(specially concurring).
{27} I concur in the result of the majority opinion. I write separately to clarify that, in my view, reversal is mandated in this case not because of some technical defect in the notice, but because the defects in notice, when fully explained and when taken together with the other procedural defects identified in the opinion, indicate that the purposes of the Solid Waste Act’s hearing requirements were not met. I also believe that it is this violation of the special purposes of the hearing requirement that contributes to give Appellants standing.
{28} It should be highlighted that, in this ease, not only was Landfill’s notice not appropriately published in two places, but it never defined or listed what the “special waste” was. Once the Secretary published his notice, which was a large display ad, he listed some of the types of wastes listed in the application, but omitted reference to asbestos, a type of special waste that could cause particular concern among members of the general public. In my view, it is the constellation of defects in the notice procedure that rendered the hearing ineffectual as the meaningful public hearing contemplated by the Legislature as such an important part of the Solid Waste Act. See Southwest Research & Info. Ctr. v. State, 2003-NMCA-012, ¶ 37, 133 N.M. 179, 62 P.3d 270 (recognizing that the hearing requirement and public input obtained during the hearing is central to the Solid Waste Act), cert. granted, 132 N.M. 551, 52 P.3d 411 (2002); 20 NMAC 1.4.1.109 (2002) (“This part 4 governing Permit Procedure for the Environment Department] shall also be liberally construed to facilitate participation by members of the public[.]”).
{29} In opposition to the main issue on which the majority opinion reverses, the Secretary argued that Landfill was attempting to publish notice “calculated to give the general public the most effective notice” because “both the Optic and the Range are very small newspapers and the public notice of the proposed permit modification is lengthy}; therefore], to publish twice in one paper would have resulted most likely in the notice appearing twice on the same page.” There is nothing in the record to support this assertion, and in fact the notice of hearing published by the Secretary himself was published twice in the same newspaper, once in the small print legal section and the other time as a large display ad. Therefore, it was certainly possible for Landfill to comply with the statutory directive, as the Secretary’s placement of his notice did.
{30} When all of the procedural defects are added together in this case, it is clear to me that there was compliance with neither the intent nor the letter of the Solid Waste Act. Therefore, I agree that it is necessary to remand the Secretary’s decision for further proceedings in compliance with the statute.