Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by viewers like you.

>> Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus, the 30 day legislative session is winding down and its primary purpose the state budget, is coming into view.

>> Muñoz: We've set New Mexico up to never ride the oil and gas roller coaster again.

You got to take care of people first, and then you got to worry about the nice things.

>> Nash: Plus, we zoom in on oil and gas, healthy soil and threats to clean water from inside and outside the Roundhouse.

New Mexico in Focus starts now Thanks for joining us.

I'm Nash Jones.

You will see stories from a bunch of our correspondents in this episode, including one on state efforts to take control of water quality in New Mexico as the Trump administration continues its war on protections.

And another about state leaders ongoing delicate dance between record revenues and sickening pollution from the oil and gas industry.

And sticking with the environment beat, I've got a fun interview at the bottom of the hour, a romp through the state Agriculture Department's efforts to improve the health of soil across New Mexico.

I hope you'll stick around for that one.

And the legislature is still in session.

So of course, you know that we were back at the roundhouse this week.

If you have been following the session, which began on January 20th, you've heard a lot about proposals to address New Mexico's doctor shortage.

Others to prohibit cities and counties from contracting with ICE, and a few more to crank up penalties for certain crimes.

But this is a 30 day meet up for lawmakers, and the state constitution says that that means first and foremost, they got to account for the dollars and cents.

Last week, the House passed an $11 billion budget proposal, marking a more than 2.5% increase over last year and the seventh straight year the state spending plan has grown.

House Bill two passed on a 55 to 15 vote.

Republicans tried to slide in a couple of amendments, but those went nowhere fast.

This week, the budget action is happening in the Senate, and with the session ending next week, the top half of that hourglass is running short on sand.

I caught up with State Senator George Munoz, chair of his chamber's powerful finance committee at the round House, this week to hear about changes that the Senate is looking to make to what the House sent over and how the committee is negotiating those with the governor who has the final say.

Chairman Munoz, thanks for your time.

So House Bill two has come over to the Senate side.

You're taking a look at everything that the House decided.

It's around $11 billion.

We also know that projections show new money could be lower, in the near future.

What's the right balance of spending and saving in order to not overcommit?

>> Muñoz: Well, we've set New Mexico up to never ride the oil and gas roller coaster again.

And we've set funds in reserve limits that keeps New Mexico to stable level.

We'll be able to ride mild to moderate turmoil in the market.

And so we've done that over the last couple of years of growing our budget.

You prioritize such things as child care as a high priority this year.

Taking care of people.

Snap benefits for seniors were because of the amount of people who entered the system were reduced to 80.

We're going to bring those back up to 100.

And so you got to take care of people first and then you got to worry about the nice things.

>> Nash: You mentioned child care being an important piece of this.

The governor wants universal child care.

She wants it to be fully funded.

The House put in copays for those who can afford child care.

Where do you stand on that provision?

>> Muñoz: Well, I mean, don't wealthy people already pay for it?

They already pay taxes.

Why are they excluded from being eligible, for something that they pay for?

And so there's a balance there.

I mean, if you want it to be universal, that's fine.

But you figure out somebody makes $1 million, they're still paying their taxes on that.

Are they not eligible for those benefits?

I think they are.

And if we walked up to the ocean and I had a billion gallons of water and said, you can't have a cup of this because you make more money, I think that's a little bit unfair.

>> Nash: So it sounds like you're in favor of fully universal child care.

What would it look like to strip that copay piece out?

>> Muñoz: Well, this copay piece in there right now is triggered by a couple things, downturns, oil, recession, high inflation, budget numbers don't come in.

Those all trigger the co-pays, and they trigger em up to a level.

And then it also caps a number that they can add in a year.

And so there's triggers in there that keeps stability in it.

The way we funded it is stability.

And so when you want a long term investment and you want a long term fix, the most important thing is to create stability where your funding is coming from.

>> Nash: Now, your committee obviously has a ton of power around what the budget ends up looking like.

The governor does have line item veto power.

What did those negotiations look like between the legislature and the executive?

And, you know, when it comes to child care, co-pays or anything else, is there anything else that that tension is there that you're trying to negotiate with the executive?

>> Muñoz: I mean, the tension is always there.

I mean, the house and over something that we got to move and shift around.

I mean, we know that wildfires.

They left us a $200 million hole in wildfires that we have to manage.

We have to figure out how to keep our reserves at a certain level in the appropriation contingency fund in our reserves.

And so that's a big number to balance out.

They spent a lot of money, but we have to rebalance.

We have to now shape it in conversations with the executive.

Sometimes they're easy.

Sometimes they're hard.

>> Nash: Any that are particularly hard right now?

>> Muñoz: I mean, you categorize for me, I categorize things like what are really the wants and what are the really the needs and how do you target the needs, just like I mentioned with the seniors.

If we're going to reduce their Snap benefit to 80 when we have just about it going, the need is there.

So help the people that are in need.

It's a $5 million cost, fix the needs.

Then let's talk about the wants, the things that we want to do.

But are we going to be able to achieve an administration that's going to be capped in six months from spending?

>> Nash: You've talked about reserves a number of times.

In the House, Bill, they are at 28%.

In recent history, those have been closer to 30%.

I think that's been the practice.

Is 28% satisfactory to you in order to not ride that oil and gas roller coaster you mentioned?

>> Muñoz: Well, we've got an increase in our bond rating.

So that was a great thing for New Mexico.

First time ever in the history of the state.

And you look back in what created that, level of comfort with the bond with Moody's.

And that was reserve levels.

I mean, 28, 29%, that's about $230 million.

That's a lot of money.

But you can make adjustments.

>> Nash: Is it enough?

>> Muñoz: Yeah.

I mean, in 2016, we were dead broke If we were to write you a check it would█ve bounced it and we're never going to go there again.

And since 2020, this legislature and this executive has set New Mexico up to never ride a roller coaster again.

And so as we did that, we had to bring our reserve levels up so that we know we have the money in case there's a downturn, that we can fill critical things and create stability.

>> Nash: Some big priorities in the budget.

Education takes up a lion's share of it.

Health care is another biggie.

Do you anticipate maintaining those kinds of buckets of money at their current levels?

>> Muñoz: Well, I mean, education, we've added over $3 billion in the last four years.

I mean, and we haven't seen a change.

We got to start to see that change in our educational levels.

>> Nash: Meaning that outcome, student outcomes.

>> Muñoz: Yeah.

I mean, we know if we target seventh through ninth grade, that's where our biggest dropout rate is.

We can get 2,200 more students in the state, New Mexico.

It puts us in the middle of the pack.

That's a small amount, but they educate.

Everybody's got to do their job.

At the end of the day, the superintendents, the principals, the teachers, the parents all have to do their job in order for us not to be at that.

>> Nash: It's not about just throwing money at it.

When it comes to health care, the health care authority is seeking a 5% state, funding increase.

The bulk of their budget is federal funds.

But we are seeing, significant cuts to federal programs like Medicaid.

ACA subsidies.

You already backfilled some of those, in the special session in October.

What can those who are on Medicaid, those who are on Obamacare plans, expect from the Senate Finance Committee?

>> Muñoz: Well, we've already filled those some of those during the special session.

So those numbers will continue.

So we're going to try to hold that level.

Our biggest problem is we don't know what the feds are going to do to us.

The rules aren't out.

We've started to build two more hundred more FTE for the Medicaid program so that they can handle under the new federal law.

>> Nash: That's more employees.

>> Muñoz: Yeah.

And so they can get them on, make sure that they got benefits.

Those are all critical things.

>> Nash: So when it's chaotic in Washington, you don't know what to expect to come down from the federal government.

How do you how do you anticipate that when the discussion is happening now.

>> Muñoz: We can█t.

There's no way to us to anticipate and budget for something that hasn't happened.

>> Nash: So is that the contingency fund, the reserve funds?

Is that where you're going to lean?

>> Muñoz: I mean, that's where we will lean, but we'll have to come back to a special session.

You know, any more changes happen.

But planning for those changes that were enacted is what we do now.

Not knowing what's going to happen next.

There's a different crisis every five minutes.

And so we can't handle that.

And federal funds are getting cut and we can't backfill everything that's federally funded.

>> Nash: So some stuff will have to fall through.

>> Muñoz: Some funds are going to have to fall through.

They're going to have to figure them out, on their own.

>> Nash: There was an amendment that failed on the House side, that Republicans brought hoping to reimburse these communities that housed, ICE detention centers.

There's, the Immigrant Safety Act has been signed by the governor.

Those contracts between the counties and ICE will end.

That amendment failed.

Any appetite for it in the Senate?

>> Muñoz: We've been holding hearings for the last three days over House Bill nine with Torrance County, Cibola County and Otero County.

And each one of those is different in their process and how they how we're going to have to react to them.

So we are building that plan.

I think there's another hearing this afternoon, with that.

But we are figuring out what we're going to do.

>> Nash: So there will be something for them in this budget.

>> Muñoz: There will be something for me.

But it's interesting that, you know, when uranium caved out of the grant during the Marion, they gave them prisons to help recover for the that's the bulk of their economy.

Yeah.

And now we're taking prisoners away, which we gave them.

And so we're going to figure that out.

It'll be a slow process.

It'll be a short term process till we can get.

>> Nash: Will it be, backstopping them financially?

Will it be economic development?

>> Muñoz: It will be all the above.

>> Nash: Okay.

Ricky Serna is out as the governor's, Secretary of Transportation, were you aware of potential tension there between the secretary and the governor, or did you have an assessment of Serna█s work when you threw in, the road bonds in the rocket docket that went through in the first two weeks.

Any concern there around, DOT now not having a secretary?

>> Muñoz: I mean, we've looked over the history of DOT and where it's coming, and they just got more turmoil, more turmoil, more turmoil.

And the legislature was like, we've had enough.

We need stability.

Everybody wants good roads, including the speaker.

And, we want to make sure that those roads are funded and paid for and secretaries have to lead, and they have to lead in the direction that sets New Mexico up.

>> Nash: And with Serna not leading.

>> Muñoz: I don't believe it was, I mean, the cost to repair a tire now, if you're on the rim is probably 4 to $500 out of your pocket.

That's less than what you're paying a gas tax for better roads.

>> Nash: Well, what do you want to see now that 1.5 billion is heading towards roads in terms of bonding capacity?

What do you want to see change at the top of the DOT?

>> Muñoz: Well, I think leadersh will change everything below.

And targeting, figuring out where the the most needs are and prioritizing those roads and how to maintain what we have.

If you don't maintain what we have, then we're just rebuilding roads at a higher cost.

>> nash: Chairman Muñoz thank you so much for your time.

>> Muñoz: Thank you.

Yep.

>> Nash: Thanks to Senator Munoz for answering our questions on the budget.

The finance Committee this week amended a bill he's carrying the Childcare Assistance Program Act to allow lawmakers to pull $1 billion from the state's Early childhood Trust Fund to pay for any changing costs of universal child care over the next five years.

As we tape this Thursday, it is set to be heard on the Senate floor.

If it passes, it'll head to the House with just a week left to get it through.

Unsurprisingly, Republicans in the legislature have a different perspective on the state's spending plan from the one Muñoz just offered.

Politics correspondent Gwyneth Doland tracked down Steve Lanier the second ranking Republican on that Senate Finance Committee and a candidate for governor, to learn where the state GOP stands on child care co-pays, supplementing federal funding losses, and striking the right balance on spending.

>> Gwyneth: Senator Lanier, thank you so much for being with us today.

>> Lanier: Well, thank you.

I really appreciate you guys coming to the round House.

I mean, this place was built for you, all the citizens of New Mexico, all of our youth.

And it's one of my favorite things is when we have outside people come in and kind of learn what the system is.

>> Gwyneth: And it's complicated isn't it?

This 30 day session has been a little bit unusual in that there was a lot of action early on, and the governor has already signed some big high profile bills.

There's some other big things that are moving quickly.

Is there anything that has happened already that you're particularly proud of, that you're glad is done?

>> Lanier: Well, it is it's like a super fast time, everything is accelerated and a lot of the bills that came in were very accelerated.

That was their top priorities.

And some of the things that that are starting to come through.

We don't really have any big legislation so far that our side has got accomplished yet.

We haven't got a lot of our bills heard.

So the things that I'm most proud of is some of the stuff that we slowed down and hopefully common sense will prevail and maybe won't get to the governor's desk.

>> Gwyneth: There's $1.5 billion for roads.

Is that something you're excited about?

>> Lanier: I am very excited about the money coming to roads, because if you're from New Mexico you know we only have one pothole, you know, and it's from the very north of the state, all the way to the south of the state and east and west.

So I always make that a joke.

I am proud of the fact that we're going to get some money and get some stuff done.

My issue was with it being a bond issue.

The states a very wealthy state right now.

I think we're the second wealthiest state.

And so I really wish we would use some of the funds that we already have instead of focusing on a bond issue, which we're going to have to pay out for 20 years, 25 years.

>> Gwyneth: The governor wants to pay for free child care.

The House added co-pays for parents who have enough money.

Will the Senate GOP agree with that, or are you going to argue for something different in that proposal?

>> Lanier: Well, I've been arguing about this for a long time.

I was one of the senators that led the practice of having a co-pay.

My constituents in San Juan County and around the state, because I'm traveling all over the state right now.

Their concern is how is the low income may need this, but why is somebody then making 600, 800,000?

Why are they getting free child care.

And so in order for the governor to be able to call it universal care, which means for everyone, I wanted a co-pay system so that those people that are making 600 and $800,000 a year have to pay something they don't get it totally free, but it protects the governor as a universal child care too.

>> Gwyneth: Affordability, kind of sticking with that idea of health care, Medicare and Obamacare, health plans have lost a significant portion of their federal funding.

Is it important for the state to pick that up to keep health care affordable for New Mexicans?

>> Lanier: Well, I think the big issue there is not necessarily the state picking it up, but it's making us go back and look and make sure we don't have that waste, fraud and abuse going on.

It's making us reevaluate that.

Now, if we still have families in this state that need the help, we're going to help them.

But as far as just taking over the federal program, I'm not in favor of that.

I don't think that's our place.

>> Gwyneth: You're a teacher.

There is $6 billion in the budget for education.

60 million is for raises for teachers and state employees.

Is that the right balance of spending on education?

>> Lanier: I'm not sure it's the right balance.

Kind of the same thing.

I think we can do some reductions there, but we do want to keep those salaries high.

You know, we're also doing the 8020 so that their insurance is getting paid for.

That's more money in a teacher's pocket than giving them a 2% raise.

Like you said, I'm a retired schoolteacher.

I'd get a 2% raise insurance go up 3%, and you know everything else.

So I actually lost money on a raise.

And so I'm really in favor of the 8020 because that is money actually in a teacher's pocket, which is economic development.

>> Gwyneth: What is not happening this session that you want to most to see happen?

>> Lanier: Oh, that's now that's a long list.

I would I would say, medical malpractice.

We've got to get this under control.

And, you know, they've come back to the table.

The governor has definitely come back to the table.

She understands that we need to get something done.

So I'm hoping we can move forward with that.

But it takes a lot of serious redoing.

We can't just put a Band-Aid on, you know, saying we're going to have these compacts.

That's not going to fix the medical issue.

We've got to do, you know, restructure the entire system so that we can keep doctors in the state.

Punitive damages, the GRT, all of that stuff.

It's one big package.

And I think that's what the public loses is that there's so many things under that umbrella.

They just want you to fix medical.

I want to be able to go to the doctor.

I want to call the doctor and get an appointment within a few weeks, not six months.

I mean, that's ludicrous.

But to do that, we've really got to work on the root of the problem.

>> Nash: So you've heard from the senators who sit on the powerful committee with the most sway over the state budget.

But the legislature is a 112 member body, and each one of those lawmakers represent a community of New Mexicans.

So this week, when it stopped, a handful of them who passed us in the hallway to ask one simple question what's the one thing you're fighting for in this budget?

She gave each of them about 30 seconds to make their case.

>> Martinez: I'm very proud of this budget.

It's a historic budget.

It invest in families from cradle to career.

And the one thing that I'm really excited about is as we build out universal childcare, we're putting the children and families who need it most first, and we're finally taking care of our educators for far too long, they have made poverty wages under our bill, under the under House Bill two, there's a $60 million a year career wage ladder that will ensure that every single early childhood educator is paid what they're worth.

>> Jaramillo: What I'm most excited about in the budget is something near and dear to the Espanola Valley, which is continued funding for phase two of the feasibility study of the Lowrider Capital of the World Museum that we're hoping to build in Espanola state run, state funded, bringing people from all over the world to the beautiful valley to see a subculture of low riding.

>> Wilson: From a financial standpoint, my priorities this session, we need to bring some money back to Ruidoso So to help the community to recover from the fires in the floods.

But one of the new events from this session is House Bill nine, and we need to bring some money home to help the counties.

But more importantly, the people in the communities from those detention centers that are going to lose their revenues and their jobs in their community.

So we've got to help take care of those communities.

>> Hamblen: out of all the incredible things that we are doing in this legislative session.

As somebody who was a journalist for 20 years, I am so proud of the local news credit because that is really going to help, especially our rural communities that are dependent on a weekly paper that is produced by their neighbor that is covering local events.

If we don't support our local papers, if we don't support the local news initiatives, then what we are doing is losing contact with what is actually happening, not only in our community but throughout our state.

>> Anaya: I am so excited about all of the money there is in the budget for sexual assault services.

They finally got recurring money in the budget.

Also for the Truth Commission on Zorro Ranch.

We finally got money in the budget for that as well.

And also the Survivors Justice Fund, which is accompanied by the civil statute of limitations, for childhood sexual assault.

And we are trying to extend that and make sure that survivors of childhood sexual assault, get some form of justice.

>> Nash: A quick note on the partisan imbalance of those you just heard from, and an apology to Representatives Jennifer Jones and Gail Armstrong, who took the time to answer a question, but whose answers didn't air.

Unfortunately, we had some technical difficulties.

>> Crayton: Let's say your grand you know, she's she's looking for someone else to step in and take over her role of managing the land.

That's an existing relationship to the land for us as an applicant.

So you can own it.

You can lease it.

You can manage it on someone else's behalf.

You've got to have landowner permission.

But you're right.

We'll take projects measured in square feet.

>> Nash: Stick around for that spirited, prop filled interview on the state Agriculture Department's efforts to keep soil healthy.

As we wrap up the show, we are going to turn things over to two of our other correspondents for a bit.

Journalist Jerry Redfern of the nonprofit News org.

Capital and Main has been helping us stay on top of oil and gas related bills this session, and he is back this week for a chat with Camila Feibelman director of the Rio Grande chapter of the Sierra Club.

You might have seen by now that the Clear Horizons Act, an attempt to set Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, seven year old climate goals into state law, failed in the Senate this week.

Jerry and Feibelman begin their conversation by digging into that bill and what its failure will cost the state.

>> Jerry: Hey, Camila, thanks for joining us today.

>> Feibelman: Thank you.

Happy.

Happy to be here.

I suppose.

>> Jerry: I suppose.

Well, let's let's get into it and and talk about why we're here.

We're talking actually Thursday morning after the Clear Horizons Act.

Bill was shot down yesterday in New Mexico's Senate.

So I want to run this by you see if I have this clear.

New Mexico Senate, generally speaking, shot down the Clear Horizons Act because they thought many of them thought it was going to be too expensive.

However, at the same time, these same legislature, these same legislators are going to be passing bills to actually spend millions of dollars on climate change mitigation projects across the state.

Do I have that about correct?

>> Feibelman: That's right.

Unfortunately, the oil and gas industry spent what we can guess are hundreds of thousands of dollars to convince a small set of legislators that acting to curb the global climate crisis is actually expensive.

In reality, though, when we ask oil and gas to keep their methane in the system, we get more royalties.

And when we ask our utilities to use cheap renewable energy with battery storage, we're all saving money.

So it's it's too bad because at the end of the day, what we're doing is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on mitigating the damage to fires, to our forests, to homes, to our water sources, and to our air quality.

>> Jerry: So just really quickly to to back up can can you give me like a really quick thumbnail sketch of what the Clear Horizons Act was at this point and, and what it was trying to do >> Feibelman: in 2019, the governor did an executive order saying that even though the Trump administration is leaving us entirely exposed to the ravages of climate change, our state is going to act.

And she said we would join the goals of the Paris climate agreement, along with other states and cities all around the country, who know that we have to do something about these warming winters and the climate driven mosquitoes in our backyard that can carry things like West Nile virus.

So for the last almost eight years of this governor's service, we have been working to reduce our climate emissions.

And the goal of this bill was to put those goals into law, and that's to protect us from what happened when Governor Richardson left office and Governor Suzana Martinez came in, she basically undid his executive work to protect our climate.

And we lost eight years of progress on increased royalties to the state and reduced pollution at the same time.

So we were putting on the books what we've already been doing for the last eight years.

>> Jerry: So, you know, a quick question then.

So how many things, how many years has passed that seven years since the governor initially signed that?

How many times has the Clear Horizons Act or version there of been in front of the legislature?

>> Feibelman: I'd say this latest iteration just two years, but different approaches to looking at our climate emissions from a statewide perspective has happened at least five times.

But I don't want people to lose hope.

You know, we've actually made quite a bit of progress.

The governor passed nation leading methane and smog rules.

Methane is the natural gas that leaks out when petroleum is extracted.

We are passing.

We passed the Energy Transition Act, which keeps more renewables in increasing amounts, powering our electrical systems.

We passed clean cars rules to help make sure our cars are more affordable and are more accessible that we can find them on dealer lots, and we've improved our building codes in the state.

And in fact, by 2030, we will have reduced our emissions about 31%.

But to get to that 45% reduction over what we were emitting in 2005, we've got more to do.

And most of that needs to come from oil and gas.

But what's crazy is they've already committed to these goals at the corporate level, but seem more focused on making sure that out of state exects have their profits.

So it's not about affordability for the customer, it's about profits from a richer oil and gas producers.

>> Jerry: So, you know, a real quick question here, talking again just specifically about the bill.

So it has come up in various forums several times.

Is this maybe not the best way to go?

I mean, this particular this particular version of the bill had a huge chunk of it devoted specifically to, carbon mitigation projects that, an idea that was brought up by oil and gas companies themselves with the bill's sponsors.

Senator Amy Stewart, if a bill that's, you know, written with their help with them particularly in mind can't pass.

Is it perhaps time to think of different paths forward?

>> Feibelman: Yeah, I think there's something to be said for that.

And I think the main thing we need to focus on right now is the fact that the technologies exist to do almost all of these reductions.

You know, 80% of economic growth in China right now is from green jobs and green development.

And this is us just staying ahead of the competitive game.

Now you'll see that the Trump administration today is basically upending any climate action that we might otherwise have been taking by prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

But they're also committed almost in an ideological way, to old polluting coal.

So, for example, they're forcing the Craig coal plant to stay operating in Colorado.

And that's a big problem for co-ops here in New Mexico, because the energy is so expensive compared to energy that those co-ops own at the Escalante power plant, that shut down because it was an expensive coal plant here in New Mexico and was replaced by some of their cheapest energy solar and battery storage.

So, you know, there's lots of work that we have to do, and there are different ways to do it.

But the main thing to understand is that we can kind of do the Kodak thing where we never admit that digital photography is the way to go and get stuck in the past and go bankrupt, you know?

Or we can get with the program and use the technologies that are right here.

But unfortunately, our biggest corporations don't really uptake these technologies on a voluntary basis.

It's easier to do the polluting thing because it's what you've already got.

>> Jerry: I'm glad you brought that up.

Just a quick circle back to the start of what you were saying there about the EPA.

So that's something that we're looking at possibly this week or in the next week where the EPA is going to undo what is called the endangerment finding.

That's right.

>> Feibelman: It's a wonky term.

>> Jerry: It is a wonky term.

But that was the finding that the EPA came up with during the Obama administration.

I believe that was the backbone for all of the federal regulation dealing with greenhouse gases and other pollution coming from power plants, coming from oil and gas operations.

And if they get rid of that, they're going to be able to strip all sorts of other rules that they do and just sort of do away with them because they'll say, well, there's no finding there.

Do you think that them getting back again once more to the bill, did the Senate really miss a big opportunity here to pick up something that the federal government was using to theoretically protect people in New Mexico?

>> Feibelman: Yeah.

That's right.

I mean, seven Democrats align themselves with the Trump administration making false claims about the expense to actually reducing greenhouse gases instead of understanding what the endangerment finding actually said.

So President Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to look at the cost to our country of regulating greenhouse gases or the savings from doing that.

And that's what the finding says.

It says that greenhouse gases are so profoundly dangerous to this country and are so costly that we have to act to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

That's what's being potentially stripped today by the Environmental Improvement Agency.

And I think one thing that probably the average person doesn't know or understand is that any time that environmental improvement, the Environmental Protection Agency or the Environmental Improvement Board here in New Mexico makes any rules about the environment, they have to consider the economic impact.

But today, with the removal of the endangerment finding will be the removal of rules that require our vehicles to be efficient.

So you're being told by the elected government of this country that you have the right to pay more for your gasoline efficient cars, save all of us money at the gas pump.

And it's just befuddling to me this commitment to old technology.

It's like saying, well, I'm only going to drive in a horse and buggy because you know, I have some sentimentality towards that.

You know, business and growth and solutions aren't about sentiment.

It's about efficiency, efficient use of our resources so that our kids have something left.

But what let's get grounded in what's happening today right here in New Mexico.

We have not seen a warmer winter.

There is no snowpack to speak of.

This means no spring runoff, no recharge.

Our aquifers curtailed irrigation.

We have a new species of mosquito here in New Mexico.

A member of the Senate.

Husband has West Nile virus because of one of those mosquitoes.

So the cost to our people and our state is profound.

But yesterday, a majority of the Senate decided we would prefer to pay for those damages directly.

And and that's what happened.

And I'm sorry about it.

>> Nash: Thanks to Camilla, Feibelman from the Sierra Club for helping us understand what the legislature hasn't done on climate change in recent years.

And to Jerry Redfern for holding that conversation for us.

You're going to get a final dose of him next week as the session comes to a close.

So among the victims of the Trump administration's slash and burn approach to environmental protections is the Clean Water Act.

This policy shift has hit hard in New Mexico, where many waterways are no longer covered under federal law.

That's prompted state officials and environmental groups to try and plug the proverbial dam and take charge of water quality.

Correspondent Elizabeth Miller joins Patricia Snyder, Rivers and Waters program director for the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, on the banks of the Santa Fe River, to learn more.

>> Elizabeth: Tricia, thank you so much for coming here to speak with me today.

I wanted to hear a little bit more about the New Mexico Surface Water Quality permitting program that's currently in development, and some of the history for why the need for this program arose.

>> Snyder: Yeah.

Thanks so much for having me.

Super excited to be talking about this important issue.

So as you may remember, in 2023, the U.S.

Supreme Court passed a really important decision called Sackett versus EPA.

And essentially what that decision did was remove, many of the waters that had previously been covered under the Clean Water Act for decades.

And arguably, there was no state in the nation that was made more vulnerable than New Mexico.

And that's because it was really focused on intermittent and ephemeral waterways or those waters that don't run year round, which, as you probably know, is most of New Mexico's waters.

So the translation was up to 96% of our waterways lost federal protection.

And that's protection that has served the state well for over 50 years under the Clean Water Act.

So, really monumental.

.

>> Elizabeth: Right.

And we're standing here in the Santa Fe River as an example of one of the many waterways in the state that don't flow year round.

It's the river channel is dry and has been dry for some time.

>> Snyder: Yeah, absolutely.

And, you know, I think whether you're talking about the Santa Fe River, which is much beloved by Santa Fe residents, whether you're talking about some of our iconic rivers, like the Rio Grande and the Pecos, the bottom line is ephemeral and intermittent waterways play a role in all of those things, right?

They feed those major rivers.

They are the lifelines.

You can think of them as the arteries of life, across our state.

And when they're degraded and polluted, that means that's just going to kind of continue to snowball.

And we're going to have bigger pollution events as we go.

>> Elizabeth: Sure.

Everything flows downstream, right?

So, so the state is in the middle of a rulemaking process trying to stand up this new program.

What would that what would that do?

>> Snyder: So we passed that bill, Senate Bill 21 last year.

It's now the law of the land.

We have a state led surface water quality permitting program.

And now the real work begins and we get to, actually kind of put it in place.

And so, that's what the Environment Department is doing.

There's still a lot of work to do to get mapping applications ready so that we can be a little bit more clear where there is still federal jurisdiction and where we're talking about state only jurisdiction.

We've got to get databases up and running, so that those permits can be easily accessible.

And then of course, we've got to staff up and get all of those people trained.

I think one of the things that I'm really excited about is, previously before Senate Bill 21 was passed, New Mexico was one of only three states in the nation that left the permitting of its, federally protected waters up to the EPA.

So what that meant was, permits weren't issued here in New Mexico.

They were issued from a federal EPA office in Dallas, Texas.

And so that bill not only created the state program for the waters that no longer have federal protection, but it also took over permitting for those few remaining waters that do still have protection under the Clean Water Act.

So now, if you are a discharge and you need to figure out you've got questions about your permit, you've got a one stop shop and you know who you can talk to somebody at the environment department that lives in these areas that knows these waters.

And get your your questions answered.

>> Elizabeth: Right and it's the state of New Mexico making choices about the state of New Mexico's waterways.

And it has to do with some of these facilities like, wastewater treatment plants, right?

So these are really integral municipal facilities that we're talking about permits for.

Is that right?

>> Synder: Totally, yeah, so we're talking about industry.

We're talking about -- the treatment facilities that provide drinking water for communities.

But we're also talking about, you know -- the water that is supporting species and habitat.

I mean, this is it's become a cliche at this point, but water is life water.

So we have to make sure that our communities are supported and that that water is clean.

And I think at the end of the day, what we're doing is we're restoring the protections that have existed in the state for 50 years.

And those protections have served New Mexico really well.

You know, agriculture has thrived, industry has thrived, and communities have thrived.

So we're just making sure that that is retained.

>> Elizabeth: Right.

So hugely important program.

The thing that's working through the legislature right now is the question of how to fund it, right?

So tell me a little bit about like, the current line item requests that█s working its way through the legislature.

>> Snyder: Yeah, so -- was excited to see it in the executive budget a $1.5 million request -- for the Surface Water Quality Program and that combined with other -- funding that has been previously appropriated is going to carry the Environment Department through the next fiscal year.

The legislature has been consistent about the importance of this issue.

They've been funding, you know, looking into it and investigating how we could get this done.

For the past few legislative session.

So -- that 1.5 million did come over from the House -- from for HB 2.

And so that's awesome.

We just need to make sure that that stays in the budget.

And, that'll help get the Surface Water Quality program set up and do all of those things that I mentioned.

Mapping, databases, hiring, training, etc., etc.

>> Elizabeth: Hiring, training and running this program, like these are not insignificant numbers, right?

Like, the number of full-time employees required, I've heard characterized as like kind of shocking.

>> Snyder: Yeah, I mean, I think we█re talking about somewhere around 60 FTE█s [Full-Time Employees] to run the program, not all of those folks need to be new.

Some of those folks are already working at the Environment Department, and it's just repurposing their job a little bit.

But, you know, this is -- this is a big task that they're taking on.

Issuing these permits is important.

And we need to make sure that the Environment Department is resourced and staffed appropriately so that they can do it right.

In particular, you know, it would be a shame if we moved all of this permitting here in-house and then industry and the Permittees are not able to get the support that they need.

I think it's really important that we -- we support our permitted community like that.

>> Elizabeth: What kind of debate or like push back is -- is the bill facing, like is anyone raising opposition to it?

>> Snyder: You know, I think we saw a lot of -- we saw some pushback last year, with the setting up of the framework of the program.

And there is some details that, you know, we had to to work with industry on.

But I will say I really want to give a lot of kudos to the Environment Department for working really hard to hear all the voices.

So even before they brought the bill in 2025 legislative session, they set up the Surface Water Advisory Panel or the SWAP, and that brought together folks like me, who are, representing the environmental NGO community.

But also brought Pueblo to the table, brought some of the federal agencies to the table, brought those municipal folks who are thinking about drinking water for their communities and brought, some of their industry to the table so that we could talk about what are the needs, what does this need to look like, so it works for New Mexico?

So, I'm really hopeful the last step in the process is, to set up a rulemaking process.

And that'll get into the fine grained, nitty gritty details that are a little bit too, narrow to put in statute.

But I'm hopeful that all of that pre work is going to mean that we have a little bit of a smoother run in the kind of final steps.

>> Elizabeth: Great, great.

There is kind of a nuts and bolts question in play, what█s the sticking point at now -- right now?

>> Snyder: Yeah, so the legislature needs to decide do we want to keep the status quo, which is no permit fees?

And that would mean that the state is on the hook for paying that $8 million a year.

Or do we want to put that burden fully on dischargers and have permit fees cover the full cost of the program, or is there some kind of middle ground?

My organization, New Mexico Wild, and the partners that we work with, we believe that the best approach is a hybrid approach.

And in particular, we'd love to see something that recognizes the public good that wastewater treatment facilities provide.

and see reduced fees for those folks, especially for small communities.

I think, even relatively small fees could have a big impact.

But that's ultimately a decision for the legislature.

We've heard from some of the bill's sponsors.

You know, maybe we want to keep that -- this as the status quo, which is no fees.

And that's ultimately something that they're going to have to decide on how they want to approach that.

>> Elizabeth: So, a lot of discussing to get through in the next week.

>> Snyder: Yeah.

>> Elizabeth: Got it, and how does this program now square and like the ongoing federal landscape with, you know, definitions of where the Clean Water Act applies?

>> Snyder: Yeah, so I think what we're seeing with the federal rulemaking is just kind of an underscore of how important this state-led Surface Water Quality permitting program is, and you can kind of think of these rulemakings as solidifying in the Sackett decision.

So post Sackett, we could say we're pretty sure that up to 96% of our waterways are going to be -- no longer protected under the Clean Water Act.

But with these rules, it just like really solidifies that.

And we can say with a lot more certainty, New Mexico is largely unprotected.

There's also kind of some -- wonky back and forth about the way that definitions are working that don't quite work with Southwest hydrology.

And so I think it just further underscores the importance of having the folks that live here that know these waters, that know the hydrology, that know also the the industry and the needs of the discharges, they're the ones running the permitting program and, and leading this effort.

>> Nash: Thanks again to Elizabeth Miller and Tricia Snyder for that conversation.

For several years, the New Mexico Department of Agriculture has offered a grant program to help improve soil conditions across the state.

Aptly dubbed, the Healthy Soil Program, the grants are offered to farmers and ranchers, as well as anyone with an interest in caring for their land.

I spoke with program co-lead Katie Crayton, along with Tyler Zander, the Soil Health Coordinator for the Taos Soil and Water Conservation District, about the flagging conditions for dirt and earth in New Mexico, and how these grants are working to bring life, back to the surface.

>> Nash: Tyler, Katie, welcome to New Mexico in Focus, thanks for being here.

Before we dig more into the grant program, Katie, I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit more about the Healthy Soil program and how it came about it.

>> Crayton: Sure, first off, thanks so much for having us and for the interest in AMD's Healthy Soil program.

It came about in 2019, and that was thanks to the enactment of the Healthy Soil Act.

So the Healthy Soil Act, names five soil health principles.

And because they're kind of abstract, I brought along some props.

I brought some props to help try to make concrete the principles that are really at the heart of the Healthy Soil Act, because they, in turn, are at the heart of our program, the Healthy Soil program in America.

All right.

So the first principle of soil health, I brought that as an extra.

So, Tyler, that goes home with you is to keep the soil covered.

So the way I like to think of it is putting on a baseball cap.

It may look terrible, but that's okay.

I'm protected from the lights of the studio.

If a great gust of wind comes in it'll keep my hair more or less in place.

Let's say a great big rainfall comes.

My hair is not going to get as wet.

I'm also protected from temperature swings.

So if I step out into the parking lot, it's a little cool when I leave here, my head will still be kept pretty warm.

So that's soil health principle number one is to keep the soil covered, ideally with something living.

But mulch works as well.

>> Nash: Okay, so keep it covered.

>> Crayton: Keep it covered.

>> Nash: What else?

>> Crayton: So soil Health Principle number two is to minimize disturbance on cropland and to minimize external inputs.

I'm a simple person.

I just looked around my house for my props, but this is what I would point to as a way of showing disturbance.

So when I get home this evening, I'm going to clean my face with this little sponge.

I don't want to overdo it, because I'm going to irritate the surface of my skin and the microbes that live on my skin and really help protect me.

Now, I've got some stuff that I'll probably squirt and put on my skin later this evening, but that's an external input, so I really don't want to overdo it with this stuff either.

But in terms of soil health, we want to minimize tillage on farmland because that's really disruptive to the surface of the soil, maximizing biodiversity trail mix.

I know that if I eat different kinds of things, my body is going to benefit from those different things.

Same story for the soil.

The more different kinds of plants that are there on the land, the better the soil does different nutrients being imparted to the soil.

Principle number four maintaining a living root I brought a simple straw because that's essentially what roots do, is they act as straws to take in the rainfall and the wonderful snowfall we just had, and sock that down beneath the soil surface so that plants can access it later.

So maintaining a living root.

Last one, my favorite -- integrating animals.

I bring you a business card.

Why do I bring you a business card and not see a stuffed cow?

Well, because animals do for the land.

What people do in the workplace.

They're performing services for free they're cycling nutrients, they're depositing manure and urine.

And that acts as a fertilizer for seeds.

They're moving seeds around.

So that gentle disturbance of animals, when managed properly, is actually really good for the soil.

>> Nash: I can tell that you were a teacher at one point.

I feel like I'm learning a ton from -- all of your props on healthy soil.

One of the centerpieces of your program is your grant program.

>> Crayton: Yes.

Tyler, you are a grantee.

The Soil and Water Conservation District that you work for Taos, is a grantee, I think, three times now.

So, can we back up before you got your first grant or before the district did?

What attracted you to the grant program?

And why did -- why were you interested in getting a little extra support around this?

>> Zander: It's human nature to take things for granted.

You know, like if you're hungry, you go to the grocery store, that sort of thing.

And, you know, you don't necessarily think about something to grow that.

Where where was it grown?

Where did it come from?

And so it's kind of the same way with soil.

We kind of just walk on it and don't think too much about how it contributes to our, you know, immediate needs.

During the pandemic, when we were still doing social distancing stuff, we showed a movie about social health that was kind of, in vogue at the time.

I'm having difficulty remembering the name of it right now, it wasn't -- the second one was Common Ground.

You remember the first one?

Kiss the Ground.

Okay.

Yeah.

So we had a kind of like a drive-in, you know, socially distanced, like documentaries screening.

And we had a huge turnout.

You know, it again, it the idea of, you know, empty grocery store shelves makes people think about maybe I should be taking care of, you know, my food production, my, my care for you know, producing my own food.

And, you know, so we felt that there was like some, energy there, surrounding that.

And we wanted to like, you know, move away from just like being aware of something to actually doing something about it.

>> Nash: And you don't have to be a public entity like the one that Tyler works for to apply.

Right?

Qualifies for the grants.

>> Crayton: Yeah, so you key on something important.

We have two applicant types for our grants.

And the first is eligible entities.

So that's inclusive of our soil and water conservation districts.

But it's also inclusive of the state's tribal governments of the state's acequias, of the state█s land grants Cooperative Extension service, basically, how they're defined in law is local governmental entities with proven land management capacity to support healthy soil.

>> Nash: you have a map of the various grantees on your website And I noticed I mean, there's even individuals who own less than an acre of lan These are everyday people that can reach out to you as well.

>> Crayton: Correct, and they don't have to own the land.

They just have to have some sort of existing relationship to the land.

So let's say your grandmother is, you know, she's looking for someone else to step in and take over her role of managing the land.

That's an existing relationship the land for us as an applicant.

So you can own it.

You can lease it.

You can manage it on someone else's behalf.

You've got to have landowner permission.

But you're right.

We'll take projects measured in square feet, just so long as the the financial request associated with that grant is commensurate with the amount of land being treated ultimately.

>> Nash: And Tyler, your district received the grant in 2022, ‘23 and █24.

Reading through the project descriptions for those, it looks like those -- all three of those projects incorporated a practice called Cover Cropping, to some extent.

Can you describe what that is, and why it promotes healthy soil?

>> Zander: Mostly what we're looking for is to reestablish, desirable, plants.

On that, on that piece of ground and, and what we shoot for, which are -- is a mix of perennial plants, I guess that, you know, are there they survive from year to year.

There's less of a period where that bare soil is, which is kind of really going to suck the life and the health out of the soil if we have those conditions.

So we're just trying to -- introduce seeds to like, move ourselves in the direction of having permanent perennial groundcover so that it can be hade or grazed or, managed in a way that's the same -- >> Nash: And you're doing this for various landowners in the Taos area.

What's to keep them from doing this work on their own?

What are the barriers?

Do they need the expertise that you bring?

Do they need supplies?

Do they need funding?

Time, capacity?

Why do they need your support in doing that work?

>> Zander: I think all the above, so -- one of the things that we've noticed that's been successful is that, well, I guess success tends to breed more success.

You know, neighbors see what their neighbors are doing.

If that used to be, a bear field that was growing only weeds or just had prairie dogs running around it, and there was not much green to be seen at any time of the year.

People see, you know, pieces of land being resuscitated, being brought back to life and turning green.

A lot of the people that we work with have, you know, grew up in the area.

And they often tell me, like, this place used to be green when I grew up, like everywhere you looked, it was just lush.

And it was, you know, like the Garden of Eden.

And, you know, there's pictures to prove that, you know, and -- >> Nash: Can we get back there?

>> Zander: Yeah, exactly.

Again, you know, life kind of intervened.

Modern life did.

And like, those people got away from managing land so intensively, but but maybe as they retire or maybe with a renewed interest in local food production and that sort of thing, they come back to it and it's just -- we're in the kind of the triage, stage of things of bringing things back to life of getting things green again.

>> Nash: And we talked about the fact that individuals can apply for these grants as well.

So if I'm thinking about, somebody who has some land that's gone fallow or they need some, some expertise, some labor, some help with that, is there any support for them to figure out?

I mean, they may not have ever written a grant, some support for them.

Technical assistance to be able to access this kind of funding.

Does your department or your program offer that?

>> Crayton: One of the first steps we -- require of individuals that want to apply for a grants is they have to work with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

It's a mouthful, It's NRCS It's how we shorthand it around the office.

But NRCS actually comes out to your place for free, looks at your land and says, “hey, I don't know if you noticed, but there's some compaction over here.

I see erosion is an issue here” So they help you see the land that you see all the time, maybe in a different sort of way, help you identify what it is that you can actually remedy through the application of the soil health principles.

>> Nash: Have you been able to measure at all the overall impact of this grant program since it started?

Just, you know, just a few years back?

>> Crayton: So our applicant pool is bigger.

I mark that as a measure of success.

Dean, my co-lead, he's the technical wizard behind our program.

He will tell you the real success of our program is when you can sit down with a farmer or rancher and say, “okay, you did some of the tests.” the assessments in your field or in your pasture or before you did soil health principles and before your project, water was really slow to infiltrate or the compaction was really high.

And when you have compacted soils, it's hard for a plant to put its roots in.

But after your project, we can tell that water infiltrates more quickly.

It's being absorbed in that sponge so that when we encounter periods of drought, as we know we're going to in New Mexico, there's a resource there in the soil that existing plants can tap into.

And, you know, and your soil is less compacted.

So a root can -- a plant can actually take root within it.

So for us, that's the real success on an individual basis is seeing those physical changes within the soil towards something healthier.

>> Nash: Tyler, I do notice you have a few toys in front of you, as well.

I want to give you just a quick chance to talk about what those are used for.

What do you have?

>> Zander: This right here is called an infiltration ring.

And what this does, we pound this into the ground with the sharp edge.

>> Nash: Yeah, I appreciate that you brought some soil to the conversation.

>> Zander: Yeah, we did.

It's under my fingernails on everything we use.

And so, we pound this end of the ground, and we pour, a 16 ounce bottle of water in this.

And this mimics, essentially one inch of rainfall.

And we have a timer going and we register like, “okay, how long does it take for that soil -- or I'm sorry, how long does it take for the water to infiltrate into the soil?” In a fully functioning, green, lush pasture that's going to take like five seconds.

You know, it's again, when Katie talks about the soil ideally being a sponge.

That's how a sponge works, right?

If we put it into a sponge, it would just soak it right up.

And that's how we want soil to function in the most extreme cases, which I wouldn't have believed unless I was out there with the timer and watching it kind of slowly go into the soil.

It's taken over a half an hour for that inch of rain to penetrate the most sunbaked Adobe, lifeless, barren soil surface.

You know that that we regularly encounter out there.

And so, if this -- if the walls of this ring weren't there, obviously that entire rain would just run off the landscape, taking soil with it, eroding it, and just creating a vicious cycle that is really hard to get out of unless you really do something to address it.

>> Nash: Thank you both so much, for talking about what is healthy soil, but also about the resources that are available to folks who want to improve theirs.

Katie, Taylor, thank you.

>> Both: Thanks for having us.

My pleasure.

I appreciate it.

>> Nash: Thank you to Katie Crayton and Tyler Zander for their time and heads up.

Individuals have until February 20th to complete planning with the USDA ahead of applying for the grant.

Thanks again to everyone else who contributed to the show as well.

Join us here next week for some in-depth analysis of the legislature as it wraps up its work, for New Mexico PBS, I'm Nash Jones.

Until then, stay focused.

Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers Like You