN PROGRAMS ARE COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION AND NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION. SEE ATTACHED STATEMENT FOR STATUS OF CASES IN LITIGATION.

4b	(Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )












4c	(Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )












4d	Other program services (Describe in Schedule O.)
	(Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
4e	Total program service expenses956,860

(A) Name and title	(B) Average hours per week (list any hours for related organizations below dotted line)	(C) Position (do not check more than one box, unless person is both an officer and a director/trustee)		(D) Reportable compensation from the organization (W-2/1099-MISC/1099-NEC)	(E) Reportable compensation from related organizations (W-2/1099-MISC/1099-NEC)	(F) Estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations
(A) Name and title
(1) DONNA HOUSE...................................................................... PRESIDENT	4.00 .................	X	X	0	0	0
(2) RAMON PADILLA...................................................................... VICE-PRESIDENT	1.00 .................	X	X	0	0	0
(3) JOHANA BENCOMO...................................................................... SECRETARY	1.00 .................	X	X	0	0	0
(4) HARRY BROWNE...................................................................... TREASURER	1.00 .................	X	X	0	0	0
(5) MICHAEL CASAUS...................................................................... BOARD MEMBER	1.00 .................	X		0	0	0
(6) SUSANNE HOFFMAN-DOOLEY...................................................................... BOARD MEMBER	1.00 .................	X		0	0	0
(7) VIRGINIA NECHOCHEA...................................................................... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR	40.00 .................	X	X	102,500	0	0

1b	Sub-Total................
c	Total from continuation sheets to Part VII, Section A....
d	Total (add lines 1b and 1c)...........	102,500	0	0

(A) Name and business address	(B) Description of services	(C) Compensation





2 Total number of independent contractors (including but not limited to those listed above) who received more than $100,000 of compensation from the organization 0

1a	Federated campaigns..		1a
b	Membership dues..		1b	48,049
c	Fundraising events..		1c
d	Related organizations		1d
e	Government grants (contributions)		1e

f	All other contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts not included above		1f	991,451

g	Noncash contributions included in lines 1a - 1f:$		1g

h Total. Add lines 1a-1f.......		1,039,500

		Business Code
2a	LEGAL FEES	541100	8,858	8,858
b
c
d
e
f	All other program service revenue.
g	Total. Add lines 2a–2f .....		8,858

3 Investment income (including dividends, interest, and othersimilar amounts) ......			11,696			11,696
4 Income from investment of tax-exempt bond proceeds
5 Royalties...........
		(ii) Personal	(i) Real
6a	Gross rents			6a
b	Less: rental expenses			6b
c	Rental income or (loss)			6c
d	Net rental income or (loss).......
		(ii) Other	(i) Securities
7a	Gross amount from sales of assets other than inventory			7a
b	Less: cost or other basis and sales expenses			7b
c	Gain or (loss)			7c
d	Net gain or (loss).........
8a	Gross income from fundraising events (not including $ of contributions reported on line 1c). See Part IV, line 18 ....
			8a
b	Less: direct expenses ...		8b
c	Net income or (loss) from fundraising events..
9a	Gross income from gaming activities. See Part IV, line 19 ...
			9a
b	Less: direct expenses ...		9b
c	Net income or (loss) from gaming activities..
10a	Gross sales of inventory, less returns and allowances ..
			10a
b	Less: cost of goods sold ..		10b
c	Net income or (loss) from sales of inventory..
Business Code			Miscellaneous Revenue
11a
b
c
d	All other revenue ....
e	Total. Add lines 11a–11d ......
12	Total revenue. See instructions.....			1,060,054	8,858	0	11,696

1	Grants and other assistance to domestic organizations and domestic governments. See Part IV, line 21 ....
2	Grants and other assistance to domestic individuals. See Part IV, line 22 ...........
3	Grants and other assistance to foreign organizations, foreign governments, and foreign individuals. See Part IV, lines 15 and 16. .............
4	Benefits paid to or for members .......
5	Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees ...........	102,500	87,125	15,375
6	Compensation not included above, to disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)) and persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B) .........
7	Other salaries and wages........	621,824	522,150	99,674
8	Pension plan accruals and contributions (include section 401(k) and 403(b) employer contributions) ....	13,216	11,578	755	883
9	Other employee benefits .......	101,612	68,947	27,204	5,461
10	Payroll taxes ...........	58,064	58,064
11	Fees for services (non-employees):
a	Management ......
b	Legal .........
c	Accounting ...........
d	Lobbying ...........	156	156
e	Professional fundraising services. See Part IV, line 17
f	Investment management fees ......
g	Other (If line 11g amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list line 11g expenses on Schedule O)	87,780	36,158	19,783	31,839
12	Advertising and promotion ....	2,012		1,781	231
13	Office expenses .......	5,140	2,589	2,000	551
14	Information technology ......	60			60
15	Royalties ..
16	Occupancy ...........	46,917	37,855	3,952	5,110
17	Travel ............	616	616
18	Payments of travel or entertainment expenses for any federal, state, or local public officials .
19	Conferences, conventions, and meetings ....	1,215	148	768	299
20	Interest ...........	2,778		815	1,963
21	Payments to affiliates .......
22	Depreciation, depletion, and amortization ..	3,687	3,134	184	369
23	Insurance ...	3,612	1,592	1,869	151
24	Other expenses. Itemize expenses not covered above (List miscellaneous expenses in line 24e. If line 24e amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list line 24e expenses on Schedule O.)
a	LEGAL DUES AND PUBLICAT	95,747	95,747
b	EQUIPMENT RENT AND MAIN	24,844	17,376	5,285	2,183
c	CREDIT CARD AND BANK FE	13,122	3,664	7,988	1,470
d	TELEPHONE AND INTERNET	9,053	5,655	1,559	1,839
e	All other expenses	20,067	4,306	9,824	5,937
25	Total functional expenses. Add lines 1 through 24e	1,214,022	956,860	198,816	58,346
26	Joint costs. Complete this line only if the organization reported in column (B) joint costs from a combined educational campaign and fundraising solicitation. Check here if following SOP 98-2 (ASC 958-720).

1	Cash–non-interest-bearing ........				1	1
2	Savings and temporary cash investments .........			1,478,325	2	1,143,646
3	Pledges and grants receivable, net ......				3
4	Accounts receivable, net .............				4
5	Loans and other receivables from any current or former officer, director, trustee, key employee, creator or founder, substantial contributor, or 35% controlled entity or family member of any of these persons .......
					5
6	Loans and other receivables from other disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)), and persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B) ...
					6
7	Notes and loans receivable, net ...........				7
8	Inventories for sale or use ............				8
9	Prepaid expenses and deferred charges ......			2,163	9	10,482
10a	Land, buildings, and equipment: cost or other basis. Complete Part VI of Schedule D	10a	50,978
b	Less: accumulated depreciation	10b	39,547	10,094	10c	11,431
11	Investments—publicly traded securities .				11
12	Investments—other securities. See Part IV, line 11 .....			413,225	12	479,253
13	Investments—program-related. See Part IV, line 11 ..				13
14	Intangible assets ...............				14
15	Other assets. See Part IV, line 11 ...........				15
16	Total assets. Add lines 1 through 15 (must equal line 33)...			1,903,807	16	1,644,813

17	Accounts payable and accrued expenses .....	741	17	741
18	Grants payable ...		18
19	Deferred revenue .........	149,655	19
20	Tax-exempt bond liabilities .........		20
21	Escrow or custodial account liability. Complete Part IV of Schedule D		21
22	Loans and other payables to any current or former officer, director, trustee, key employee, creator or founder, substantial contributor, or 35% controlled entity or family member of any of these persons .........
			22
23	Secured mortgages and notes payable to unrelated third parties ..		23
24	Unsecured notes and loans payable to unrelated third parties ..		24
25	Other liabilities (including federal income tax, payables to related third parties, and other liabilities not included on lines 17 - 24). Complete Part X of Schedule D	52,006	25	70,042
26	Total liabilities. Add lines 17 through 25..	202,402	26	70,783

	Organizations that follow FASB ASC 958, check here and complete lines 27, 28, 32, and 33.
27	Net assets without donor restrictions ..........	1,385,341	27	1,574,030
28	Net assets with donor restrictions ...........	316,064	28	0
	Organizations that do not follow FASB ASC 958, check here and complete lines 29 through 33.
29	Capital stock or trust principal, or current funds .....		29
30	Paid-in or capital surplus, or land, building or equipment fund ...		30
31	Retained earnings, endowment, accumulated income, or other funds		31
32	Total net assets or fund balances ...........	1,701,405	32	1,574,030
33	Total liabilities and net assets/fund balances ........	1,903,807	33	1,644,813