A new court filing has brought a 2009 conservation easement into a legal dispute over the environmental review for Kit Carson Electric Cooperative’s proposed hydrogen project in Questa. The filing raises questions about whether the easement applies to the project site and what effect, if any, it may have on the project’s development.
On Oct. 15, the Cabresto Lake Irrigation Community Ditch Association and the Acequia Madre del Cerro de Guadalupe filed the deed with the U.S. District Court as part of their request for a preliminary injunction.
The plaintiffs argue that the easement applies to land where the hydrogen project and solar array are being built. Recorded in Taos County in 2009, the easement requires most of the property to remain in a natural condition and reportedly restricts certain activities, including utility generation and transmission facilities, some vegetation removal and most groundwater withdrawals.
Whether those provisions legally apply to the current project remains unresolved. The filing presents the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the easement, but the court has not determined whether it restricts the Cooperative’s planned development.
The plaintiffs contend that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service did not adequately account for the easement before issuing its Finding of No Significant Impact. That federal determination concluded that the project would not have significant environmental effects requiring a more extensive Environmental Impact Statement.
According to materials submitted by the plaintiffs, a map includes land where the Cooperative has conducted construction and ground-disturbing activities since May. The plaintiffs also argue that the easement applies to land Chevron leased to Kit Carson Electric Cooperative in May 2026. The legal significance of the map and the easement’s applicability to the project have yet to be determined by the court.
The filing is part of a broader lawsuit challenging the federal environmental review, the project’s proposed groundwater use and its potential effects on nearby water resources.
The plaintiffs argue that the federal environmental review did not adequately assess potential effects on nearby wells, surface water and acequia flows. They have also raised concerns about the timing of additional studies, including a recommended biological study of the area and a study addressing risks to human health and safety. According to the plaintiffs’ materials, those studies were completed after the Rural Utilities Service issued its Finding of No Significant Impact.
The timing of the studies is one element of the plaintiffs’ challenge. Whether the studies required additional federal review, and whether further review is legally necessary, remains for the court to consider. The fact that studies were completed after the federal determination does not, by itself, establish that the original review was legally deficient.
As previously reported by Questa del Rio News, U.S. District Judge David H. Urias heard arguments on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on Sept. 3 and took the matter under advisement.
The Oct. 15 filing does not announce a court ruling or order construction to stop. A preliminary injunction, if granted, could restrict certain activities while the lawsuit proceeds, but the filing itself does not change the project’s legal status.
The court must still consider the parties’ arguments, including the legal effect of the conservation easement, the adequacy of the federal environmental review and the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief.