New Mexico Environmental Law Center
Public records show a registered, tax-exempt organization in good standing.
What it says it does
TO PROTECT NEW MEXICO'S COMMUNITIES AND THEIR AIR, LAND AND WATER IN THE FIGHT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. THE LAW CENTER'S EFFECTIVE LEGAL ADVOCACY AND REPRESENTATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES WILL PROTECT NEW MEXICO'S COMMUNITIES AND CULTURES, AND ENSURE CLEAN AIR, LAND AND WATER FOR ALL. THE WORK OF THE LAW CENTER IS MADE POSSIBLE BY TAX- DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS, BUSINESSES, FOUNDATIONS AND LIMITED EARNED INCOME.
- Income
- $2.8 million
- Spending
- $961,320
- Spent on programs
- 77%
- Reserves
- 36.1 months of spending
- Largest source of income
- donations and private grants, 98%
- Employees
- 10
- Volunteers
- 3
- Highest pay
- $129,315, executive di
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Financial health
Strong: 100 out of 100. Higher than 86% of charities in its peer group (environment, $1m to $10m).
Reserves
35 of 35Spendable reserves would cover 36.1 months of spending.
Debt
20 of 20It owes 3% of what it owns.
Living within its means
15 of 15Income exceeded spending by 65% of income.
Income trend
15 of 15Income rose 247% on the year before.
Spending floor
15 of 1577% of spending went to programs and raising each dollar of donations cost 2 cents.
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Governance
Strong: 100 out of 100. Higher than 60% of charities in its peer group (environment, $1m to $10m).
Independent board
25 of 257 of 7 voting board members are independent.
Conflict of interest policy
15 of 15Has a written conflict of interest policy.
Whistleblower policy
8 of 8Has a written whistleblower policy.
Record keeping policy
7 of 7Has a written policy on keeping and destroying records.
Board minutes
5 of 5Keeps minutes of board meetings.
Board sees the tax return
10 of 10Gave the board a copy of this return before filing it.
Pay set independently
5 of 5Sets its chief executive's pay through independent review and comparison.
Independent check of accounts
15 of 15Its accounts were audited by an independent accountant.
No reported misuse
10 of 10Reports no diversion of assets, excess benefits or loans to insiders.
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Impact evidence
Describes programs. Its tax return describes what it does but we have found no measurable results in it.
Programs described in its return (2)
- $736,600 spent. NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER IS A NONPROFIT, 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.
- CASE 1 AUGUSTIN PLAINS RANCH, LLC V. TOM BLAINE, P.E. NEW MEXICO SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, D-728-CV-XXX-XX-XXXX; NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS CASE A-1-CA-38615. BACKGROUND: IN 2014, THE AUGUSTIN PLAINS RANCH, LLC ("APR") SUBMITTED A MATERIALLY IDENTICAL APPLICATION AS ONE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED IN 2007, 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. THE NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER REPRESENTS WATER USERS AND ORGANIZATIONS IN THE SAN AGUSTIN BASIN OPPOSING APR'S APPLICATION. APR'S 2007 APPLICATION WAS DENIED BY THE STATE ENGINEER IN 2011. THAT DENIAL WAS UPHELD BY THE NEW MEXICO SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN 2012, AND APR'S APPEAL OF THAT DECISION TO THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED. APR'S 2014 APPLICATION WAS ALSO DENIED BY THE STATE ENGINEER ON THE BASIS THAT IT WAS SPECULATIVE, AND UPHELD BY THE NEW MEXICO SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT. APR 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. THREE PARTIES FILED PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT, AND ON OCTOBER 28, 2022, THE SUPREME COURT DENIED ALL THREE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI, RETURNING THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ADDITIONAL LITIGATION DURING 2023. IN 2024, THE NEW MEXICO SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE STATE ENGINEER, FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION WAS SPECULATIVE. THE FINAL ORDER WAS FILED ON AUGUST 23, 2024 AND ALTHOUGH IT WAS APPEALED, THE LAW CENTER DID NOT CONTINUE REPRESENTING CLIENTS ON APPEAL AND CLOSED OUT THIS CASE. . PUBLIC INTEREST: GROUND WATER IN NEW MEXICO "BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC." NMSA 1978, 72-12-1 (2003). OUR STATE'S GROUNDWATER DOES NOT BELONG TO THE OWNERS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY ABOVE GROUND WATER. ALTHOUGH INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES MAY USE GROUNDWATER 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 WOULD POTENTIALLY 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. CASE 2 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. 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 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 CONTINUED 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 WE ARE CONTINUING TO MONITOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. 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 SOUGHT ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS UNDER RCRA IN THIS CASE. 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 T
Source: Form 990 for the year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Rating method 2026.2. How we rate
Legitimacy checks
Is it registered with the IRS? Passed.
Listed in the IRS master file of tax-exempt organizations as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.
Has the IRS revoked its tax-exempt status? Passed.
Not on the IRS automatic revocation list.
Source: Automatic revocation of exemption list, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.
Are donations tax-deductible? Passed.
On the IRS list of organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.
Source: Publication 78 data: organizations eligible for tax-deductible contributions, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.
Is it keeping up with its IRS filings? Passed.
Most recent return on file covers the year ending December 2024.
Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.
How long has it been tax-exempt? Passed.
Recognized by the IRS since June 1988.
Source: Exempt Organizations Business Master File, Internal Revenue Service, file dated October 13, 2026.
Is it in good standing with state regulators? Passed.
Not on California's list of charities barred from soliciting. Other states are not yet checked.
Source: May Not Operate or Solicit for Charitable Purposes list, California Attorney General, Registry of Charities and Fundraisers, file dated October 21, 2026.
Ratings and checks are our reading of public records, using the published method. They are not a statement about anyone's honesty. If you work for this organization, you can send corrections or results, confirm you want gifts through Veridonate, or ask to be removed from giving.