Green Fire Re portA Publication of the New Mexico Environmental Law Center, a non-profit, p u b l i c i n t e rest law firm .

The mission of the New Mexico Environmental Law Center is to protect New Mexico’s natural environment and communities.

Winter 2001

C A S E U P D AT E S

Hydro Resources, Inc. vs. ENDAUM and SRIC

Continued on page 2

IN THIS ISSUEThe New Mexico Mining Ac t

N e t work: Hard Rock MiningMay Never Be The Same . . . . . . . . . .1

Case UpdatesH yd ro Re s o u rc e s, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

M o l ycorp, Intel, Copar Pumice,Oglebay Norto n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Requests for Assistance Incre a s e sRa d i c a l l y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I n s e r t

From The CenterNM Le g i s l a t i ve Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Pe rsonnel Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Law Center to Charge Fe e s. . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Law Center Online and On Ra d i o. .10

Special EventsYear 2000 Enviro n m e n tal Awa rd s . .8

D a ve Fo reman Book-Signing . . . . . . . .1 2

CURRENT FILINGSThe Law Center has reached a critical stagein administrative litigation with Hy d r oResources, Inc. (“HRI”) over its proposeduranium mining in northwestern Ne wMexico. We are working to prevent HRIfrom exercising its permit to carry out thistoxic, in situ leach mining that wouldcontaminate the pristine drinking watersource for 15,000 Navajos in Crownpointand Church Rock. HRI submitted its plan and cost estimates for cleaning up the pollution to the Atomic Safety andLicensing Board of the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) in November. The Law Center, on behalf of Eastern NavajoDiné Against Uranium Mining (ENDA UM)and Southwest R e s e a r ch and Info r m a t i o n

Center (SRI C), filed a brief in reply to this latest plan in December. With the help of many generous memberdonations, we were able to contractseveral experts who concluded thatdespite HRI ’s assertions, the companywould not be able to quick ly restore the groundwater source after it has been polluted with uranium and otherheavy metals as a result of the mininginjection process.

HRI and the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission staff responded to our filingin late January. We will keep you postedon further developments.

Steps ForwardIn August of 1999, with support from the staff of the NRC, HRI convinced the

The New Mexico Mining ActNetwork: Hard Rock Mining

May Never Be The SameThe Law Center has been working hard for years with many of our clients to stop the degradation of New Mexico’s environment by hardr o ck mining, or to win the best possibleprotection of the environment throughsuits filed for our clients. There havebeen significant environmental gains,s u ch as those achieved in the land-mark reclamation settlement in theOrtiz Mountains mine case in Santa FeC o u n t y, among others. We were also very instrumental in drawing upand supporting the passage of the

Chino Mines Company (Phelps Dodge Corporation) smelter stacks in Hurley, NM, from apublic playground about 200 ya rds distant. An elementary school (not shown) is roughly the same distance from the stacks as this playground.

Continued on page 2

CASE UPDAT E S

HRI vs. ENDAUM and SRICContinued from page 1

NRC Presiding Officer to “bifurcate” thecompany’s license. The Presiding Officer(the administrative judge who runs theevidentiary hearing for the license andmakes the initial determinations, whichmay then be appealed to the NRCCommissioners) determined that HRI hadonly to defend one fourth of the licensethat it held as the company had noimmediate plans to mine three of the fourareas for which it is licensed to mine.This decision prohibited ENDAUM andSRIC from challenging the entire environ-mental and human health impact of thelicense granted to HRI by the NRC staff.Further the Presiding Officer’s decisionplaced the hearing in limbo until HRIdecided to mine the other sites, at someill-defined or distant point in the future.

In a major victory for the Law Centerand our clients , the NRC Commissionersruled on January 31st of this year thatHRI cannot bifurcate its license, allowingour clients to challenge the whole ofHRI’s uranium solution mining license,rather than only one- fourth of it. TheCommissioners directed that the hearingon the rest of the license should resumein six months or HRI should relinquishthose portions of the license that havenot undergone hearing.

Kathleen Tsosie of ENDA UM stated,“ We are very pleased that the Commissiona g reed with us that HRI can’t just have alicense and not defend big parts of it. Wewant HRI to unders tand that we are notgoing away and that we plan to put eve nm o re effort into the next round of litigation.”

The ruling will require that thefinancially challenged HRI spend moretime and money on the pending litiga-tion. The Law Center, ENDAUM andSRIC will continue to aggressively litigatetheir case to stop these mines.

Law Center Donors Come Through!

In November last year we put out a call for assistance in our case against HRI. Inorder to most strongly critique HRI’swater restoration plan before the NuclearRegulatory Commission, we needed$10,000 to hire two nationally-knownexperts on restoration of water followingin situ, leach mining of uranium. Thatwas $10,000 we simply didn’t have in our budget.

Fifty-seven Law Center donorsanswered the call to help protect ourenvironment and contributed a total of$11,348.00 to the HRI fund! With theirgenerous help, we were able to file a replyto HRI’s plan which will either result inthe NRC denying HRI the right to minebecause of an inadequate restorationplan, or (more likely since the NRC rarelyrules against industry) will form a strongfactual basis for an appeal.

Thanks to everyone who was able tocontribute to this critical appeal! ■

2

The New Mexico Mining ActNetwork: Hard Rock MiningMay Never Be The SameContinued from page 1

New Mexico Mining Act in 1993. Recent issues of the Green Fire

Report have documented our work forAmigos Bravos in Questa, fighting for acleanup of the Red River, and a truereclamation of the hundreds of acres oftailings and the acidic pit lake at theMolycorp molybdenum mine. We haverecently begun legal work for GilaResources Information Project (GRIP) indefense of communities in Grant Countythat have suffered for years from theeffects of having four huge open pit cop-per mines dominate their lives.

Now, the Law Center has joinedwith Amigos Bra vo s, GRIP and four othercolleague organizations—Center fo rScience in Public Participation (CSPP),M i n e ral Policy Center, Southwe s tRe s e a rch and Information Center (SRIC),and Western Enviro n m e n tal Law Center( W E LC )—to form the N ew Mex i c oMining Act Netwo r k.

The Network has developed anunprecedented, nationally significantcampaign to help set tough environmen-tal standards for mine reclamation, andto more effectively combat the politicalpower and the legal and technical exper-tise commanded by the two multination-al corporations operating in Questa andGrant County, Molycorp (Unocal) andPhelps Dodge.

The goals of the Network are:1. To ensure effective and lasting

reclamation of these mine sites—(the mines in question are all large andsome show many decades of active min-ing with little regulatory oversight)

2. To ensure that the corporationsthat have profited from the mining arefinancially responsible for the damagethey have caused —(the Network hasa l r e a dy achieved remarkable increases inbonding levels at the sites; the level oftaxpayer liability will be directly relatedto the degree of the Ne t w o r k ’s inv o lv e m e n t )

3. To help establish the highest possible standards for mine reclamationin New Mexico and the West.

Central to this challenge is our work to protect the New Mexico MiningAct from being so loosely interpreted as to destroy its effectiveness. This Act,

“We are very pleased that the Commission agreed with us that HRI can’t just have a license and not defend big parts of it. We want HRI to

understand that we are not going away and that we plan to put even more effort

into the next round of litigation.”— Kathleen Tsosie, ENDAUM

Fifty-seven Law Center donors answered the call to help protect

our environment and contributed a total

of $11,348.00 to the STOP HRI fund!

recognized as one of the most enlightenedmining laws in the country, is still largelyuntested in negotiations or in court.

Because the Act is the strongest suchstatute in the Western United States, min-ing activists and mining companiesthroughout the West are closely watchingthe cases in which the Network isengaged to see if the state agencies andcourts will support environmentally-soundinterpretations of the Act’s language.

Key elements of the Act will be tested,such as the requirement for reclaimedmines to establish a “self-sustaining eco-system compatible with the surroundingenvironment.” (See: “Amigos Bravos winsunprecedented terms for reclamation ofMolycorp site”, page 4.)

The uniqueness of this opportunityto set mining closeout and reclamationstandards for New Mexico—and indirectlyfor the West—derives from three key circumstances.

■ First, the Act requires that all exist-ing mines must have cleanup plans( for re s to ration on closure) approve dby the NM Mining and Minera l sDivision by the end of 2001 ,

■ Second, the requirement of the Actthat mining companies establish a “self-sustaining ecosystem compatible with the surroundingenvironment,” and

■ Third, the citizen suit and appeal

provisions of the Act, whichgive mining activists significant legal leverage.

Given these unique conditions, thistwo-year campaign represents a one-timeonly opportunity for mining activists tosecure stringent standards for the recla-mation of hundreds of thousands of acresof land and millions of acre-feet of waterthat have been polluted and turned intowaste dumps throughout the West. Asmuch as this two-year window is anopportunity, it is also a potential crisis, forfailure to succeed at this campaign withinthis time frame will mean the opportunityhas been lost for years to come.

The mining industry has argued forexemptions and loose interpretations ofthe Act since passage. If the Network isable to help enforce a meaningful standardfor this requirement, it will raise the bar for mine reclamation standards across thestate, throughout the Western US.

3

The New Mexico Mining Act Network (Network) has the potential to further a number of key aspects ofMineral Policy Center’s (MPC) agenda. ReclamationBonding and Responsible Practices for the miningindustry are both issues that MPC is pushing nationally,and that are directly addressed by the Network. Inaddition, we at MPC have targeted New Mexico as akey state politically in the national mining reform effortdue to Senator Jeff Bingaman’s role in the Democraticparty as a senior western Senator.

Reclamation Bonding: In early 2000, Molycorpw a s a rguing for a bond amount of less than $15 millionfor the whole Questa mine site. By December of thisyear they had posted a surety bond in the amount of$129 million. This increase is a direct result of thework of the Network. While the bond for the MolycorpQuesta mine may yet increase, the current amountinsures that the state will not allow the company toleave the site easily. The bonding story at the Phelps-Dodge mines in the southwest part of the state is yetto be played out, but will surely be influenced by theMolycorp precedent, as well as the ongoing work ofthe Network.

Responsible Practices: The New Mexico effort fitsdirectly into the Responsible Practices component ofMPC’s overall agenda, in two primary ways:

■ First, the increase in bond amount relatesdirectly to an increase in on-site reclamationand closure standards. The money is tied to

real regulatory-required actions on the ground.■ The second aspect of the Responsible Practices work

is the opportunity to further the dialogue with pro-gressive elements of the mining industry in a mannerthat is very concrete and real, and in a manner whichcan model community—industry—regulatory agencycollaboration.

This is the as-yet unrealized potential of theNetwork effort. With the ongoing working group ofthe Network, Molycorp, and the NM state agencies asa template, there is real opportunity to work with oneof the largest mining companies in the world, Phelps-Dodge, to model collaborative community—industrydecision making around large scale mining operations.

A critical component of such an effort is abun-dantly present in New Mexico, that being a well coor-dinated, multi-talented (legal, technical, communityorganizing) group that is clearly not anti-mining, whilealso very focused on forcing the industry to act respon-sibly in the communities in which it works.

Mineral Policy Center (www.mineralpolicy.org) is a non-profit environmental organization dedicatedto protecting communities and the environment by pre-venting the environmental impacts associated with irresponsible mining and mineral de velopment,and by cleaning up pollution caused by past mining.MPC programs address mining law, regulatory reform,protecting communities & ecosystems, corporateresponsibility, and abandoned mine cleanup.

As much as this two-year window is an opportunity,it is also a potential crisis,

for failure to succeed at this campaign within

this time frame will mean the opportunity

has been lost for years to come.

Significant Potential of the New Mexico Mining Act NetworkBy Dan Randolph, Southwest Circuit Rider, Mineral Policy Center

Conversely, if the language of theAct is not interpreted and enforced to thehighest standards, it will seriously weakenthe ability of communities and mining

activists in New Mexico and elsewhere inthe West to even minimally protect theirair, water, habitat and landscapes for yearsto come. In other words, given that the

states—not the Congress—are now settingthe pace in mining law reform, we believethat the present ‘testing’ of the NM MiningAct will be widely precedent-setting. ■

4

Amigos Bravos WinsUnprecedented Terms for

Reclamation of Molycorp SiteBy Brian Shields, Exe c u t i ve Dire c to r, Amigos Bra vo s

Amigos Bravos and the members of the NM Mining ActNetwork, including the New Mexico Environmental LawCenter, have worked successfully with Molycorp to outline a stringent wildlife habitat restoration plan that holds themining company responsible for restoring the site. Thisagreement represents an important precedent by goingbeyond the usual standards of reclamation, wheresuccessful re-vegetation alone is re q u i red, to requiredevelopment of habitat that will support wildlife.

Molycorp will work with the NM Department ofGame and Fish and other “interested participants”—includ-ing members of the Network—to develop the standardsby which these studies will be carried out. The sequenceof events:

■ Molycorp will prepare a Wildlife Impact Study.This study will investigate the accumulation ofmolybdenum and other metals in plants and inanimals that come in contact with uncovered tail-ings or eat the plants growing on covered tailings.The data found onsite will be compared with datacollected from plants and animals offsite.

■ Molycorp will evaluate wildlife use of the Ta i l i n g sImpoundments after reclamation has commenced.For six years, on a quarterly basis, Molycorp willmonitor reclaimed tailings piles to demonstrate thep resence of wildlife. The permit is clear, however,that “presence of wildlife will not be used as criteriafor calculation or release of financial assurance.”

■ Molycorp shall conduct wildlife surveys for sixyears following the completion of revegetation.On a quarterly basis, Molycorp will study the seasonal use of the site (and adjacent sites) bywildlife, and investigate why any wildlife groupsthat should be present are not present onsite.

■ Molycorp will request a revision of the permit ifthe reclaimed site does not meet the re c l a m a t i o ns t a n d a rds put forth by the NM Mining Act. If thereclaimed site does not become a self-sustainingecosystem within six years after re-vegetation,Molycorp will have to revise the permit to includeadditional or alternative closeout actions.

Funding the New Mexico Mining Act Network

The two-year campaign of the Network represents a concentration of forces above and beyond the usual operations of all the member organizations, and thereforeis requiring significant additional funding. A two-year,budget developed to cover minimally-required services for both the Molycorp site and the Phelps Dodge sitestopped $400,000.

As this issue of Green Fire Report goes to press, the Network had received $150,000 in grants for the first year of operations, and a commitment for $50,000 for the second year. The Wyss Foundation, the McCuneCharitable Foundation and the Beldon Fund each very generously granted $50,000 for the first year of thecampaign, and an anonymous donation of $10,000 came to the Network via the Just Woke Up Fund of the Santa Fe Community Foundation. The Beldon Fundalso committed $50,000 for the second year. A pro p o s a lfor another $50,000 for this first year of operations isunder active consideration by one other foundation.

Key elements of the Act will be tested, such as the requirement for reclaimed mines

to establish a “self-sustaining ecosystem compatible with the surrounding environment.”

This agreement represents an important precedent

by going beyond the usual standards of reclamation, where successful re-vegetation alone is required,

to require development of habitat that will support wildlife.

Tax-deductible donations

to the work of the Network can be made

by contacting Michael Chamberlain,

Senior Development Director of the New Mexico

Community Foundation, at 505-820-6860.

Molycorp Posts Over $150Million In Cleanup Bonds

After decades as an enviro n m e n tal pariah,will Molycorp commit to properly clean-ing up its huge molybdenum mine?

Although we do not have its finalanswer, the company recently took a bigstep in the right direction. In November,M o lycorp agreed to a water quality permitfor its polluted mine site and provided a$129 million bond to guarantee cleanupat the mine. This is remarkable givenMolycorp’s past tendency to fight everyenvironmental request and its position, asof last summer, that no permit or bond isrequired by law for the mine site. Giventhe size of the mess Molycorp has created,this step is long overdue.

Molycorp also posted a $23 millionbond to ensure cleanup at its tailingsfacility. In addition, Molycorp agreed toa final cleanup plan for that site. The

cleanup agreement includes a require-ment that Molycorp cover its tailings pilewith at least three feet of cover materialand innovative provisions regardingwildlife monitoring. ■

El Cajete Case Argued InCourt Of Appeals

On January 17, 2001, Law Center attorneyDoug Wolf argued on behalf of the Sierra Club in the New Mexico Court ofAppeals. In 1999, Santa Fe district courtjudge Art Encinias had ruled that thestate Mining and Minerals Division (MMD )violated the New Mexico Mining Act(NMMA) by granting a mine permit to a new pumice mine in the JemezMountains. The mine permit allowed the new mine, the El Cajete mine, to beclassified as a new unit of an existingmine, and thereby to avoid tough newmine standards under the NMMA. Inparticular, Judge Encinias noted that theMMD decision meant that the companyproposing the new mine, Copar Pumice,was allowed to avoid the ban on environ-mental ‘bad actors’ imposed on newmines under the NMMA. The M MD andCopar appealed Judge Encinias’ ruling tothe Court of Appeals, where Doug Wolfdefended the rulings. A decision isexpected in the next several months. ■

Intel Appeal Moves Forward;Conflict Of Interest Claimed

In December 2000, Law Center attorneyDoug Wolf filed a statement with theNew Mexico Court of Appeals outliningthe reasons SouthWest OrganizingProject (SWOP) is appealing a recent deci-sion upholding Intel’s air permit. Thestatement includes an argument that thestate Environmental Improvement Boardshould have held a new hearing becauseBoard member Hilary Noskin failed todisclose a conflict of interest. Noskinworks for an oil and gas company thatemploys the law firm used by IntelCorporation in the permit proceeding. In addition, Noskin’s office is in the samebuilding, on the same floor—in fact,across the hall—from the Intel lawyer’soffice. Noskin also is a member of a corporate fund raising committee for the Hispanic Cultural Foundation—alongwith an Intel executive. Thirteen daysbefore the EIB hearing this summer,Intel announced a $2 million donation to the Foundation. These circumstancesamount to a conflict of interest and Board Member Noskin should not haveparticipated in SWOP’s appeal of Intel’spermit. ■

Mica Mine Appeal Briefed To Court Of Appeals

On January 15, 2001, Law CenterAttorney Doug Wolf filed the last brief in the Picuris Pueblo’s effort in the Courtof Appeals to continue its citizen suitunder the NMMA. The Pueblo’s citizensuit challenged the MMD decision thata l l owed a substantial expansion of theOglebay Norton mica mine north ofVadito. District Court Judge StephenP fe f fer dismissed the suit, accepting them i n e ’s argument that the Pueblo had totake its concerns to the New MexicoMining Commission. The Pueblobelieves it has a choice between filing a citizen suit and appealing to theCommission. The mine is located withinthe Pueblo’s ancestral lands and is ani n c r e a s i n g ly large scar on the mountainside, as the company continues toenlarge its open pit. The Pueblo willseek oral argument. ■

5

These circumstances amount to a conflict

of interest and Board Member Noskin

should not have participated in

SWOP’s appeal of Intel’s permit

FR O M TH E PR E S I D E N T A N D

TH E EX E C U T I V E DI R E C T O R

Law Center to Start Charging Fees for Services

In a change of policy that took effe c tJanuary first, the Law Center will be ch a r g-ing new clients for attorney services on anh o u r ly basis. This change of policy willnot affect the cases that we are alreadyhandling; we will continue to work onthose matters without charging our cur-rent clients fees. This change of policyalso does not affect the Law Center’s abili-ty to generate fees from sources otherthan Law Center clients. The Law Centerwill continue, for example, to seek tor e c over fees from opposing parties whenthat is provided for by a statute such asthe New Mexico Mining Act.

The decision was made by the Boardof Directors and the Staff at the Board’smeeting in October. This issue had beendiscussed for several years, and the deci-sion to charge clients fees was based uponthree principal considerations:

1) the change in the applicableInternal Revenue Service regulations thatoccurred several years ago that allows theLaw Center to charge fees;

2) the inability of the Law Center tosustain itself over the long term withoutcharging fees, and

3) the need for Law Center clients to be involved in and to have ownershipover the legal work that we do for them.

The Change in the I.R.S.

RegulationsWhen the LawCenter opened in1987, the Internal Revenue Service regula-tions governing non-profit law firms pro-hibited all such firms (including the LawCenter) from charging their clients feesfor services rendered. Those regulationswere changed several years ago to permitthe Law Center and other non-profit lawo f fices to charge their clients fees, prov i d e dthat two conditions are met. First, the fe e scharged cannot be more than it actuallycosts to provide the services rendered; thatis, the Law Center cannot make a profit.

Second, the funds generated from feescharged to clients cannot exceed 50% ofthe Law Center’s income for any givenfive year period.

The Need to Generate Law Center Income

The second consideration is the Law Cen-t e r ’s need for additional income. This needis based on two factors: the increasingdemand for the Law Center’s services andthe decreasing amount of funding avail-able to the Law Center from fo u n d a t i o n s .

Although the Law Center now hasfour attorneys (as opposed to the one a t t o r-ney with which the Law Center started), w ereceive many more requests for assistancethan we can handle. During the Law Centerfiscal year that ended on June 30, 2000, wereceived three times as many requests fo rour services as we had in the previous fis-cal year. That increased rate of requestshas continued; through November of thisyear we have been receiving an average ofone request for our services a week.

Moreover, there are not adequatesources available to provide the increasedfunding necessary to meet that demandor even to maintain our current level ofeffort. During the Law Center’s 13 yearhistory, approximately 80% of the LawCenter’s income has been generated fromfoundations. The number of foundationsthat will fund legal services is quite limited,and although several foundations haveprovided funding to the Law Center for

quite a few years, wehave been told by someof them that they will not beable to fund us indefi-nitely because they havefunded us for so long.One foundation hasalready ceased f u n d i n gus for that reason, andwe anticipate that sever-

al others will stop funding us in the nextseveral years on the same basis.

Although we have increased substan-t i a l ly our income from non-fo u n d a t i o nsources in the past several years, we can-not expect to fund all of our work froms u ch sources. Most of our non-fo u n d a t i o nsupport comes from individuals and busi-nesses in New Mexico, but New Mexico isone of the five poorest states in the coun-t r y. It simply is not realistic to expect thatNew Mexicans and New Mexico businesses

will be able to fund all or even a majorityof the expenses needed to operate the Law Center.

Community Ownership of Law Center Legal Services

The Law Center Board of Directors andStaff started discussing whether to ch a r g eLaw Center clients fees several years agoin the context of a broader dialogue aboutgenerating income for the Law Center.During that discussion, several membersof the Board of Directors who representminority communities pointed out thatpayment of fees by community and othergroups increases those groups’ interest inand ownership over the legal services thatthe Law Center is providing.

The Board members indicated thatg r o u p s that pay for a lawyer are morel i k e ly to stay inv o lved in the legal workbeing done on their behalf and to exertcontrol over that work. These Boardmembers also pointed out that moreclient inv o lvement and control is consis-tent with the Law Center’s position thatwe try to achieve our clients’ goals and donot tell our clients what they shouldwant. As one Board member put it, “Th eLaw Center should be working with com-munities rather than working for them.”

The Fees to be ChargedFor these reasons, the Law Center Boardand Staff have determined that we mustbegin charging our clients fees. At ourcurrent budget level, the maximum feewe would charge is $45.00 per hour Weunderstand that payment of fees may bedifficult at best for some of our clients,and we intend to be flexible with regardto the fees that are charged and withregard to the schedules by which clientsmay pay fees.

The Board and the Staff of the La wCenter are committed to the work that wedo, and we do not intend to have our fe epolicy interfere with that work. We willcontinue to provide legal services wherethey are needed the most and where themaximum protection of the env i r o n m e n tis to be gained. We look forward to con-tinuing our work with New Mexico com-munity organizations and env i r o n m e n t a lgroups for the protection of the state’snatural and cultural heritage. ■

By Jeanie Cragin, President, and Douglas Meiklejohn, Executive Director

6

R E P O RT F R O M T H E C E N T E R

This change of policy will not affect the cases that we are already handling; we will continue to work on those matters without

charging our clients fees.

7

Attorney Heather Green joined the Law Center in February of this year. Sher e c e n t ly earned her JD from the Universityof Utah College of Law, with a certificatein Environmental and Natural ResourceLaw, where she was also president of theNatural Resources Law Forum.

A Westerner by birth, Heather grew up in Salt Lake City in an environ-mentally-aware family. Some of her earliest memories include seeing herfather at the kitchen table writing lettersin support of parklands and national forest designation and protection.

While at the University of UtahCollege of La w, Heather studied the Clean

Water Act with one of the country’s lead-ing experts on the Act, Professor RobertA d l e r. Knowing of Heather’s interest ine nvironmental and natural resource law,and her abilities, Professor Adler recom-mended the Law Center to her as a placewhere she could be challenged and whereshe could make a significant contribution.

Another area of interest in Heather’ss t u dy was the Endangered Species Act,w h i ch she says “Could be one of the most important pieces of enviro n m e n ta llegislation we have because an endangere dspecies has implications for land use, air,land and water pollution, and a wide ra n g eof habitat issues. Every species is a criticalpart of the ecosystem in which it thrive s —or doesn’t—and the loss of one speciesaffects the health and durability of manyother species. ”

“The Fish and Wildlife Department’srecent decision to stop listing endangeredspecies—presumably because the number oflawsuits environmental groups have beenfiling is straining their resources—will pro b-ably result in even more laws u i t s. ”

Prior to joining the Law Center,Heather served as a contract attorney for the New Mexico Office of the StateE n g i n e e r, assisting in the Pecos Riveradjudication of water rights. She negoti-ated with individual water rightsclaimants with land in the CarlsbadIrrigation District.

Heather tries to limit her views offuture environmental trends to the nextfour years. “Increasing our general level of environmental education is critical.There is a lot of environmental awareness insociety now, but that’s not the same as goodenvironmental education. And we’ve got tostop polarizing communities over environ-mental issues. I know that this is notalways possible. Industry, government andenvironmental groups are all guilty of tak-ing extreme positions at times. We shouldmake an effort to educate and by doing sosway opinions.”

In her spare time, Heather enjoys a variety outdoor activities, and one partic-ularly interesting hobby—kickboxing. It’s always good to have a fallback if litigation fails. ■

Heather Gre e n

Kickboxing Environmental Attorney Heather Green Brings Her Strengths to the Law Center

Shelbie Knox joined the Law Center staff as Development Associate inSeptember. During her last job, Shelbiecould often be found wading throughhip-high orange muck at one of the acid mine drainage remediation sites sheworked with near Johnstown, PA. There,she managed AMD&ART, a non-profitpilot project that combines public art andhistory with science in public “remediationparks” to clean up Appalachia’s worstwater problem. Although originally fromCalifornia, she was drawn to the historyof bituminous coal mining, and earnedher M.A. in public history after writingher thesis on the environmental historyof a coal town.

With her experience in grantwritingand her knowledge of mine pollution,

Shelbie was a natural to join the LawCenter as Development Associate. “I’mthrilled to have found a job that so closelymeshes with my past work. Here I have achance to work with people dedicated tostopping the pollution before it starts—what a great concept!

Pennsylvania hit its industrial strideat a time of total corporate hegemony,before there was any thought whatsoeverof protecting the environment. While New Mexico has also been industriallyactive for over a century, dozens of citizensgroups in this state are now fighting corporations on issues that were neverraised in Pennsylvania when major industry existed, such as the link betweenecological health and human health, andenvironmental justice. Here I also have the

opportunity to work on such diverse issuesas water rights, land use and toxic waste.It’s very important and very exciting to bea part of that.” ■

Shelbie Knox

Mine Drainage Was Just Too Exciting To Leave Behind…”

New Mexicans from across the state came together for the Law Center’sEnvironmental Awards Ceremony onOctober 3, 2000 to celebrate the work of the Law Center and to honor theachievements of this year’s three awardrecipients. We would again like to thankLynda Taylor and Robert Haspel, who graciously hosted the event at their home in Santa Fe.

The three women recognized by theLaw Center in October are all formidableadvocates for New Mexico’s environmentand New Mexican communities.

Edith Pierpont is the recipient ofthe Karl Souder Water Protection Awa rdthat recognizes her forceful advocacy fo r

the protection of New Mexico’s waterresources for at least the last decade.She was heavily inv o lved in passing theNew Mexico Solid Waste Act through the State Legislature in 1989 when it was vetoed by then Governor GarreyCarruthers and again in 1990 when hesigned it into law. Ms. Pierpont has alsobeen inv o lved in other legislative effo r t saddressing water protection, includinge f forts to preserve the integrity of theWater Quality Control Commission; workon the enactment of the New MexicoMining Act and as an effective lobby i s tfor adequate funding for the New MexicoE nvironment Department, which is theprincipal advocate in state gov e r n m e n t

for protection of water resources in the state.

Paula Garcia , Executive Director of the New Mexico Acequia Association,has been honored with the G r i f fSalisbury Enviro n m e n tal Pro t e c t i o nAwa rd for her role in protecting thel o n g -term viability of acequias; as part ofa way of life rooted in land-based cul-ture, as local institutions of self-g ov e r n-ment, and as vital elements of the land-based economy of New Mexico’s tradi-tional Hispanic communities. Ms Garciais a native of Mora, a community inw h i ch many families continue land-based livelihoods including small-s c a l efarming, ranching, and forest harvesting.

8

Law Center Board President JeanieCragin opens the award ceremony.

Left to Right: Host Lynda Ta y l o r, Law Center exe c u t i ve dire c tor Douglas Meiklejohn, Awa rdee E. Shirley Baca, Law Center atto r n ey Doug Wolf, and Awa rdees Paula Garcia and Edith Pierpont.

THE LAW CENTERPrese n t s the Year 2000

ENVIRONMENTAL AWARDS

When our website is up, aroundMay 1st, (w w w. n m e n v i ro l a w. o rg ) ,you can look up the list of all oure nvironmental Award winners frompast years, as well as print out a nomination form to fill out and mailto us for the 2001 Aw a r ds !

9

Host Robert Haspel talks with

Donna Vogel, E xe c u t i ve Dire c tor

of Corners tones Community

Pa r t n e rs h i p s.

Ann Strickland and Doug Wolf share a good laugh with Pete Maggiore,S e c re tary of NM Environment Department.

Leona Enrike and Kathleen Tsosie both spoke about the struggles and victories of ENDAU M ,SRIC and the Law Center over the past year on the HRI uranium mining case.

Pa u l a ’s interest in rural development andcommunity organizing stems from acommitment to the continued survivalof land-based people particularly thoseof Northern New Mexico.

E. Shirley Baca was selected toreceive the Community Enviro n m e n ta lAd vocacy Awa rd, for her tireless workto assure equality and justice for all people. As a former State Representative,her voting record always reflected her100% support for human and env i r o n-mental justice, as well as all issues that positively promote the quality of l i fe for all New Mexicans. She is a current member of the Las CrucesHispano Chamber of Commerce,National Wo m e n ’s Political Caucus,American Civil Liberties Union and Las Adelitas. ■

Lila Bird Moves On ToState Of New Mexico PositionFormer Staff Attorney and Equal JusticeFellow Lila Bird left the Law Center inSeptember to join the legal staff of theNew Mexico Department of HumanServices. We asked Lila to reflect on herexperience at the Law Center.

“In 1998, I joined the Law Center as a National Association for Public InterestLaw (NAPIL) Equal Justice Fellow. Afterhaving worked on environmental issueswith the Water Information Network (WIN)since 1988, I came to the Law Center withthe goal of being able to combine legalaction with grassroots organizing activity.Citizen opposition to a uranium mining

operation proposed for Church Rock andCrownpoint, New Mexico provided animmediate legal and organizing challenge.A monumental team effort was required togather expert testimony, file legal briefs,and then to file numerous legal replies toopposing counsel’s responses.

Despite the daunting legal tasks andwith the help of many individuals fro mWIN, the Law Center, Eastern Navajo DinéAgainst Uranium Mining, Southwe s tRe s e a rch and Information Center, andother org a n i za t i o n s, dynamic and effectiveg ra s s roots organizing strategies have alsop l a yed a key role in the fight against newu ranium mining in Diné communities. We have won some skirmishes and lost af ew, but I am convinced now more than

ever that a combination of legal action and gra s s roots organizing is absolutelycritical to a winning stra t e g y.

Although I am pursuing legal work in the field of human services, I continue to be an active member of WIN and firmlysupport the work of the Law Center anda ny other group committed to pro t e c t i n gour natural environment and to pre s e r v i n gt raditional southwest cultural pra c t i c e s. ” ■

Law Center on the AirwavesThe Law Center spent some time on localairwaves this quarter. In October, DougMeiklejohn spent an hour with DiegoMulligan and Jennifer Waterston of KSFRon The Journey Home. The week beforeThanksgiving, Doug Wolf spent his morningat the Santa Fe Baking Company, home ofthe Santa Fe Radio Café, where he wasinterviewed on the air by Will Sims ofKSFR. Both attorneys discussed workbeing done at the Law Center, as well asbroader socio-environmental issues inNew Mexico during their interviews. ■

NMENVIROLAW.ORG To Debut Soon!

The Law Center will soon take the greatleap forward and join the rest of the world with its own website.

Planned to be online by May 1st,you will be able to follow Law Centercases and activities by logging on to

w w w. n m e n v i ro l a w. o rgSee you there !

Summer Intern Housing Needed!

Every summer, the Center is honored to mentor two first or second year law students contemplating the practice ofenvironmental law. We interview appli-cants for these volunteer positions, offeran internship to one or two, and givethem the best practical experience onNew Mexico’s environmental issues. If the student is able to get a stipend, it issmall, so we are looking for an inexpensive,furnished place for each of the students to live mid May–August. If you can helpus out, please call Allison at 989-9022with information.

10

Site of current Law Center work in New Mex i c o .

Copper Flat Mine

Chino Copper Mine

Southwest Landfill

Black RanchIntel

LAC Gold Mine

El CajeteNE NM Regional Landfill

Sipapu

HRI–Church Rock

HRI–Crownpoint C.R. Minerals

Richard Cook Gravel Mine

Oglebay Norton Mica Mine

Taos Airport Expansion

MolycorpTop of the World

•

•

•

••

••

•

•

••

••

•

•

••

11

TheNEW MEXICO

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER

is a non-profit, public interest law firm that provides free or

low cost legal services on environmental matters throughout New Mexico.

The mission of the New MexicoEnvironmental Law Center is to protect New Mexico’s natural environment and communities.

Founded in 1987, the Law Center provides free or low cost legal services

to clients — often individuals, neighborhood associations,

environmental organizations, Tribes and Pueblos— seeking

to protect the environment. The work of the Law Center

is made possible by tax-deductible contributions from

individuals and businesses, foundation grants, and limited earned income.

Board of Directors Jeanie Cragin, President, MaxwellRichard Deertrack, Vi c e - P resident,

Taos PuebloAntonio Lujan, Secretary, Las CrucesLinda Siegle, Treasurer, MadridSue Chappell, AlbuquerqueDavid Henderson, Santa FeClare Hertel, CerrillosMike W. Lilley, Las Cru c e sCorrine Sanchez, San Ildefonso PuebloFrank I. Sanchez, RoswellVerna Williamson Teller, Isleta Pueblo

Advisory Council

StaffAllison Dellinger, Office Manager Geoffrey H. Fettus, Attorney Heather Green, Attorney Earl James, Development Director Shelbie Knox, Development AssociateDouglas Meiklejohn, Executive Director Yana Merrill, Director of Finance

and AdministrationDouglas Wolf, Attorney

Leslie BarclayBrant CalkinDenise FortJoseph GoldbergEdith Pierpont

Daniel SanchezMark SaniKarin SheldonJim TarrSusan Tixier

New Mexico Legislative Session Refuses to Surprise Us

CO N G R AT U L AT I O N S TO MI C H A E L GU E R R E R O

of the South West Organizing Project (SWOP), who was recently awarded the Miguel Trujillo Unsung Hero Award

by the Albuquerque Human Rights Board. This award recognizes his longtime organizing efforts with

disenfranchised communities and advocacy for social and economic justice. Congratulations, Michael!

OF M O R E T H A N 3,000 N O M I NAT I O N S R E C E I V E D B Y

the Ford Foundation, Doug Meiklejohn is one of 285 semi-finalists for the Foundation’s Leadership for Change award,

which honors innovative leaders who bring together communities to develop solutions to difficult problems.

Doug was nominated by David Benavides, an attorney at Community and Indian Legal Services.

Good work, and good luck, Doug!

R E P O RT F R O M T H E D I R E C T O R

Unfortunately, as expected, the NewMexico Legislative Session that just con-cluded released an opportunistic attackof anti-environmental forces in our fairState. There were attacks upon three ofthe State’s primary environmental statutes,the Hazardous Waste Act, the Air QualityAct and the Water Quality Act. Expectedattacks on the New Mexico Mining Actdid not materialize.

The proposed amendments to thesestatutes varied, but generally they were in two categories. Amendments were proposed to the Air Quality Act and theHazardous Waste Act that would haveweakened the substantive standards ofe a ch to protect the environment. The pro-posed amendments to each Act also wouldhave made it more difficult for the publicto participate in proceedings under the Act.

Needless to say, we fought theseattacks, and hired a lobbyist, Ron Curry,to supplement our staff lobbying forces.In order to deal with these and otherissues, it was necessary to stay on top ofthe Legislature’s proceedings, a task thatwas not always easy. An example of thisoccurred in a situation in which we werenot involved. A legislative committee wasscheduled to meet at its regular time, and

its agenda did not include the legislationto postpone deregulation of electricity,a proposal that was of interest to manyparties. About ten minutes into the meet-ing, the agenda was changed to includethat legislation, and it was heard by thecommittee without most of the majorplayers on the issue even being aware ofthe proceedings.

That sort of flexibility in schedulesmade it a challenge to address all of theissues that are of concern. We were ableto deal with the attacks on the Air QualityAct, the Hazardous Waste Act, and theWater Quality Act in some instances byamending proposed legislation to preventit from weakening the protection for theenvironment and in some instances byworking with other parties and sponsorsof legislation to have it withdrawn.Fortunately, many other environmentalorganizations and individuals workedhard on these and other bills and amend-ments also. Perhaps one of the hardest-working and most important lobbyistsworking the Roundhouse this Session wasour friend Mary Feldblum. Our thanksand appreciation go out to her. ■

by Douglas Meiklejohn, Executive Director

The Green Fire Report NON-PROFITORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE PAIDSANTA FE, NM

PERMIT NO. 259phone: 505 989-9022 e-mail: n m elc@n m elc.org

Address Correction Requested

“We reached the old wolf

in time to watch a fierce green firedying in her eyes.

I realized then, and have

known ever since, that there was

something new to me in those eyes—

something known only to her and to

the mountain.”–Aldo Leopold,

A Sand County Almanac

The Law Center gratefully acknowledges gifts received in 2000

I n M e m o r y O f

E L L E N B U T E N H O F F

A N D R E A N I C O L E H I B B E N

H A R RY E . K L E P I N G E R

PA U L V. T H O M P S O N

A L E X H . WA R N E R

D O R O T H Y P U R L E Ya n d th e

A N C H I T K A W O R K E R S

a n d I n H o n o r O f

T I M OT H Y B E NA L L Y

M A R YA N N WA S I O L E K

a n d M I K E S P I N K S

TA M A R A S A I M O N S

A S P E N R AY E VA L L O

An Evening with Dave Foreman: Conversations About The Wildlands Project and Book SigningTh u rs d a y, May 10th, from 6–8 PM, Cloud Cliff Bakery & Café, 1805 Second Street, Santa Fe.

The Law Center, in conjunction with CloudCliff Bakery & Café, will sponsor a book-sign-ing and lecture by legendary environmentalactivist, conservation biologist and authorDave Foreman.

Founder of EarthFirst! in the 1980 ’s ,Foreman has transmuted his radical eco-activism into a visionary program to restore

the habitat areas necessary to re-establish the large mammal genetic diversity of No r t hAmerica. Foreman will also autograph copies of his recently published novel Lobo Outback Funeral Home.

Join us for an inspiring evening with Dave Foreman. For more information call the Law Center at 505-989-9022.