Full opinion text
ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT JENKINS, Senior District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I.IDENTIFYING TRIABLE ISSUES.1240 A. Interest, Injury, Liability & Damages.1240 B. The Court’s Tentative Statement of Triable Issues.1243 C. The Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.1244 1. General Electric.1244 2. ACF Industries.1245 3. The Chevron & Texaco Defendants.1245 4. Plaintiffs’ Response.1246 D. The Bone of Contention at Plant 83: Static vs. Dynamic Remedial Systems.1247 E. Plaintiffs’ “Deep, Deep” Contaminant Plume ..1250 II. TRIABLE ISSUES & FED. R. CIV. P. 56.1251 A. Standards Governing Summary Judgment.1251 B. Plaintiffs’ Claims & “Specific Facts” Under Rule 56 .1253 C. Specific Facts & Plaintiffs’ “Deep, Deep” Plume Theory.1254 D. The Intended Scope of the Existing EPA Remediation.1257 E. Summary Judgment & Plaintiffs’ Damages Theory.1258 F. Summary Judgment & the Hydrocarbon Remediation Agreements.1263 1. Avoidable Consequences & Plaintiffs’ Duty to Mitigate.1264 2. NMED Primary Jurisdiction & Plaintiffs’ Remaining Claims.1265 3. Injury & Damages Beyond the Existing Chevron/Texaco Remedial Systems.1267 4. The Intended Scope of Remediation Under the HRAs.1267 5. The HRAs & the Plaintiffs’ Duty to Mitigate Damages.1269 III. SUMMARY & CONCLUSION. .1270 Plaintiffs the State of New Mexico and the State of New Mexico ex rel. Patricia A. Madrid assert claims for statutory and common-law public nuisance and negligence under New Mexico law arising from the hazardous chemical contamination of groundwater underlying the area referred to as the South Valley Site in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The contamination allegedly resulted from decades of the Defendants’ manufacturing and industrial operations at the Site. Plaintiffs allege that the contamination has rendered a significant volume of that groundwater unavailable for appropriation to its highest and best use, viz., as drinking water for human consumption, and has thus caused injury to the State’s interest as trustee in making the water available for appropriation. Plaintiffs filed this action seeking an award of monetary damages to compensate the State of New Mexico for the loss of use of the contaminated groundwater. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), the South Valley Site was added to the National Priorities List (or “Superfund List”) in 1983. See 48 Fed.Reg. 40,658 (September 8, 1983). The chemical contamination beneath the South Valley Site continues to be the subject of several ongoing remedial actions, some of which were ordered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), others having been initiated and agreed to by the State of New Mexico’s Environment Department (NMED). Plaintiffs’ claims in this action are pleaded at the periphery of these ongoing remedial actions. Plaintiffs’ counsel insist that they are here not to challenge the adequacy of the ongoing remediation, but to obtain compensation for injury to the State’s interest in the resource that will persist beyond the reach of the existing remedial systems. I. IDENTIFYING TRIABLE ISSUES From its beginning in 1999, this has proven to be a case of description and definition. Through an extended Pretrial Conference, the court has sought to define the interest of the State of New Mexico at stake in this litigation, the injury to that interest that Plaintiffs intend to prove, the nature and scope of the Plaintiffs’ liability theories, and the appropriate measure of the legal remedy for that alleged injury— all in an effort to identify and define the issues in this case, if any, that need to be decided at the first “injury and damages” phase of the trial in this action. On May 11 and 12, 2004, this case came before the court for the purpose of a Final Pretrial Conference. The court had set the matter down to gain the assistance of counsel in defining what triable issues remain in light of this court’s Memorandum Opinion & Order, filed April 6, 2004 (dkt. no. 1067) (“April 6th Order”), and Findings and Order re: Expert Witnesses, filed May 7, 2004 (dkt. no. 1072) (“May 7th Order”). In the April 6th Order, the court undertook to (1) identify the Plaintiffs’ legally protected interests at stake in this action; (2) define the alleged injury to those interests as to which a triable issue may exist; (3) delineate the scope of Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims in light of interest and injury; (4) determine the proper measure of damages based upon the nature of the injury asserted; and (5) set forth, provisionally at least, the genuine issues of fact that may remain for the first “injury and damages” phase of trial. In the May 7th Order, the court ruled upon the admissibility of expert testimony proffered by the parties at the Rule 702 hearing held in December 2003 and January 2004. The court excluded the proffered testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. David S. Brookshire, and much of the proffered testimony of Dr. Dennis E. Williams and Mr. Stephen B. Johnson for lack of relevance and “fit” to the fact issues that may remain for trial. A. Interest, Injury, Liability & Damages The State’s legally protected interest at stake in this action is the State’s interest as the trustee of the public’s groundwater. Under New Mexico’s Constitution and laws, the State owns the groundwater resource, holding it not for itself, but for the use and benefit of the public. (April 6th Order at 22-26 & nn. 25-29; State of New Mexico’s Complaint in the Consolidated Case, filed July 31, 2001 (dkt. no. 367) (“Consolidated Complaint”), at 5 ¶ 13.) “The State serves as the watermaster, the gatekeeper, the overseer of the process of appropriation for beneficial use.” (April 6th Order at 24.) Here, The State is seeking reparations and compensation for that which it owns and which it holds in trust as a trustee on behalf of the public.... [T]he State of New Mexico, as trustee, acts in the interest of the citizens and all the water rights holders to protect the water available for the water-right holders to appropriate. (Transcript of Hearing, dated August 6, 2003 (“Tr.8/6/2003”), at 1978:19-22, 1980:14-18 (Mr. Sher).) The injury to that interest consistently asserted by Plaintiffs is the loss of use of groundwater resulting from chemical contamination traceable to the Defendants: “The STATE OF NEW MEXICO has been prevented from allowing its citizens the benefit of this natural resource” because the “contamination of this aquifer by Defendants has resulted in a loss of useable drinking water in the City [of Albuquerque] and STATE OF NEW MEXICO, [and] the reduction of available water for fire fighting, commercial, industrial and other uses to which the community customarily puts water .... ” (Consolidated Complaint at 14 ¶ 44,15 ¶ 47.) In particular, Plaintiffs claim that contamination has rendered in situ groundwater beneath the South Valley Site unusable as “drought reserve,” as water to be kept as “stock” or “storage” to be made available for future appropriation in case of severe drought. (See April 6th Order at 30-64; Transcript of Hearing, dated February 4, 2003, at 1669:2-1672:15 (Mr. Lewis).) As to theories of liability, the Plaintiffs’ remaining claims arise under the New Mexico law of public nuisance and negligence, but the scope of those claims must of necessity be defined in terms of federal law. First, because Plaintiffs have pleaded them that way. Further, because in any event, a private defendant may not be held liable under state law for complying with an EPA order requiring remedial action, based upon Plaintiffs’ claim that by the projected time of its completion the EPA remedy itself will somehow prove to be inadequate to the task at hand. As outlined in the court’s earlier opinion, Plaintiffs’ operative pleading in this case states that they seek to “recover monetary damages for injuries incurred by the STATE OF NEW MEXICO” to “the extent that the damages alleged herein are either not available under Section 9607(f) of the CERCLA and/or to the extent that CERCLA does not provide adequate remedies to fully compensate the STATE OF NEW MEXICO for Defendants’ pollution and contamination” at the South Valley Site. (Consolidated Complaint at 3 ¶¶ 4, 5 (emphasis in original).) In other words, the Complaint also seeks to recover damages to the extent that damages suffered by the STATE OF NEW MEXICO are not provided for and/or are otherwise not recoverable pursuant to CERCLA, such as those damages resulting from releases that have occurred wholly before December 11, 1980, those damages resulting from releases of substances exempted under the CERCLA petroleum exclusion, and those damages incurred in excess of the damage limitation as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 9607(c). (Id. at 3 ¶4.) Plaintiffs’ explicitly plead that “this Complaint is not intended to and does not seek to impose any remediation or clean up requirements • directed by any state or federal environmental agency, nor does this Complaint seek to collaterally attack any ongoing or past regulatory compliance activities.” (Id. at ¶ 5 (emphasis added).) And what does this mean? Earlier in the Pretrial Conference, Plaintiffs’ counsel explained that “[t]he remedy to the State ... under the common laws is that they are entitled to damages that are residual at the end of the currently operated remediation system.” (Transcript of Hearing, dated November 18, 2002, at 907:22-25 (Mr. Stephen Terrell).) More recently, counsel explained it this way: And what our claim is — we have now over a decade of remedial action that we can ... present to the jury and say ‘This is literally a box that GE and the EPA is willing to remediate. And there is contamination outside of that that we would like to address.’ ... We will ask the jury, predict what the likely ... remediation will be. And what’s left over? That’s what the State of New Mexico can recover damages for or ... remediation costs for. (Transcript of Hearing, dated May 12, 2004 (“Tr.5/12/2004”), at 4379:5-17 (Mr. Stephen Terrell) (emphasis added).) Plaintiffs thus seek damages not recoverable under CERCLA for groundwater contamination “outside” the “box that GE and the EPA [are] willing to remediate” — that is, the “box” defined by the intended scope of the existing EPA-ordered remediation. Plaintiffs’ counsel — not the court — defined and limited the State’s remaining claims in this fashion. In seeking non-CERCLA damages now for what may yet be “residual” some years in the future, Plaintiffs have confined themselves to proving an “injury” shown by (1) the persistence of contamination beyond the reach of CERCLA or beyond the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation that (2) is nonetheless attributable to discharge or release by one or more of the remaining defendants, and (3) for which New Mexico law provides a remedy beyond the relief available under CERCLA. And as explained below, to avoid summary judgment, Plaintiffs must at this point make that showing through sworn averments of specific evidentiary facts. To recover damages in light of the court’s April 6th Order, “the Plaintiffs must prove an actual injury to the State’s legally protected interests in the groundwater ... as well as prove facts supporting an award of compensatory damages.” (April 6th Order at 136-37.) Concerning the measure of damages, this court determined that in the absence of specific facts showing that the Plaintiffs’ alleged “loss of use” injury is total and permanent, the proper measure of damages for injury to the in situ groundwater beneath the South Valley Site caused by the chemical contamination is the cost of restoration of the contaminated water to use as drinking water consistent with New Mexico drinking water standards. (April 6th Order at 132-35.) B. The Court’s Tentative Statement of Triable Issues The scope of Plaintiffs’ claims having been defined at least to that extent, the court formulated a tentative statement of triable issues: 1. What is the nature, location and extent (in both volume and concentration) of the chemical contamination of the groundwater underlying the South Valley Site that exists beyond the reach of CERCLA (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbons only) and/or outside the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation? 2. What is the volume of in situ groundwater beneath the South Valley Site that has been injured and rendered unavailable (e.g., as drought reserve) for use as drinking water because of that chemical contamination? 3. What is the cost of restoration of that volume of contaminated groundwater that has been lost to use as drinking water? 4. What amount of damages will reasonably compensate the State of New Mexico for the injury to its interest in that volume of in situ groundwater, measured by the cost of restoration, response costs, etc.? (April 6th Order at 139-140.) These statements were to some extent hypothetical, and assumed the existence of specific facts showing injury and damages within their scope. Moreover, the April 6th Order did not undertake to delineate “the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation” — a definition essential to determining the ultimate scope of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Even so, as incorporated in a proposed Pretrial Order prepared by the court, these issue statements provided a framework for the colloquy between court and counsel at the May 11-12 Pretrial Conference. C. The Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Relying on pending and renewed motions for summary judgment, the Defendants asserted that no triable issues remain as to the essential elements of injury and damages, and that each Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ remaining state tort claims. 1. General Electric In General Electric Company’s Supplemental Brief is Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Damages Claims in Light of the Court’s April 5, 2004 Order, filed April 23, 2004 (dkt. no. 1068) (“GE 4/23/2004 Br.”), GE contends that Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed in their entirety because, as against GE, (1) Plaintiffs cannot prove an injury beyond the reach of CERCLA; and (2) Plaintiffs cannot establish any injury beyond the intended scope of the existing Plant 83/General Electric remediation. Under the EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD), that remedy is intended to address all contamination at or originating from the Plant 83 site, and, GE submits, the remedy is intended to be self-adjusting, adapting its treatment system to resolve any persistent contamination detected by its monitoring program, and leaving no residual contamination “injury” to be redressed by Plaintiffs’ state tort remedies. If the intended scope of the existing remediation is defined in this fashion, GE argues, Plaintiffs cannot defeat summary judgment; they have not come forward with significant probative evidence showing the existence of a volume of groundwater exceeding New Mexico drinking water standards that lies beyond that remedy’s reach. 2. ACF Industries ACF Industries asserts that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact concerning the essential “injury” element of their remaining state law claims: “there is no groundwater contamination attributable to ACF Industries ... that exists beyond the reach of CERCLA ... and/or outside the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation.” (ACF Industries, Inc.’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Summary Judgment Following Order Dated April 5, 2004, filed April 27, 2004 (dkt. no. 1071) (“ACF 4/27/2004 Br.”), at 2-3.) ACF concurs with GE’s view that the existing EPA remedy “is intended to remediate all contamination in the deep zone aquifer allegedly attributable to Plant 83,” (id. at 8), and that the system’s monitoring component will trigger such additional action or adjustment of the system as may be needed to remediate all of that contamination. (Id. at 7-8.) There being no triable issue concerning the “injury” element of Plaintiffs’ claims, all other factual disputes become immaterial, says ACF, and do not prevent the grant of summary judgment in ACF’s favor. 3. The Chevron & Texaco Defendants The Chevron/Texaco Defendants renew their motion for summary judgment based on the Hydrocarbon Remediation Agreements (“HRAs”) between these defendants and the New Mexico Environment Department in light of the court’s April 6th Order. (Chevron and Texaco Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Hydrocarbon Remediation Agreements, filed April 23, 2004 (dkt. no. 1069).) Plaintiffs’ damages remedy in this case having been limited to restoration costs, the Chevron/Texaco Defendants contend that “the costs of restoration already have been imposed on Chevron and Texaco pursuant to the HRAs,” that the additional damages sought in this case “fall within the four corners of the HRAs,” and that “the HRAs bar Plaintiffs’ further recovery.” (Id. at 4.) They argue that (1) the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has primary jurisdiction over abatement and restoration, including civil actions in the nature of an abatement, and that NMED exercised that jurisdiction in making the Hydrocarbon Remediation Agreements (HRAs); (2) the State is already recovering the cost of restoration from the Chevron/Texaco Defendants, who are paying for the ongoing Chevron HRA and Texaco HRA remedial actions; (3) the State’s claims for cost of restoration damages fall within the scope of NMED’s waiver under the HRAs; and (4) if problems exist beyond the reach of the existing systems, the State of New Mexico has failed to mitigate damages because the State has not exercised its power to amend the scope of work pursuant to the HRAs: “To the extent that there is any need for additional remediation, the HRA’s grant NMED the authority to amend the Statements of Work” and expand the remedial actions as needed to resolve the problem. (Id. at 5 (citing the Chevron HRA ¶ 56 and Texaco HRA ¶ 51).) 4. Plaintiffs’ Response As to GE and ACF, Counsel for the Plaintiffs respond that (1) under the EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD), the groundwater contamination attributable to GE and ACF Industries at Plant 83 should be cleaned up to a level satisfying New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission standards for abatement of groundwater contamination rather than the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standards adopted by the State of New Mexico for delivery of drinking water through public systems; (2) “the sampling data irrefutably demonstrates the existence of a contaminant plume or plumes 800-1,000 feet below ground surface and 400-500 feet outside of the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation”; (3) CERCLA allows the State to recover state law damages measured by additional restoration costs as a remedy complementary to the existing EPA remedial action at the South Valley Site; and (4) Plaintiffs have proffered expert opinion evidence concerning the feasibility and estimated cost of “remediating and restoring the groundwater at South Valley.” (The State of New Mexico’s Response to Supplemental Briefs in Support of Summary Judgment, Following April 5, 2004 Court Order, Filed by Defendants ACF Industries and General Electric, filed May 10, 2004 (dkt. no. 1074) (“Pltfs’ Resp. (GE/ACF)”), at 1-5, 7, 8, 9-10.) Indeed, for the first time in this continuing Pretrial Conference, Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledge that “it is technically feasible to design a remediation system to address the contaminant plumes that [Plaintiffs contend] are beyond the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation.” (Id. at 9-10.) In response to the Chevron and Texaco Defendants, the Plaintiffs argue that (1) these defendants have failed to carry their burden under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 to submit undisputed material facts negating Plaintiffs’ damages claim; (2) there exist genuine issues of material fact concerning the Hydrocarbon Remediation Agreements (HRAs) that “must be tried before the jury”; (3) both the Chevron HRA and Texaco HRA release liability only as to “ ‘those actions that might be brought by NMED,’ ” and do not “ ‘limit the authority of any other state agency, including the Office of the Natural Resource Trustee’ ” to bring “ ‘any claims the state may have for natural resource damages under state or federal law, including the cost of preparing a damage assessment’ and (4) NMED’s primary jurisdiction over environmental abatement and restoration does not extend to “claims for damages on behalf of the State of New Mexico” even where recovery is to be measured in terms of restoration costs. (Plaintiffs’ Response to the Chevron and Texaco Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Hydrocarbon Remediation Agreements, filed May 10, 2004 (dkt. no. 1073) (“Pltfs’ Resp. (Chev/Tex)”), at 3, 4, 7 (quoting the Chevron HRA ¶¶ 16, 54 & the Texaco HRA ¶¶ 15, 49).) D. The Bone of Contention at Plant 83: Static vs. Dynamic Remedial Systems The core of the controversy now before this court is the fundamental disagreement between the Plaintiffs’ and the Defendants’ definition of the “intended scope of the existing EPA remediation.” Plaintiffs’ counsel insist that the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation is static, that is, the scope is defined by the actual operation of the Plant 83/General Electric treatment system as it exists today, coupled with the assumption that there will be no future expansion of the system beyond its existing scope, regardless of any additional data or the explicit terms of the ROD. “[0]ur damage model was based on the fact the defendants say, [’]"We’re not going to do anything different than we’re doing right now, and we’re only going to do such and such.[’]” (Transcript of Hearing, dated October 3, 2002 (“Tr.10/3/2002”), at 738:9-12 (Mr. Lewis).) If current operations indeed define the intended scope of the remediation' — -in counsel’s terms, the “box that GE and EPA are willing to remediate” — then the existing system “does not remediate contaminants outside the capture radius of its extraction wells, which leaves a significant amount of the total contaminant plume unremediated,” and leaves room in this litigation for a state tort damages remedy. (See Transcript of Hearing, dated May 11, 2004 A.M. Session (“Tr. 5/11/2004 AM”), at 4160:3-5 (“there will obviously be an issue on the volume of contamination that lies outside of the GE remediation system”) (Mr. Lewis).) According to Plaintiffs, their expert “Dr. Dennis Williams verified that groundwater sampling and groundwater modeling had confirmed the existence of contamination in excess of MCL drinking water standards outside of the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation.” (Pltfs’ Resp. (GE/ACF) at 5.) Plaintiffs insist that they are not challenging the EPA remedy because they seek damages only for the volume of contaminated groundwater that may be found beyond the reach of the current design and operation of the General Electric/Plant 83 system: So it is our contention that we have plume out there that, for lack of a better word, colloquially speaking, ain’t being remediated. We’re not blasting what they’re doing where they’re doing it. We’re blasting what they ain’t doing where they ain’t doing it. [T]his woefully inadequate remediation program' — it’s great for what it’s doing. It’s just not doing everything that’s out there. And the EPA has shown no inclination. And we’re sort of in the position of saying, “Okay, we’re seeking damages for what they’re not doing out here.” That’s where our damage model really comes from. (Tr. 5/12/2004, at 4346:6-11, 4346:18-4347:1 (Mr. Gallagher).) GE and ACF Industries respond that the existing remediation is dynamic and self-adjusting, and that it encompasses all contamination originating at Plant 83 within its intended scope. The Record of Decision for the General Electric/Plant 83 remedial action describes a comprehensive remedy for groundwater contamination originating from the Plant 83 facility, including both (1) “the extraction of contaminated groundwater and treatment with air stripping followed by carbon absorption” and reinjection of the water into the aquifer, and (2) “the monitoring of the area groundwater both during and after completion of the remediation to ensure the effectiveness of the selected remedy.” The Record of Decision indicates that the EPA’s selected remedy, together with the Records of Decision for the Site’s five other operable units, is intended to address all contamination at or emanating from the Plant 83 site: The intent of the combined activities of EPA in the South Valley Superfund site area is to provide protection for all of those who are affected by contamination in the aquifer originating from this site. The effort to eliminate contaminant sources, limit further migration from one groundwater zone to another, to recover and treat contaminated groundwater and to provide for a substitute source of drinking water for the lost City of Albuquerque water well provides such protection both short and long-term. Each of the operable units of the South Valley site is part of a greater whole.... EPA believes that all concerns about contamination will be addressed through the combination of the remedies selected in the Records of Decision for the South Valley site. As the agency explained, “Contaminants that can reasonably be associated with the Superfund site will be addressed,” ongoing “[g]roundwater monitoring will ensure that the combination of remedies is effective, protective of public health, and the environment,” and “[w]ater extraction will continue until the levels of contaminants in the water fall below State and Federal regulatory standards.” Defendants insist that the EPA remedy is not static, but instead has been structured to proceed in a fashion that will “follow the plume” of Plant 83 contaminants, wherever it may be. The key is the monitoring program: The monitoring program is made up of data collection from numerous wells and sampling points, including the sentinel wells in the deep zone of the aquifer below 4,600 feet above mean sea level and to the east of Interstate 25. All of this monitoring is part of the remediation. General Electric, EPA and the New Mexico Environment Department continue to monitor these wells to ensure that the contamination exceeding drinking water standards allegedly attributable to Plant 83 does not escape to or beyond these points. This comprehensive monitoring, in addition to the functioning groundwater treatment sys-tern, comprises the intended scope of the existing remediation.... (ACF 4/27/2004 Br. at 6-7 (footnote & citation omitted).) The groundwater monitoring program is not constrained by the ROD’S initially designated “areas of potential contamination,” which the ROD explains “are not intended to limit the areas in which additional groundwater sampling may be necessary.” In addition to continuous groundwater monitoring, the Record of Decision expressly provides for ongoing administrative review of the implemented remedial actions to ensure that they are consistent with EPA’s intent to address all contamination associated with the South Valley. In addition to monthly progress reports, semiannual monitoring reports, and annual reports, “[t]he remedial action will be reviewed every five years after its initiation to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented.” The five-year review is a comprehensive look at all of the site activities from the past five years to ensure that what’s occurring at the site is still protective of human health and the environment. So it’s a matter of looking at all of the data and making sure or ensuring that whatever actions are ongoing are meeting the actual goals of the ROD. (Deposition of Greg Lyssy, dated April 24, 2002 (“Lyssy Dep.”), at 13:25-14:6, Ex. F to GE 4/23/2004 Br & Exhibit G to ACF 4/27/2004 Br.) In the event the remedial action is not effective in meeting the goals of the ROD in protecting human health and the environment, “the EPA in conjunction with NMED would take the appropriate action to ensure that they are safe.” (Id. at 14:18-19.) The State of New Mexico continues to be directly involved in this ongoing review process: Q. Now, you said in conjunction with NMED. What role does NMED play at the site? A. NMED is my support agency. Whenever we get any of these reports or have meetings with the various PRPs at the site or even the City of Albuquerque or Bernalillo County, EPA and NMED will meet together with those entities. If the reports have been received by EPA and NMED, NMED will provide their comments to EPA. EPA will incorporate those comments into the overall comment letter going back out to the PRPs. Q. So is NMED routinely given an opportunity to comment on technical reports— A. They always are. (Id. at 14:20-15:7.) Uncontroverted facts in this record reflect that the Plant 83/General Electric system has already been expanded to take •into account additional contamination evidenced by sample data from more recently installed monitoring wells. In early 2000, “the groundwater monitoring program detected contamination in a newly installed well (P83-22-D2) that was installed in response to a detection in a Westbay well.” (ACF 4/27/2004 Br. at 7 (citing Lyssy Dep. at 43:21-44:1, Ex. F to GE 4/23/2004 Br & Exhibit G to ACF 4/27/2004 Br.).) This demonstrated to EPA that “the monitoring system is effective in showing that if there are any concentrations, they are picked up and detected. And once we have the detections, we take the appropriate steps to deal with them.” (Lyssy Dep. at 44:7-12.) Accordingly, in 2003, GE expanded its existing remedial system by installing a new extraction well, two new injection wells, and an additional monitoring well, all approved by EPA and NMED. (See W.E.S., Inc., 2002-2003 Annual Report And SemiAnnual Quality Assurance Report, Deep Zone Groundwater Remediation System, Former Air Force Plant 83/General Electric Operable Unit, South Valley Superfund Site (August 15, 2003), § 4.5, at 18-21, Exhibit I to ACF 4/27/2004 Br.) Plaintiffs acknowledge these facts, but persist in their assertion that groundwater beneath South Valley has been lost to use as drinking water because of contamination beyond the reach of the existing remedy- E. Plaintiffs’ “Deep, Deep” Contaminant Plume Concerning what lies beyond the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation as Plaintiffs would define it, counsel asserted that sampling data “irrefutably demonstrates the existence of a contaminant plume or plumes 800-1,000 feet below ground surface and 400-500 feet outside of the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation,” (Pltfs’ Resp. (GE/ACF) at 7), what Plaintiffs’ counsel calls “the deep-deep aquifer contamination.” (Tr. 5/11/2004 AM, at 4158:21 (Mr. Lewis).) As evidentiary support for this, Plaintiffs rely on the intended testimony of their expert, Dr. Dennis E. Williams, who proffered testimony at the December 9th evidentiary hearing that there were “deep hits that are below the depth of the deepest GE extraction well,” (Transcript of Hearing, dated December 9, 2003 (“Tr.12/9/2003”), at 2650:11-12), and that “the deep zone [remediation system] doesn’t go much below 4,600 feet, [and] there’s some known contamination quite a bit deeper,” (id. at 2542:17-19), as reflected in data gathered in connection with the EPA-ordered remediation. (See id. at 2465:24-2466:22, 2467:3-2470:2, 2491:18-2492:1, 2493:10-2494:25, 2531:21-2541:10, 2542:12-2548:22.) Plaintiffs also point to a GE memorandum and letter indicating in 1993 that the City of Albuquerque’s municipal San Jose 6 Well had served as a “ ‘vertical conduit for downward contaminant migration,’ ” and another 1993 memorandum suggesting “ ‘that there exists a plume that lies significantly below the bottom of our main plume, at least in the vicinity of SJ-6 and WB-4.’ ” (Pltfs’ Resp. (GE/ACF) at 6-7 & Exhs. G, H & I; see also State of New Mexico’s Response and Memorandum in Opposition to ACF Industries, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Limiting Damages to Those for Any Loss of Drinking Water Services and Brief in Support of the Motion, filed September 12, 2002 (dkt. no. 756), at 2-13 ¶¶ 4-22.) II. TRIABLE ISSUES & FED. R. CIV. P. 56 A. Standards Governing Summary Judgment Rule 56(c) permits the entry of summary judgment when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). “Of course, a party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The initial burden of production imposed by Rule 56(c) requires the moving party to make a prima facie showing that it is entitled to summary judgment; “if the movant makes out a prima facie case that would entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law if uncontroverted at trial, summary judgment will be granted unless the opposing party offers some competent evidence that could be presented at trial showing that there is a genuine issue as to a material fact.” 10A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice And Procedure § 2727, at 486 (3d ed.1998). Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of persuasion at trial on the claim or issue addressed by the motion, Celotex instructs that the moving party may meet its initial burden “by ‘showing’ — that is, pointing out to the district court — that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (emphasis added). “[W]e find no express or implied requirement in Rule 56 that the moving party support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent’s claim.” Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (emphasis in original). As the Court explained in Celotex: In our view, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Accord Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir.2000). In our circuit, the moving party carries the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that it is entitled to summary judgment. Once this burden is met, Rule 56(e) requires the non-moving party to set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.... [T]he moving party ... has both the initial burden of production on a motion for summary judgment and the burden of establishing that summary judgment is appropriate as a matter of law. The moving party may carry its initial burden either by producing affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim, or by showing that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence to carry its burden of persuasion at trial. Trainor v. Apollo Metal Specialities, Inc., 318 F.3d 976, 979 (10th Cir.2002) (citations and quotations omitted). Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the burden shifts back to the non-moving party under Rule 56(e) to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir.1991). To meet this evidentiary burden, the non-moving party must rely upon “facts specifically averred,” to be shown through “affidavits or other evidence [which] ‘set forth specific facts Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 888, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990) (“Lujan I”). See Neal v. Roche, 349 F.3d 1246, 1249 (10th Cir.2003) (“[WJhere the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue[,] that party must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts so as to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case in order to survive summary judgment.”); Jensen v. Kimble, 1 F.3d 1073, 1077 (10th Cir.1993) (“To discharge its burden, the nonmoving party must ‘go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits, or by the “depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,” designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” ’ ” (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e))).) A district court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,” Jensen v. Kimble, 1 F.3d at 1076 (citing Deepwater Invs., Ltd. v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp., 938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (10th Cir.1991)), but cannot assume for purposes of summary judgment that specific facts exist showing that there is a genuine issue for trial: In ruling upon a Rule 56 motion, “a District Court must resolve any factual issues of controversy in favor of the non-moving party” only in the sense that, where the facts specifically averred by that party contradict facts specifically averred by the movant, the motion must be denied. That is a world apart from “assuming” that general averments embrace the “specific facts” needed to sustain the complaint. Lujan I, 497 U.S. at 888, 110 S.Ct. 3177. Rule 56(e) provides that judgment “shall be entered” against the nonmoving party unless affidavits or other evidence “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” The object of this provision is not to replace conclusory allegations of the complaint or answer with conclusory allegations of an affidavit. Cf. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (“[T]he plaintiff could not rest on his allegations of a conspiracy to get to a jury without ‘any significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint’ ”), quoting First National Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968). Rather, the purpose of Rule 56 is to enable a party who believes there is no genuine dispute as to a specific fact essential to the other side’s case to demand at least one sworn averment of that fact before the lengthy process of litigation continues. Id. at 888-89. Lujan I drew a distinction between practice under Rule 56 and a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss upon the pleadings: “The latter, unlike the former, presumes that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).” Under Rule 56, “[i]t will not do to ‘presume’ the missing facts” because doing so converts the operation of Rule 56 to a circular promenade: plaintiffs complaint makes general allegations of injury; defendant contests through Rule 56[the] existence of specific facts to support injury; plaintiff responds with affidavit containing general allegation of injury, which must be deemed to constitute averment of requisite specific facts since otherwise allegation of injury would be unsupported (which is precisely what defendant claims that it is). Id. at 889. B. Plaintiffs’ Claims & “Specific Facts” Under Rule 56 In this case, the court has already declined Plaintiffs’ invitation to assume the existence of specific facts showing that (1) the volume of groundwater affected by the contamination beneath the South Valley Site could otherwise be made available for appropriation from the Middle Rio Grande Basin aquifer, but for the presence of the contamination; (2) the volume of water affected has been lost to all beneficial uses; and (3) the loss of use is permanent-assumptions that proved critical to Plaintiffs’ theory of injury and damages based upon the alleged total and permanent loss of use of the groundwater resource. (April 6th Order at 45-46.) Now Plaintiffs ask this court to assume the existence of specific facts supporting their generalized allegation that a “deep, deep” plume of contaminants exists beneath the South Valley Site, hundreds of feet below the reach of the existing remediation system, a contaminant plume that counsel insist the EPA and General Electric do not intend to treat. (Pltfs’ Resp. (GE/ACF) at 5-7.) Lujan I notes that “[a]t the margins, there is some room for debate as to how ‘specific’ must be the ‘specific facts’ that Rule 56(e) requires in a particular case,” 497 U.S. at 889, 110 S.Ct. 3177, but in this Circuit, “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmovant’s position is insufficient to create a dispute of fact that is ‘genuine’; an issue of material fact is genuine only if the non-movant presents facts such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the nonmovant.” Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F.3d 1341, 1347 (10th Cir.1997). National American Ins. Co. v. American Re-Insurance Co., 358 F.3d 736, 739 (10th Cir.2004). Thus, to meet their evidentiary burden under Rule 56(e), the Plaintiffs “must present sufficient evidence in specific, factual form for a jury to return a verdict in that party’s favor.” Bacchus Industries, Inc. v. Arvin Industries, Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir.1991) (emphasis added). In this case, the Defendants have asserted that as to the Plaintiffs’ remaining state tort claims, “there is a complete failure of proof on the essential element of injury.” In light of this court’s rulings on Plaintiffs’ proffered expert testimony, Defendants also assert that there is a similar failure of proof on the element of damages. (See GE 4/23/2004 Br. at 8-12; Tr. 5/11/2004 AM, at 4164:21-4165:1 (Ms. Wood).) Plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence in specific, factual form for a jury to return a verdict in their favor as to these elements, the Defendants submit, and under Rule 56, “failure of proof of an essential element renders all other facts immaterial.” Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc. 203 F.3d 1202, 1212 (10th Cir.2000); see also Miller v. Pfizer, Inc., 356 F.3d 1326, 1335-36 (10th Cir.2004) (upholding grant of summary judgment following exclusion of expert opinion on essential element). C. Specific Facts & Plaintiffs’ “Deep, Deep” Plume Theory To obtain summary judgment, then, the Defendants are not required to produce specific facts showing that the Plaintiffs’ alleged “deep, deep contaminant plume” does not exist. Rather, the burden is on the Plaintiffs to come forward with significant probative evidence of specific facts showing that this alleged injury does exist — indeed, to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence of the alleged injury to permit a reasonable jury to find in Plaintiffs’ favor. Plaintiffs point to earlier well sample data reflecting contamination at deeper levels than had originally been predicted, with Dr. Williams noting that there were “deep hits that are below the depth of the deepest GE extraction well.” (Tr. 12/9/2003, at 2650:11-12). The deep contaminant “hits” reflected in this early 1987-1993 data soon dwindled to below-MCL or even “non-detect” readings, and Plaintiffs’ counsel concede that no comparable data has been reported since: THE COURT: Other than the sampling that this refers to, do you have anything other than at 1994, ... anything later than 1994? MR. LEWIS: Above MCLs, no, because they didn’t — GE refused to put down the deeper ones they’re asking for. But since that date, you have got contaminants that are down there. They’re not above MCLs.... (Tr. 5/12/2004, at 4371:14-25.) Instead, Plaintiffs point to the recent expansion of the Plant 83/General Electric system in light of sample data from that system’s monitoring wells, relying on the proffered testimony of Dr. Williams in which he affirms counsel’s assertions of the pertinent facts: Q And in an area where they were claiming, through their pluming, their contouring, that no pollution existed, they not only found pollution at and below 4,600 feet, but they found it in excess of MCL, did they not? A They did, yes. Q And in Westbay-4, the point where they didn’t — where they said there was no pollution at 4,600 feet, they actually found it deeper — • A Yes. Q —than the layer 6, and they found it at concentrations in excess of MCLs, did they not? A That’s right. Q And that is an area that your model predicted had contaminants in it, even though they didn’t have a monitor well there; right? A That’s correct. That’s the case where the model predicted contamination, and then the well was drilled and it verified that. Q And then they subsequently drilled an extraction well. The newest extraction well. I think it was drilled in 2002,1 guess? A It was drilled in August. The monitoring well was drilled in February of 2002. Q And that extraction well is completed down at, what, about 4,553 feet? A Just below the 4,600 layer, yes. Q And it is pulling out contaminants, is it not? A Yes. Q Contaminants in excess of MCLs? A Yes. Q And we don’t — as yet, GE and its consultants have not drilled any monitor wells out here, have they, deep or deeper than 23-83-22D2, to see how far that deep contamination plume goes? A I’m not aware of any. Q But we do know that in P83-22D2 at EW-4 they’re pulling out contaminants and have pulled them out in the amounts exceeding MCLs. A That’s correct. (Tr. 12/9/2003, at 2493:8-2494:25 (Mr. Lewis/Dr.Williams).) In effect, then, Plaintiffs rely upon specific facts showing that the existing EPA remedial system is detecting further contamination and is addressing it by adding additional extraction and monitoring wells as support for an inference that the system is not detecting and not treating contamination, an inference that there yet exists undetected “deep, deep” contamination that the system does not and will not treat. Viewed through Plaintiffs’ eyes, direct evidence of the system’s remedial efficacy becomes inferential proof of its deficiency. The expert testimony proffered by Plaintiffs discussed the 'possibility of a deeper contaminant plume, based upon the absence of a uniform geological barrier preventing the downward migration of contaminants: Q.... [I]is there any site-wide low-permeability zone around 4,600 feet that would impede or prevent the downward movement of heavier contaminants such as VOCs? A No, not in the upper Santa Fe Group. (Tr. 12/9/2003, at 2468:7-11 (Dr. Williams).) Dr. Williams testified that the fact that current sampling data does not show the presence of a deeper plume “doesn’t mean a plume still isn’t there,” (id. at 2545:16-17), and he talked at some length about the behavior of such a plume “if’ it is there. But Dr. Williams did not proffer an opinion concluding that the available sampling data “irrefutably demonstrates the existence of a contaminant plume or plumes 800-1,000 feet below ground surface and 400-500 feet outside of the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation” at South Valley based upon his own analysis of that data; nor did he offer any specific estimate as to the volume, concentration or location of such a plume or plumes based upon his groundwater and solute transport modeling. (See id. at 2531:21-2541:10, 2542:12-2548:22.) And Dr. Williams is Plaintiffs’ only expert witness proffered to testify as to contaminant plume volume, content and location. Much like Scotland’s famed Loch Ness monster, the Plaintiffs’ “deep, deep contaminant plume” is believed to be “down there somewhere,” and has not been conclusively proven not to exist, but its proponents have yet to come forward with significant probative admissible evidence of specific facts affirmatively demonstrating that it does exist. And here, at least, the proponents of the “deep, deep contaminant plume” bear the burden of proof. Recalling that “the purpose of Rule 56 is to enable a party who believes there is no genuine dispute as to a specific fact essential to the other side’s case to demand at least one sworn averment of that fact before the lengthy process of litigation continues,” the court has sifted the existing record in vain for a sworn averment of specific facts showing the existence of the Plaintiffs’ “deep, deep contaminant plume.” At this point, it remains a concept built largely upon conjecture masquerading as inference. The State of New Mexico is not without its own investigative resources. Indeed, through NMED, the State of New Mexico remains an active participant in the oversight of the EPA’s operable units at the South Valley Site. As Dr. Williams suggests, “there’s a trade-off between drilling wells every one foot and trying to drill enough wells that are economically feasible and then trying to do some predictive modeling” in attempting to identify and describe contaminant plumes. (Tr. 12/9/2003, at 2546:3-6 (Dr. Williams).) In this case, however, the State of New Mexico has elected to drill no wells at all to verify the existence of the hypothesized “deep, deep contaminant plume” beyond the existing monitoring system. Instead, Plaintiffs attempt to infer the plume’s existence from the lack of current data that conclusively demonstrates its absence. Plaintiffs have failed to present a sworn averment of sufficient evidence in specific, factual form confirming the presence of the unremediated above-MCL or above-NMWQCC contaminant plume that Plaintiffs allege, or permitting any reliable factual determination of the volume of water purportedly affected. They have proffered no recent or current well sample data from the deeper region of the aquifer beneath South Valley — the region where the “deep, deep contaminant plume” purportedly resides — from which their own expert could make a reliable estimate of the plume’s current composition, volume or location. Looking at evidence in the record and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, this court concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden under Rule 56(e) to come forward with “specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial as to those dispositive matters for which [it] carries the burden of proof,” National American Ins. Co. v. American Re-Insurance Co., 358 F.3d at 739 (quoting Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988, 990 (10th Cir.1996)), in this case the element of injury based upon the existence of the alleged “deep, deep contaminant plume.” For Dr. Williams to say that there is some “indication of deep contamination,” (Tr. 12/9/2003, at 2596:23), does not present “sufficient evidence in specific, factual form for a jury to return a verdict in that party’s favor” as to the plume’s existence. Bacchus Industries, Inc., 939 F.2d at 891 (emphasis added). D. The Intended Scope of the Existing EPA Remediation Plaintiffs have also failed to raise a genuine triable issue as to their narrower, static view of the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation. While the remedial system’s current operation is certainly some evidence of intended scope, defining the intended scope solely in terms of current operation ignores both the plain and unambiguous language of the applicable EPA Records of Decision and the Plant 83/General Electric system’s demonstrated ability to monitor for contamination over an extended area, and to expand and adjust in light of credible sample data evidencing the presence of additional contamination in need of treatment. Plaintiffs point to no sworn averment of evidence in specific, factual form in this record evidencing that the intended scope of the remedial action is anything other than what the applicable ROD documents say it is. The stated goal of the remediation is to eliminate the present and future risks posed by Plant 83 contamination at the Site. {See United States Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Decision: Former Air Force Plant 83/General Electric, South Valley Superfund Site (September 1988), at 17 (“The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment through the elimination of present and future risks posed by the site.”).) That goal was mirrored in the Final Work Plan for the Plant 83/General Electric Operable Unit: “The choice of extraction system will be based on selecting the system that will capture all the CERCLA-actionable contamination most effectively.” As explained above, the ROD anticipated the monitoring of groundwater in the area during and after the remediation to ensure that the remedy is effective. The ROD even anticipated the absence of a low-permeability clay layer preventing migration of contaminants deeper into the aquifer: “Two areas will require further definition of ground water contamination during remedial design through installation and sampling of additional monitoring wells.” These were the “extent of shallow zone contamination north of the property” and, “should the clay aquitard be discovered to be absent during this investigation, the extent of contamination in the deeper zones as well, ...” By definition, then, the remedy ordered by the EPA for the Plant 83/General Electric facility invokes a dynamic combination of monitoring and treatment systems, and the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation encompasses the clean-up of any groundwater contamination beneath the South Valley Site detectable at levels higher than applicable standards and resulting from releases or discharges of hazardous materials from the Plant 83 facility. Thus defined, the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation would encompass Plaintiffs’ alleged “deep, deep contaminant plume,” even assuming that plume exists and is attributable to the Defendant’s conduct at the Plant 83 facility- As to Defendants General Electric and ACF Industries, therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to come forward with sworn aver-ments of significant, probative evidence in specific factual form showing the existence of “chemical contamination of the groundwater underlying the South Valley Site that exists beyond the reach of CERCLA (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbons only) and/or outside the intended scope of the existing EPA remediation” sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial on the element of injury. E. Summary Judgment & Plaintiffs’ Damages Theory Early in the Pretrial Conference, the court advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that “the State needs to rethink its theory of damages,” particularly in terms of possible restoration of use of the resource, and warned that the court “would find it difficult to send those computations to a jury” in light of the questions raised by pending motions for summary judgment on the damages question. (Tr. 10/3/2002, at 736:23, 738:4-5 (The Court); see also Transcript of Hearing, dated November 19, 2002, at 1079:19-28 (The Court); Transcript of Hearing, dated January 17, 2003, at 1555:8-1557:2 (The Court).) Court and counsel have revisited the question of Plaintiffs’ theory of injury and damages as the Pretrial Conference has progressed, and in each instance, the court deferred its final ruling on the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, affording Plaintiffs’ counsel the opportunity to reexamine their own theory in light of the existing record in this case and questions raised during the conference. While making some adjustments in light of the court’s February 6, 2003 bench ruling on the New Mexico drinking water standards to be applied in defining the loss of use of contaminated groundwater, Plaintiffs’ counsel have pressed essentially the same theory of damages as they asserted at the beginning of the conference. Under the damages theory propounded by the Attorney General and her outside counsel prior to this court’s April 6th Order, the State of New Mexico — as “owner” and public trustee of all of the waters belonging to the public in the State of New Mexico, and as parens patriae for and on behalf of the people of the State of New Mexico — proposed to stand idle and do nothing further to clean up toxic contamination beneath the South Valley Site that counsel insist will go untreated by the existing remedial actions. Instead, the State of New Mexico, by and through the Attorney General, sought to be paid billions of dollars in damages — not to clean up the deep groundwater contamination they insist can be found beneath the South Valley Site, but to leave that contaminated water exactly as they allege it is, untreated and unusable, and to tie up an additional 200,000 acre-feet of otherwise usable water as a “buffer zone” intended to keep the contaminants from migrating towards active supply wells, and somehow to maintain that- “buffer zone” for many, many years into the future. Upon close examination, however, Plaintiffs’ theory proved to be flawed in several fundamental respects, both factual and legal. First, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Plaintiffs’ experts assumed for the sake of their damages claim that the injury to the groundwater beneath South Valley is both total and permanent — that once contaminated, the affected groundwater could never again be put to beneficial use. Plaintiffs’ counsel and Plaintiffs’ experts insisted that passive containment of the contaminants — leaving the injury in place, as it is, untreated and unabated — was in every instance to be preferred over any other remedial approach, even though doing so would deny the public the use of over 200,000 acre-feet of potable water for decades into the future. Second, Plaintiffs’ experts have persistently defined the alleged “injury” to include contamination known to be attributable to non-party sources, e.g., the Univar Edmunds Street facility. Dr. Williams acknowledges that he included Univar contaminants in making his estimates of contaminant plume volume and location. (See May 7th Order at 31-32.) Mr. Johnson and Stetson Engineering likewise included non-party contaminants by defining “injury” in terms of the geography of the State Engineer’s 1988 “restricted pumping zone,” — a large, roughly rectangular prism of groundwater and earth defined by a press release without regard to source. Indeed, all of the expert testimony proffered by the Plaintiffs concerning damages shares this common flaw: the inclusion of identifiable chemical contaminants attributable to sources other than the Defendants in this action in defining the volumes of groundwater purportedly lost to use. Thus, the Attorney General of New Mexico and her outside counsel have been demanding that the remaining Defendants in this action compensate the State for injury to the groundwater resource that Plaintiffs openly concede these Defendants did not cause. New Mexico law does not impose tort liability for public nuisance or negligence without regard to fault. “Liability based on fault is the cornerstone of tort law....” Scott v. Rizzo, 96 N.M. 682, 689, 634 P.2d 1234, 1241 (1981). “The law of torts, with the exception of strict products liability, is a fault-based system of recovery; without fault, there is no liability for injury.” Berlangieri v. Running Elk Corp., 134 N.M. 341, 76 P.3d 1098, 2003 NMSC-024 (N.M.2003). Third, Plaintiffs’ damages theory misconceived the impact of the alleged injury on the State’s interest in making public water available for appropriation by the public. Plaintiffs’ counsel insist that because of contaminants, it cannot make a specific volume of groundwater located in the vicinity of Albuquerque’s San Jose 6 Well available for appropriation, and that the State’s ability to make water available for appropriation has been diminished to that extent, regardless of the availability of an equivalent volume of potable water at a different point of diversion from the same aquifer, e.g., the Burton 4 Well. Plaintiffs’ counsel have argued that this specific volume of gr