>> FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS IS PROVIDED BY VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

>> Lou: THIS WEEK ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS, VOICES IGNORED.

ADVOCATES, COUNTY LEADERS AND PUEBLO MEMBERS FEEL UNHEARD AFTER THE FEDS APPROVED A POWER LINE THAT COULD CUT ACROSS THE CAJA DEL RIO.

>> Romero: WE'RE IN TROUBLE, NOT MOTHER EARTH.

YOU KNOW.

AND SHE CAN SHAKE US OFF LIKE A BUNCH OF FLEAS.

THAT'S HOW POWERFUL SHE IS.

>> Lou: AND A CONVERSATION WITH THE MAN WHO HELPED RESHAPE OUR STATE'S PRETRIAL DETENTION SYSTEM.

ARTIE PEPIN ANNOUNCES HIS RETIREMENT AFTER 18 YEARS AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS.

NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS STARTS NOW.

THANKS FOR JOINING US THIS WEEK, I'M SENIOR PRODUCER LOU DiVIZIO.

A NEAR TWO-DECADE RUN AS HEAD OF THE STATE'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS WILL SOON COME TO A CLOSE.

DIRECTOR ARTIE PEPIN WILL RETIRE ON OCTOBER 1st.

IT MIGHT BE A LESSER KNOWN ARM IN OUR STATE'S JUSTICE SYSTEM, BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE.

IN ABOUT 20 MINUTES, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER JEFF PROCTOR SITS DOWN WITH PEPIN TO HEAR WHY AND TO DISCUSS THE OUTGOING DIRECTOR'S TENURE WHICH INCLUDED OVERHAULING THE STATE'S PRETRIAL DETENTION SYSTEM.

BUT FIRST, THE TOPIC WE'LL FOCUS ON FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE SHOW, A FEDERAL ENERGY PROJECT THAT'S DRAWN PUBLIC UPROAR IN NORTHERN NEW MEXICO.

LAST WEEK THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE ANNOUNCED A PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE TO LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY WILL HAVE, QUOTE, NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES IN THE AREA.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYS THE 14-MILE 115-KILOVOLT POWER LINE IS VITAL TO NATIONAL SECURITY, PROVIDING A QUOTE, RELIABLE AND REDUNDANT, END QUOTE, POWER SUPPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE LAB'S MISSION, BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

BUT THE PROPOSED LINE WOULD CROSS THE RIO GRANDE AND THE CAJA DEL RIO.

AND FEARS OF A POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE GENERATED MASSIVE OPPOSITION.

THIS WEEK OUR LAND'S SENIOR PRODUCER LAURA PASKUS TALKS WITH SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CHALLENGING THE LAB'S PLANS TO BUILD THIS THIRD POWER LINE.

>> Laura: THERE ARE LOTS OF INTERWOVEN ISSUES WITH TODAY'S TOPIC AND A LONG, LONG HISTORY.

WE CAN'T GET INTO EVERYTHING TODAY, SO WE'RE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PLANS FOR NEW TRANSMISSION LINE TO LOS ALAMOS THAT WOULD CROSS AN AREA THAT'S IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE OF MANY CULTURES, MANY COMMUNITIES.

AS WELL AS TO WILDLIFE AND THE ECOSYSTEMS.

TODAY, WE'VE GOT SANTA FE COUNTY COMMISSIONER ANNA HANSEN, AND HISTORIAN HILARIO ROMERO.

THANK YOU AND WELCOME.

>> Hansen: THANK YOU.

>> Laura: HILARIO, I'D LIKE TO START WITH YOU.

VERY BRIEFLY, WE'RE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS TRANSMISSION LINE.

WHAT HARM WILL THIS TRANSMISSION LINE CAUSE TO THIS AREA?

>> Romero: WELL, FIRST OF ALL THEY HAVE TO CUT A ROAD.

SO ANY TIME YOU MOVE, YOU KNOW, YOU MOVE EARTH.

AND YOU MOVE EARTH IN A BIG WAY BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET HEAVY EQUIPMENT OUT THERE.

IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT.

AND THAT IS A WILDLIFE CORRIDOR.

AND SO WHAT'S THAT GOING TO DO?

THAT'S GOING TO DISTURB THE WILDLIFE THAT ARE USED TO ENTERING INTO THE CAJAS DEL LOS RIOS.

ANOTHER THING THAT HAPPENS IS THAT YOU HAVE ALL THIS NOISE, ALL THIS -- ALL THESE WORKERS GOING IN AND IT'S A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.

THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

AND THEN WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT HIGH-TENSION LINES.

WE KNOW THAT THERE IS SOME PROBLEM WITH HIGH-TENSION LINES AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

IT'S BEEN STUDIED FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS.

SO, THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE.

JUST THE FACT THAT YOU START BUILDING ROADS, THAT MEANS PEOPLE CAN GET IN.

AND I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH YOU RESTRICT THEM, IT STILL HAPPENS.

NOT ONLY THAT, IT'S LIKE OH, MAYBE WE CAN BUILD SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE.

LIKE MAYBE ANOTHER LABORATORY.

OR ANOTHER SPECIAL BUILDING, YOU KNOW, FOR WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT.

THERE'S SO MANY THINGS.

BUT THOSE ARE A FEW.

>> Laura: YEAH, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER, YOUR DISTRICT COVERS THIS PROPOSED PRODUCT AREA.

WHY ARE YOU AND YOUR CONSTITUENTS AGAINST IT?

>> Hansen: WELL, FOR SOME OF THE MANY REASONS THAT HILARIO MENTIONED, BUT THE FACT THAT IT IS A WILDLIFE CORRIDOR.

IT'S ALSO AN AREA BECAUSE OF THE ROADS THAT HAVE BEEN CARVED INTO THE CAJAS IS THAT WE HAVE WILDCAT SHOOTING OUT THERE.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MY CONSTITUENTS ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT BECAUSE WE HAVE BUILT TRAILS ALONG THE EL CAMINO REAL.

SO PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO RIDE ON THE TRAILS NOW, OR WALK, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SHOOTING AT THEM.

AND IT'S REALLY DANGEROUS.

MY CONSTITUENTS CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, WILDLIFE.

I AM A LONGTIME ENVIRONMENTALIST AND I BELIEVE THAT'S HOW I GOT ELECTED, AND SO THEY EXPECT ME TO STAND UP FOR THEM.

AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY I HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO BUILD RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE FEDERAL PARTNERS.

THE FOREST SERVICE.

IN ORDER TO DO THIS, THE FOREST IS GOING TO NEED TO HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR AMENDMENT TO THE FOURTH PLAN.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT MY CONSTITUENTS CARE ABOUT.

THEY CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE FOREST, BUT THE ENVIRONMENT IS SO PRISTINE AND BEAUTIFUL OUT THERE.

IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED.

I THINK THAT AN ELECTRICAL POWER LINE CAN BE USED ON EXISTING LINES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

AND THERE NEEDS TO BE LIKE RENEWABLE ENERGY.

THERE'S MANY WAYS THAT I BELIEVE LANL CAN GET THE POWER THAT THEY NEED, WITHOUT GOING ACROSS THE CAJAS.

>> Laura: RIGHT.

YEAH.

SO OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, THOUSANDS OF NEW MEXICANS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS.

THERE HAVE BEEN PUBLIC MEETINGS AS PART OF THE NEPA PROCESS.

AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY HAVE VOICED OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT, YET IT'S GOING AHEAD.

HILARIO, HAVE THE PEOPLE'S VOICES BEEN HEARD?

OR IS THIS TYPICAL OF HOW THE FEDERAL HANDLES?

>> Romero: THIS IS TYPICAL OF HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES THINGS.

I'VE BEEN TO SO MANY MEETINGS IN THE LAST 40 YEARS AND I'VE SAID MY PIECE.

AND IT JUST HAS NO EFFECT.

IT'S JUST A WAY FOR THEM TO SAY, WELL, WE DID GET THE COMMUNITY IN, WE DID LISTEN TO THEIR, YOU KNOW, TO THEIR PROTESTS, YOU KNOW, AGAINST THIS LINE.

YOU SEE, THE THING IS THAT, TO ME, WE HAVE A GANG OF AGENCIES.

FEDERAL AGENCIES.

THEY DON'T LIVE HERE.

MOST OF THEM DON'T LIVE HERE.

VERY FEW OF THEM LIVE HERE.

OR IF THEY LIVED HERE, THEY LIVED HERE A VERY SHORT TIME.

THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY, THE CULTURE, HARDLY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE.

THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND OUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE LAND EITHER.

NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TELL THEM.

AND SO, I CALL IT A GANG BECAUSE THEY ALL KIND OF ENDORSE EACH OTHER.

YOU KNOW, THEY'RE IN COOPERATION OR THEY'RE IN COORDINATION WITH EACH OTHER.

AND YOU SEE IT'S A LIST OF AGENCIES.

ALL VERY POWERFUL AGENCIES.

THE ONLY ONE THAT'S NOT SHOWN IN THERE IN THIS LETTER IS THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, BUT BELIEVE ME, THEY'RE BEHIND IT.

BEHIND THE SCENES, PUSHING AND PUSHING.

BECAUSE SOMEHOW THEY THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO MAKE US SAFE FOR THE FUTURE.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S MAKING US SAFE FOR THE FUTURE.

ESPECIALLY THE WAY THE POLITICAL SCENE, NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY, IS GOING.

WE'RE IN DANGER.

WE'RE CREATING MORE DANGER FOR OURSELVES.

THE OTHER THING IS THAT THOSE LINES -- IF THE LAB IS TRULY WHAT THEY CALL THEMSELVES IN THEIR PROPAGANDA, A WORLD-CLASS INSTITUTION, HOW COME THEY HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT HOW TO BRING ELECTRICITY WITHOUT EVEN HAVING POWER LINES?

IF THEY'RE SMART ENOUGH TO BUILD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, I THINK THEY'RE CAPABLE OF BEING ABLE TO GET ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IN THERE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT AND NOT HAVE TO BUILD ANY LINES.

AND THEY'VE NEVER DONE THAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T FOCUS ON THAT.

BACK IN THE '90s, WE PUSHED THEM.

WE PUSHED THEM TOWARD THAT.

IT WAS CALLED THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL LABS IN THE 20th CENTURY.

WE HAD A CONFERENCE.

THEY DIDN'T LISTEN THEN EITHER.

IT WAS JUST AN EXERCISE.

>> Laura: YEAH.

YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT.

SO, IN NEW MEXICO, AMONG THE STATE AGENCIES AND CERTAINLY AMONG THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE.

IS THIS TRANSMISSION LINE GOING TO BE BRINGING RENEWABLE ENERGY TO THE LAB?

OR THIS MORE FOSSIL FUELS?

>> Hansen: THIS POWER LINE IS FOR THE SO-CALLED SUPERCOMPUTER.

THERE ARE TWO SUPERCOMPUTERS IN THE UNITED STATES.

LOS ALAMOS IS ONE OF THEM.

AND PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THEY WANT TO ALSO TO DO PIT PRODUCTION, WHICH IS THE CORE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

AND THEY NEED TO -- THEY NEED ENERGY FOR THIS SUPERCOMPUTER.

THEY REALLY PROBABLY CAN'T DO BOTH WITH THE ENERGY THEY HAVE, AND SO THEY NEED ADDITIONAL ENERGY.

YOU KNOW, I HAVE MET WITH UNDER SECRETARY JILL HRUBY IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

I INVITED HER TO THE FIRST TOWN HALL THAT SHE DID WITH ME.

AND THEY TALK LIKE THEY UNDERSTAND AND ARE LISTENING, BUT THEN WHEN IT COMES TO THIS FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, WHEN IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE IS AN IMPACT, YOU KNOW?

AND WE REALLY, ALL OF US, WANT AN EIS, AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT NEPA, NATIONAL POLLUTION ACTION -- >> Laura: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.

>> Hansen: YEAH, WE ALL TALK IN ALPHABET SOUP.

IT'S SO IMPORTANT.

BUT IF WE CAN HAVE AN EIS, YOU KNOW, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DONE, THEN IT WILL SHOW THE DAMAGE THAT THIS IS REALLY CAUSING.

AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WHEN 23,000 PEOPLE WROTE LETTERS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS.

PLUS, I KNOW YOU'LL BE INTERVIEWING FORMER GOVERNOR MITCHELL, AND TESUQUE PUEBLO AND THE MANY OF THE OTHER PUEBLOS ARE REALLY OPPOSED TO THIS TRANSMISSION LINE.

AND I HAVE HAD THE HONOR OF BEING ABLE TO WORK WITH THEM FOR YEARS ON MANY DIFFERENT ISSUES.

AND THEY ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THIS SHOOTING THAT'S HAPPENING OUT ON THE CAJA BECAUSE IT'S THEIR SACRED LAND.

>> Laura: YEAH.

SO, HILARIO, AS A HISTORIAN, I KNOW YOU HAVE STUDIED LOS ALAMOS, THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT, LIKE YOU ARE A SCHOLAR OF ALL OF THESE ISSUES.

I KNOW IT'S TOO MUCH TO PACK INTO THE TIME WE HAVE, BUT WHAT IS SORT OF THE LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LAB AND BETWEEN TRADITIONAL COMMUNITIES WHO LIVED IN THOSE LANDSCAPES BEFORE THEY WERE TAKEN OVER BY THE LAB?

ARE YOU LISTENED TO?

DO YOU HAVE INPUT?

>> Romero: WELL, YOU START WITH THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING ON LAS CAJAS DE LOS RIOS.

THEY DIDN'T CALL IT THAT.

THEY HAD THEIR OWN NAMES FOR IT.

AND I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SURROUNDING PUEBLOS OF TESUQUE, SAN ILDEFONSO, SANTA CLARA AND COCHITI.

THEY WERE ALL INITIALLY IMPACTED IN A GREAT WAY.

NOT A GREAT WAY, A BAD WAY.

BY, FIRST OF ALL, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKING PIECES OF THEIR LAND AND PLOTTING DOWN THE LAB IN THE FIRST PLACE ON THEIR SACRED LANDS.

THAT'S THE FIRST AND FOREMOST THING.

AND FROM THERE, THE SPANISH WHO ARRIVED, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T A GREAT RELATIONSHIP AT FIRST.

IT WAS WAR AND IT WAS NOT GOOD, BUT LITTLE BY LITTLE THERE WAS A COALESCENCE.

THERE WAS A MIXING OF PEOPLES.

I'M ONE OF THEM.

I'M NATIVE AMERICAN AS WELL AS SPANISH AND MEXICAN.

AND THAT MIXTURE, YOU KNOW, REALLY SHOWS TODAY THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN LOS CAJAS DE LOS RIOS WITHIN THE AREA, MOST OF THEM ARE FARMERS AND RANCHERS.

THEY UTILIZE SOME OF THE RESOURCES OF LAS CAJAS DE LOS RIOS.

AND THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR CENTURIES.

AT LEAST 500 YEARS.

AND THEN THE IMPACT OF THOSE THAT WENT TO THE OPEN LANDS, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OPENED SOME LANDS.

PART OF IT WAS ON FOREST LAND.

SO THE FOREST -- NATIONAL FOREST CAME IN AND BASICALLY TOOK THE LAND GRANTS.

CAJA DEL RIO LAND GRANT.

THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL THAT ON ONE SIDE, WHICH IS THE LA MAJADA MESA, AND THEN THE OTHER LAND GRANT WHICH IS THE LA MAJADA LAND GRANT AND THEN OF COURSE ALL THESE SMALLER LAND GRANTS WITHIN LA CIENEGA AND LA CIENEGUILLA.

AND ALL OF THAT IS PART, YOU KNOW, OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS LIVE IN A CLEAN AREA WITH CLEAN AIR AND EVERYTHING.

AND HERE WE HAVE A LAB THAT REALLY HAS THE OPPOSITE IDEA OF WHAT TO DO THERE.

YOU KNOW, WHICH IS BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

>> Laura: RIGHT.

SO, WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PUBLIC PROCESS, WHICH IS THE FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE TO DO THIS UNDER THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.

PEOPLE PARTICIPATE, BUT THEN THEIR VOICES, THEIR COMMENTS, THEIR ANALYSIS AREN'T INCORPORATED.

SHOULD PEOPLE STILL PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC PROCESSES LIKE THESE?

>> Hansen: ABSOLUTELY.

I MEAN OUR VOICES MUST CONTINUE TO BE HEARD.

AND YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHY AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL I CONTINUE TO MEET AND WORK WITH, YOU KNOW, D.O.E., ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ON CLEANUP.

BECAUSE CLEANUP OF LOS ALAMOS IS ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES THAT MUST BE DEALT WITH.

SO THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO EXPAND, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO CLEAN UP THEIR MESS.

AND THEY MUST CLEAN UP THEIR MESS.

AND WE HAVE MADE PROGRESS.

IT'S SLOW, BUT WE HAVE A NEW CONSENT ORDER THAT THE GOVERNOR JUST RELEASED A FEW WEEKS AGO ON CLEANUP.

THAT'S HAPPENED BECAUSE OF PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION.

BECAUSE THEY CONTINUE TO STAND UP AND SAY, NO, THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

AND BECAUSE THEY ELECT LEADERS, LIKE MYSELF, WHO CARE ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND UNDERSTAND IT.

I HAVE WORKED ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE PAST 40, 50 YEARS SINCE I FIRST CAME HERE.

SO, I'M WELL-AWARE OF AND EDUCATED.

SO I CAN SPEAK THEIR LANGUAGE, AND I CAN COMMUNICATE WITH THEM.

AND I THINK IT'S BEEN A BENEFIT TO MY CONSTITUENTS TO HAVE THAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP.

I AM VERY TRUTHFUL WITH THEM.

I HAVE TOLD THEM CONTINUALLY THAT NOBODY WANTS THIS POWER LINE.

AND THERE ARE PROJECTS LIKE RECONDUCTORING THAT SENATOR HEINRICH IS SUPPORTING THAT CAN HAPPEN, BUT THEY'RE NOT QUITE THERE YET.

THEY HAVEN'T DEVELOPED IT FAR ENOUGH FOR THIS RECONDUCTORING TO BE HAPPENING.

BUT THEN AT THE SAME TIME THEY NEED TO FIND OTHER SOURCES OF POWER, WHICH I BELIEVE THEY CAN.

AND I THINK WE AS THE CONSTITUENTS NEED TO CONTINUE TO PUSH AND CONTINUE TO VOICE OUR CONCERNS.

BECAUSE IF WE DON'T, THEY'LL REALLY ROLL OVER US.

>> Laura: RIGHT.

SO I KNOW YOU'RE A HISTORIAN AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SORT OF ALL THE PROBLEMS, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR VISION FOR THAT REGION IF WE WEREN'T SO FOCUSED AS A SOCIETY ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, INCREASED ELECTRICAL NEEDS.

WHAT COULD THAT BE?

WHAT COULD THAT WORLD BE?

>> Romero: RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

YOU KNOW, WE STILL HAVE CONTAMINATED WORKERS.

YOU KNOW, IN TEN DIFFERENT CENTERS.

I CALL THEM CENTERS.

THEY CALL THEM LABS.

WHERE THEY HAVE POISONED AND CONTAMINATED THAT THEY'LL ADMIT TO 137,000 WORKERS, BUT REALLY THAT'S JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

THE FUTURE IS MORE CONTAMINATED WORKERS.

SO, MY VISION IS LESS CONTAMINATED WORKERS.

AND HOW DO YOU DO THAT?

YOU DON'T DO THAT BY GIVING THEM A BADGE AND THEY WALK INTO A CONTAMINATED AREA AND IT GOES OFF SO THAT YOU CAN SAY YOU'VE BEEN CONTAMINATED.

THAT'S NOT PREVENTATIVE.

THAT OSHA REQUIREMENTS GET FOLLOWED, YOU KNOW, SO THAT THE WORKERS, THE FUTURE WORKERS -- BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO DO THE PROJECT ANYWAY.

THE PLUTONIUM PITS PROJECT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

SO, HOW ABOUT DOING IT IN A DIFFERENT MANNER?

BECAUSE FOR 82 YEARS YOU'VE BEEN CONTAMINATING WORKERS.

AND NOT ONLY WITH RADIONUCLIDES BUT WITH EVERY OTHER KIND OF CHEMICAL YOU CAN THINK OF THAT HARMS HUMAN BEINGS.

SO, MORE PROTECTIONS FOR THE WORKERS, AND I MEAN A LOT PROTECTIONS.

AND SHE'S -- OUR COMMISSIONER ALREADY MENTIONED CLEANUP.

THAT'S ANOTHER THING.

IN TERMS OF FUTURE, YOU KNOW, THEY NEED TO BE DOING MORE WORK THAT SOLVES HUMAN PROBLEMS.

THAT'S, TO ME, THE HUMAN CONDITION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALL ALIVE ON THIS PLANET.

AND YOU KNOW, THE ONLY THING CAN REALLY DESTROY US, AS BUCKMINSTER FULLER SAID, I DON'T KNOW OVER 50 YEARS AGO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN TROUBLE NOT MOTHER EARTH.

AND SHE CAN SHAKE US OFF LIKE A BUNCH OF FLEAS.

THAT'S HOW POWERFUL SHE IS.

AND SHE'S BEEN HERE FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS.

SITE IN THE UNITED STATES AND PROBABLY AROUND THE WORLD IS CONTAMINATED WHEREVER THERE HAS BEEN ANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS WORK.

AND IT IS, I THINK, REALLY IMPERATIVE UPON LANL, D.O.E., ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, NNSA, TO BE RESPONSIBLE ALSO TO CLEAN UP THEIR MESS.

I ALSO SIT ON THE BUCKMAN DIRECT DIVERSION BOARD, WHICH IS OUR WATER SYSTEM WITCH IS SITUATED, UNFORTUNATELY, BELOW LANL ON THE RIO GRANDE.

AND YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT MY CONSTITUENTS HAVE CLEAN WATER IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO ME.

AND THERE IS CONTAMINATION AND PLUTONIUM IN THE RIO GRANDE, AND WE'VE KNOWN THAT FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT NEW.

IT'S JUST THERE'S MORE OF IT.

AND WE REALLY NEED, ALONG WITH SAFER PROTECTIONS FOR ALL THE WORKERS, WE NEED OUR LAND CLEANED UP.

YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST RESPECTFUL TO CLEAN UP YOUR MESS WHEN YOU MAKE A MESS.

>> Laura: ABSOLUTELY.

WE COULD TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE FOR ANOTHER HOUR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WALKING US THROUGH THE PROCESS, FOR SHARING YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND YOUR STUDIES.

I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU.

>> Hansen: THANK YOU.

>> Romero: THANK YOU.

>> Mitchell: THE ANALOGY I USE IS IF YOUR RELIGION IS SAY, CATHOLIC, AND THE STATE OR THE FEDS SAY, YOU CAN'T ENTER INTO THIS CHURCH NO MORE.

LET US KNOW WHEN YOU'RE COMING.

I'M PRETTY SURE PEOPLE WILL BE UP IN ARMS FOR THAT.

BUT BECAUSE IT'S THE LANDSCAPE, AND BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ARE TIED INTO THE LAND, I BELIEVE IT'S PART OF THE ISSUE.

>> Lou: WE'LL REJOIN LAURA IN JUST OVER 15 MINUTES.

FOR YEARS IN NEW MEXICO, IF YOU WERE AWAITING TRIAL ON CRIMINAL CHARGES AND COULDN'T COME UP WITH A THOUSAND OR EVEN A FEW HUNDRED BUCKS YOU WERE STUCK BEHIND BARS FOR MONTHS ON END.

THAT ALL CHANGED IN 2016 WHEN VOTERS APPROVED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ALLOWING JUDGES TO RELEASE LOW-RISK DEFENDANTS BEFORE TRIAL.

THAT SAME AMENDMENT ALLOWS JUDGES TO KEEP PEOPLE LOCKED UP UNTIL A JURY HEARS THEIR CASE, AS LONG AS PROSECUTORS CAN PROVE THAT THEY'RE DANGEROUS.

ARTIE PEPIN, THE OUTGOING DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN MAKING THAT CHANGE.

PEPIN RECENTLY STOPPED BY OUR STUDIO TO CHAT WITH EXECUTIVE PRODUCER JEFF PROCTOR, JUST WEEKS BEFORE HE'S SET TO RETIRE IN OCTOBER.

NOW, DURING THEIR DISCUSSION PEPIN REFLECTS ON HIS WORK AROUND BAIL REFORM AND ADDRESSES THE BLAME OUR STATE'S JUDGES HAVE RECEIVED FOR NEW MEXICO'S HIGH CRIME RATES.

>> Jeff: ARTIE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE AND WELCOME TO NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS.

>> Pepin: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME.

GLAD TO BE HERE.

>> Jeff: I REMEMBER HEARING THE TITLE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS WHEN I WAS A BRAND-NEW JOURNALIST A COUPLE OF 20 YEARS AGO, OR SO, AND EVEN FOR A REPORTER WHO WAS SUPER INTERESTED IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, THAT NAME OF THAT OFFICE MADE ME FEEL A LITTLE DEAD INSIDE AND KIND OF NUMB.

SO, LET'S START HERE, ARTIE, WHAT IS THE OFFICE THAT YOU HAVE RUN FOR THE LAST 18 YEARS, AND WHAT DOES IT DO?

>> Pepin: THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE ARM OF THE SUPREME COURT.

THE SUPREME COURT'S CHARGED WITH RUNNING THE WHOLE JUDICIARY.

2,000 OR SO JUDGES AND EMPLOYEES.

IT'S KIND OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNOR HAS WHATEVER SHE'S GOT, 25 CABINET AGENCIES.

WE'RE THE CABINET AGENCY FOR THE STATE SUPREME COURT.

SO, THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS THAT GO ON BESIDES JUDGES JUDGING CASES.

THEY NEED BUILDINGS TO DO THEM IN, THEY NEED PERSONNEL TO SUPPORT THEM.

ALL KINDS OF THINGS.

BUDGET, HR, ALL THOSE THINGS.

THAT'S WHAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OVERSEES.

OBVIOUSLY, THINGS LIKE HUMAN RESOURCES ARE ADMINISTERED LOCALLY IN THE COURTS.

THE AOC SETS THE RULES, THE AOC ASSISTS THEM, PROVIDES TRAINING.

WE TRAIN ALL THE JUDGES AND ALL THE STAFF.

ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS THAT YOU WOULD THINK AN AGENCY WOULD DO.

WE'RE THE AGENCY FOR THE SUPREME COURT.

>> Jeff: GOTCHA.

YOU JUST MENTIONED THE ACRONYM, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT ME, THAT WHEN SOMEONE SAYS AOC I DO NOT IMMEDIATELY THINK OF A CERTAIN CONGRESSWOMAN FROM NEW YORK.

BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR JOB, THE JOB YOU'VE HAD FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS.

WHAT DOES THE DIRECTOR DO AT AOC?

>> Pepin: SO THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, THE AOC, OVERSEES ALL OF THAT.

YOUR FIRST RESPONSIBILITY IS TO LISTEN AND BE GUIDED BY THE DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.

MOST SPECIFICALLY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

YOU INTERACT A LOT WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE ABOUT ALL THOSE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO AFFECT THE COURTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE ON A DAILY BASIS, AND THEN MORE LONG-TERM POLICY BASES, BUDGETS WE'RE TRYING TO SUBMIT TO THE LEGISLATURE, ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

ON ANY GIVEN DAY, THE AOC DIRECTOR MAY BE INVOLVED IN A SERIOUS PERSONNEL MATTER, MAYBE TALKING WITH LEGISLATORS ABOUT A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT WE SUPPORT.

TALKING WITH PERA ABOUT A PROPOSAL WE MIGHT WANT TO DO TO TRY TO SHORE UP THE SOLVENCY OF THE JUDICIAL RETIREMENT FUND.

ANYTHING.

OR DEALING WITH AN ISSUE THAT'S COME TO THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION THAT'S CONTROVERSIAL THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE COURTS TO THE DEGREE WE CAN ADDRESS IT.

OF COURSE, MOST OF THE TIME CASES IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE, THE JUDGE ISN'T ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT BY ETHICAL RULES.

WELL THAT FALLS TO SOMEONE LIKE THE AOC DIRECTOR TO SAY HERE'S WHAT WE CAN SAY, AND HERE'S WHAT WILL HAPPEN GOING FORWARD.

HERE'S AS MUCH INFORMATION AS I CAN PROVIDE TO THE PUBLIC.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW MOST OF WHAT I CAN TELL YOU.

SOME THINGS ARE CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL THEY'RE NOT.

AND WE MAKE THAT CLEAR TOO.

SO, ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT THE JUDGE DOES IN COURT, PROCESS A CASE, DECIDE WHO GETS CUSTODY OF A CHILD, OR IF SOMEONE IS GUILTY OF A CRIME, THOSE ARE THINGS JUDGES DO.

WE DO EVERYTHING THAT SUPPORTS THE ABILITY TO DO THOSE THINGS.

>> Jeff: GOTCHA.

I WANT TO GET TO A COUPLE OF THOSE ISSUES OF PUBLIC IMPORT OR CONTROVERSY AS YOU SAID.

LET'S START WITH BAIL REFORM.

AND I WANT TO TAKE THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE SORT OF CHRONOLOGICALLY.

LET'S GO BACK TO SAY, 2015, WHAT WAS THE STATE OF THE PRETRIAL RELEASE SYSTEM IN NEW MEXICO IN THAT YEAR?

>> Pepin: AS IN ALMOST EVERYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY, PERHAPS EVERYWHERE IN 2015, WHEN YOU GOT ARRESTED FOR A CRIME THERE WAS A BAIL SCHEDULE.

THE BAIL SCHEDULE SAID IF YOU GET ARRESTED FOR THIS CRIME, YOU'RE CHARGED WITH ROBBING THE 7-11.

ARMED ROBBERY OF A 7-11 MIGHT BE A $10,000 BAIL BOND.

IF YOU COME UP WITH $10,000 YOU CAN GET RELEASED.

EVERY CRIME, THAT'S A SERIOUS ONE, BUT EVERY CRIME FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM, WHATEVER YOU THINK IS MOST SERIOUS TO LEAST SERIOUS, WOULD HAVE A NUMBER ATTACHED TO IT.

A DOLLAR FIGURE.

AND IF YOU COME UP WITH THE MONEY THAT'S FINE.

IF A THOUSAND DOLLARS WAS A BALL YOU GO TO THE BAIL BONDSMAN AND IF YOU PAID $100 THEY POST A THOUSAND DOLLARS AND YOU GET OUT.

IF YOU DIDN'T SHOW UP TO COURT, YOU OWED THE BAIL BONDSMAN THE THOUSAND DOLLARS BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE COURT THE THOUSAND DOLLARS, SOMETIMES.

I WON'T GO INTO THE DETAILS OF THE LAW.

BUT THAT'S THE WAY YOU GOT RELEASED WHEN YOU GOT ARRESTED FOR A CRIME.

YOU GOT -- YOU POSTED A BOND AND YOU GOT RELEASED.

AND THAT WAS TRUE EVERYWHERE.

IT STILL IS TRUE IN THE MAJORITY OF STATES IN THIS COUNTRY.

IF YOU GET ARRESTED FOR A CRIME AND YOU HAVE $500 IN YOUR POCKET YOU PROBABLY WALK OUT THE DOOR.

IF YOU DON'T HAPPEN TO HAVE $500, YOU'LL STAY IN THERE NO MATTER WHAT.

THEY COULD HAVE ARRESTED THE WRONG PERSON.

YOU COULD BE GUILTY AS ANYTHING.

NONE OF THOSE THINGS MATTER MUCH TO WHETHER YOU GET RELEASED OR NOT.

WHAT MATTERS IS HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR POCKET.

>> Jeff: THE LATE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT CHARLES DANIELS USED TO CALL IT THE MONEY FOR FREEDOM SYSTEM.

ARTIE, BRIEFLY, WHAT WERE SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES TO PEOPLE WHO GOT INCARCERATED OF THAT SYSTEM?

>> Pepin: THE BEST DATA WE HAVE IS ON FOLKS IN BERNALILLO COUNTY.

WE HAD THE BEST DATA IN BERNALILLO COUNTY, BUT IT'S TRUE ALL OVER THE STATE.

IN BERNALILLO COUNTY, 60% OF THE PEOPLE IN YOUR DETENTION CENTER WERE THERE BECAUSE THEY HADN'T POSTED A BAIL BOND.

AND MOST OF THOSE BONDS WERE UNDER A THOUSAND DOLLARS.

SO, YOU NEEDED A THOUSAND DOLLARS OR LESS TO GET OUT, BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE $100 OR $400 OR $500.

AND YOU WOULD STAY IN JAIL UNTIL YOUR CASE GOT RESOLVED.

SO IF IT TOOK THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM SIX MONTHS TO RESOLVE OUR CASE, SIX MONTHS YOU SPENT IN JAIL.

A YEAR, COULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER.

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO TALK LATER ABOUT SOME OF THE REFORMS WE DID ABOUT THAT.

WHETHER YOU STAYED IN JAIL OR NOT DIDN'T ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER YOU'RE A DANGEROUS PERSON, YOU'RE LIKELY TO BE A THREAT TO THE COMMUNITY OR TO A VICTIM.

IT HAD TO DO WITH WHETHER YOU HAD THE MONEY TO GET OUT.

AND THAT'S UNJUST, AND IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

AND THAT'S WHY JUSTICE DANIELS GOT TO WORK TO REFORM THE SYSTEM.

AND HE WAS SPECTACULARLY SUCCESSFUL, IN MY OPINION.

>> Jeff: A LITTLE THING CALLED THE INNOCENCE PRESUMPTION, BUT THAT WOULD BE A WHOLE OTHER 20 MINUTES WE COULD TALK.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE REFORMS THAT CAME DOWN IN 2016.

WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE AND WHAT WAS YOUR ROLE IN CHANGING THEM?

>> Pepin: SO, CHIEF JUSTICE DANIELS WROTE AN OPINION ABOUT THE BAIL SYSTEM, THE MONEY SYSTEM.

AND POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD ALWAYS BEEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT WE HAD GOTTEN INTO THE SAME PRACTICE AS EVERY PLACE IN THE COUNTRY DOING MONEY.

SO, HE CONVINCED SENATOR PETER WIRTH, THE MAJORITY LEADER IN THE SENATE, TO SPONSOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO MAKE IT CLEAR -- TWO THINGS CLEAR.

ONE, THAT JUDGES WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO KEEP SOMEONE IN JAIL PRETRIAL BEFORE THEY'RE CONVICTED, WHEN THEY'RE PRESUMED INNOCENT, IF THEY'RE TOO DANGEROUS TO BE RELEASED.

COLLOQUIALLY.

THERE'S SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS.

AND OTHERWISE, IN THE GREAT MAJORITY OF CASES, PEOPLE SHOULD BE RELEASED AND THEIR RELEASE SHOULDN'T DEPEND ON WHETHER THEY HAD MONEY OR NOT.

WHETHER THEY'RE RICH OR POOR.

IT SHOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY POSED A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND IN BETWEEN THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HOLD SOMEONE IN JAIL, BECAUSE THEY'RE ONE OF THOSE TOO DANGEROUS PEOPLE, THEN WHAT CONDITIONS DO WE WANT TO SET ON THOSE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY'RE GOING TO RETURN TO COURT, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET ARRESTED FOR A NEW CRIME BEFORE THEY GET THIS CASE RESOLVED.

>> Jeff: THIS HAS OBVIOUSLY CONTINUED TO BE A HOT-BUTTON ISSUE.

THERE ARE LOTS OF PROSECUTORS AND COPS AND KEYBOARD WARRIORS OUT THERE WHO BLAME BAIL REFORM FOR, YOU KNOW, VERY, VERY SORT OF DIFFICULT-TO-SOLVE HIGH CRIME RATES IN THIS STATE.

WHAT DO THE DATA SHOW IN TERMS OF THE WAY THE PRETRIAL RELEASE SYSTEM WORKS NOW, AND HOW IT RELATES TO CRIME?

>> Pepin: THE DATA, WE'VE STUDIED THE DATA VERY CAREFULLY BECAUSE WE BELIEVE WE SHOULD MAKE DATABASE DECISIONS AND SET POLICY BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE SHOWS WORKS.

GET RID OF THOSE THINGS EVIDENCE SHOWS DON'T WORK.

AND THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT MOST PEOPLE RELEASED UNDER CONDITIONS RETURN TO COURT AND DON'T GET ARRESTED FOR A NEW CRIME.

EVEN THOSE CHARGED WITH VERY SERIOUS CRIMES.

IN FACT, THE PEOPLE CHARGED WITH THE MOST CONCERNING KINDS OF CRIMES THAT GET RELEASED, SOME OF THEM GET DETAINED, BUT OF THE ONES THAT GET RELEASED, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A BETTER APPEARANCE RATE AND A LOWER ARREST RATE THAN THE AVERAGE PEOPLE WHO GET RELEASED.

THERE ARE REASONS FOR THAT.

BUT THAT'S NOT -- WE DON'T JUST SAY THAT.

WE DON'T JUST COME OUT AND SAY WELL, LOOK, WE LOOKED AT IT SO IT'S WORKING FINE.

WE TAKE ALL THE DATA, IN THIS CASE 20,000 CASES OR SO SINCE 2017 IN ALBUQUERQUE.

WE GIVE THEM TO RESEARCHERS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, THE INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL RESEARCH, AND WE SAY, WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT THIS DATA AND TELL US HOW MANY PEOPLE GET ARRESTED WHILE ON RELEASE, HOW MANY PEOPLE FAIL TO APPEAR IN COURT.

AND THEN, WORKING DOWN INTO THE MORE GRANULAR LEVEL OF THOSE THAT GET ARRESTED, WHAT DO THEY GET ARRESTED FOR.

IS IT SOMETHING THAT FRIGHTENS US?

ARE WE RELEASING PEOPLE WHO GET ARRESTED FOR SERIOUS, VIOLENT OFFENSES?

OR ARE THOSE GETTING ARRESTED GETTING ARRESTED FOR FOURTH DEGREE FELONIES OR MISDEMEANORS OR PETTY MISDEMEANORS?

THINGS THAT ARE CRIMES AND SHOULD HAVE A CONSEQUENCE OF COURSE, BUT AREN'T THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WE SAY, OH, MAN, THAT WAS REALLY A MISTAKE TO LET THAT PERSON OUT.

AND THE DATA SHOWS THAT VERY, VERY FEW OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT GET RELEASED GET ARRESTED FOR THE KIND OF SERIOUS VIOLENT CRIME THAT CONCERNS US.

AS FOR THE CRIME RATE, THAT DEPENDS ON POLICE DATA AND FBI REPORTING.

THE CRIME RATE WENT UP SIGNIFICANTLY DURING THE PANDEMIC.

IT'S COME DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE THE PANDEMIC ENDED IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, OR SO.

AND THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY DATA TO SHOW THAT PRETRIAL RELEASE HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE CRIME RATE.

AND I UNDERSTAND, PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT TURNSTILE JUSTICE.

THE SUPREME COURT MADE SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THIS YEAR TO TRY TO ADDRESS THOSE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT PEOPLE GET RELEASED WHO MAYBE -- WHO GET ARRESTED FOR A NEW CRIME, WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT.

I CAN TALK ABOUT THOSE, BUT THE COURT HAS MADE THREE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CHANGES SINCE THE IMPLEMENTATION IN 2017 TO ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE KINDS OF ISSUES YOU ASK ABOUT.

>> Jeff: THAT DATA IS GOING TO BE INCONVENIENT FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE TO HEAR, AND HAS BEEN.

I WANT TO SPEND JUST A MOMENT ON ONE OTHER CHANGE THAT KIND OF CAME DOWN DURING YOUR TIME AT AOC.

IT'S A THING THAT NERDS LIKE ME WILL REMEMBER AS LR-2-400, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER.

BRIEFLY, WHAT WAS THAT AND WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM IT WAS AIMED AT FIXING?

>> Pepin: THE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, I'LL CALL IT CMO BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN CALLING FOR IT FOR MANY YEARS, WAS A PRODUCT OF A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN ALBUQUERQUE WITH JAIL OVERCROWDING.

YOU HAD 3,000 OR MORE PEOPLE SENT TO THE METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER, MDC.

WELL THE JAIL CAPACITY IS ABOUT 1800 OR 2200 IF YOU INCLUDE HOSPITAL WING.

ANYWAY, SAY IT'S 1800.

3,000 IS TOO MANY.

THE COUNTY WAS SENDING PEOPLE TO TEXAS TO KEEP THEM IN JAIL, TO OTHER COUNTIES TO KEEP THEM IN JAIL.

REMEMBERING, 60% OF THEM WERE PRETRIAL DETAINEES WHO COULDN'T PAY A BOND.

IT WAS COSTING THE COUNTY OVER A MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH JUST TO HOUSE THE PEOPLE THAT WERE SENT TO THE JAIL.

AND CLEARLY THAT SHOULDN'T BE.

THE SUPREME COURT, WELL, THE LEGISLATURE CREATED SOMETHING CALLED THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION IN ALBUQUERQUE.

FOR REASONS THAT MYSTIFY ME, THEY PUT ME IN CHARGE OF IT.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE REALIZED IN THE COMMISSION WAS WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT WHY THE JAIL POPULATION IS SO BIG.

THEY HAD A JAIL, THEY BUILT A BRAND NEW ONE AND IT'S WAY OVER CAPACITY.

>> Jeff: OVERCROWDED THE DAY IT OPENED.

>> Pepin: EXACTLY.

AND MORE OVERCROWDED AS WE WENT ALONG.

ABOUT 2015 OR SO, WE BEGAN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY THAT WAS.

AND ENGAGED IN A WHOLE LOT OF -- A LOT OF IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COURT.

TO TRY TO BE AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE, A CRIMINAL CASE COMES IN, IT GETS ASSIGNED TO A JUDGE, AND THAT JUDGE IS GOING TO BE WITH THAT CASE UNTIL THAT CASE GOES TO TRIAL OR THEY PLEAD GUILTY OR IT GETS RESOLVED.

WELL, SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE IN THAT CASE SOMEBODY BRINGS A MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE.

JUDGE SCHEDULES IT ON HIS NEXT AVAILABLE DATE, OR HER NEXT AVAILABLE DATE, TWO MONTHS OUT.

THAT DATE COMES THE PROSECUTOR IS BUSY IN ANOTHER TRIAL THAT GOT RESCHEDULED OR SOMETHING, CAN'T HAVE THAT HEARING.

OKAY, WHEN'S MY NEXT AVAILABLE DATE?

JUDGE SAYS, ALL RIGHT, TWO MORE MONTHS, THREE MORE MONTHS.

WHATEVER, WE'LL DO IT THREE MORE MONTHS FROM NOW.

THIS GOES ON AND ON UNTIL YOU'VE GOT 4,000 CASES THAT HAVE BEEN PENDING FOR OVER TWO YEARS.

MANY, WELL OVER TWO YEARS.

OF WHICH, MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE SITTING IN JAIL THAT WHOLE TIME.

SO, WE RECOMMENDED TO THE SUPREME COURT THAT THEY IMPOSE A SPECIAL LOCAL RULE, THE CMO, THAT DID A LOT OF THINGS.

BUT ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS IT DID WAS IT REQUIRED THE COURT TO DETERMINE AT THE BEGINNING WHAT THE TRIAL DATE WOULD BE.

THEY LIMITED THE TRIAL DATE, NINE MONTHS, TWELVE MONTHS, FIFTEEN MONTHS OUT.

NOBODY MORE THAN FIFTEEN MONTHS OUT.

THE MAJORITY NINE MONTHS OUT.

AND WORK BACKWARDS FROM THERE.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING ON THE EVIDENCE ON THIS DAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR LAST HEARING BEFORE TRIAL ON THIS DATE.

THE LAST PLEA HEARING DEADLINE IS GOING TO BE TWO WEEKS BEFORE TRIAL.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO COME IN ON THE DAY A JURY A SITTING IN THE BOX AND WE DECIDE TO RESOLVE THE CASE.

AND IF THAT JUDGE ISN'T AVAILABLE WHO IS ASSIGNED THE CASE, WELL, WE'VE GOT A JUDGE SOMEWHERE IN THIS COURTHOUSE WHO IS AVAILABLE TO CONDUCT THAT HEARING FOR THE NEXT HOUR OR TWO.

THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT HEARING, BECAUSE AFTER ALL, THE JUDGES IN THIS COUNTY AND THROUGHOUT THE STATE ARE QUITE CAPABLE OF OPENING A FILE, LISTENING TO THE LAWYERS ARGUE, LISTENING TO THE WITNESSES AND MAKING A DECISION.

THAT'S WHAT THEY DO EVERY DAY.

JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T SEEN THE CASE BEFORE DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T DO IT.

THAT WAY, THAT NINE-MONTH TRIAL DATE, TWELVE-MONTH TRIAL DATE WILL HAPPEN.

THAT MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD IN WHETHER OR NOT YOUR CASE IS GOING TO BE TWO, THREE, FOUR YEARS OLD BEFORE IF GOT RESOLVED.

SO, IN THE SPACE OF TWO YEARS, THAT SCHEDULE WAS FIRMLY FIXED AND EVERYBODY DID THINGS THAT WAY.

NOW, WHAT DID WE DO WITH ALL THOSE OLD CASES?

THE COURT TOOK FOUR JUDGES, ASSIGNED THEM TO A SPECIAL CALENDAR AND SAID RESOLVE THESE 4,000 CASES AND DO IT AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN.

I THOUGHT IT WOULD TAKE TWO OR THREE YEARS.

IT TOOK THEM ABOUT 18 MONTHS.

A LOT OF THOSE CASES WERE SO OLD THEY SHOULDN'T -- THOSE PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN JAIL BECAUSE THEY REALLY DIDN'T HAVE A CASE.

THE PROSECUTOR WOULD DISMISS THE CASE SAYING WE DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE, OR THE POLICEMAN WENT TO WORK IN ALABAMA, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS CASE.

AND SOME OF THEM WENT TO TRIAL.

THEY WERE IN TRIAL EVERY DAY ALL WEEK LONG FOR YEARS.

BUT IT TOOK ABOUT 18 MONTHS AND WE CAUGHT UP AND IT'S BEEN THAT WAY EVER SINCE.

>> Jeff: YOU UNGLUED THE SYSTEM.

>> Pepin: THAT'S THE IDEA.

>> Jeff: ARTIE, WE HAVE A FEW MINUTES LEFT HERE.

AND I WANT TO ASK SOME SORT OF BIGGER PICTURE QUESTIONS.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE SUCCESSES DURING YOUR TIME IN THAT OFFICE THAT WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT SO FAR TODAY?

>> Pepin: THE BIGGEST ONE PROBABLY IS LANGUAGE ACCESS.

WHEN I CAME IN WE HAD A LANGUAGE ACCESS GROUP AND WE TRIED TO PROVIDE INTERPRETER SERVICES IN THE COURTS, BUT TOO OFTEN THAT MIGHT MEAN A FAMILY MEMBER WHO SPOKE SPANISH AND ENGLISH WOULD BE THE INTERPRETER.

WE WORKED VERY HARD TO GET CERTIFIED INTERPRETERS.

THE CERTIFICATION TEST IS A NATIONAL EXAM TO TEST.

WE WANTED NEUTRAL, CERTIFIED INTERPRETERS.

WE WANTED THEM AVAILABLE IN COURT AND IN COURT-RELATED PROCEEDINGS SO PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THEIR CASE.

AND OVER THE COURSE OF 18 YEARS, WE BECOME REALLY A NATIONAL LEADER IN THE PROVISION OF INTERPRETER SERVICES.

>> Jeff: WHY WAS THAT SO IMPORTANT IN A STATE LIKE NEW MEXICO?

>> Pepin: WELL, SOMETHING LIKE 40% OF OUR CITIZENS SPEAK A LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH.

GENERALLY SPANISH, AT HOME.

THERE ARE OVER 60 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES THAT GET USED IN COURTS EVERY YEAR.

SOME OF THOSE OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO REACH OUT TO OTHER STATES TO FIND INTERPRETERS WHO ARE AVAILABLE.

BUT YOU HAVE TO -- IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO JUSTICE, THE PERSON HAS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THEM.

NOT JUST IN CRIMINAL CASES.

CRIMINAL WAS THE FIRST WE DID, BUT ALSO IN CIVIL CASES.

IF YOUR NEIGHBOR SUES YOU BECAUSE YOU PUT THE FENCE FIVE FEET OVER THE LINE, WHEN YOU GET THAT PIECE OF PAPER IN ENGLISH AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, YOU MAYBE HAVE A LAWYER FRIENDS OR GOT ENOUGH MONEY TO HIRE A LAWYER, BUT MAYBE YOU DON'T.

YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THAT IN A LANGUAGE YOU UNDERSTAND SO THAT YOU CAN RESPOND APPROPRIATELY.

RESOLVE THE CASE WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR, WHATEVER IT IS YOU'RE GOING TO DO.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOSE THEIR CHILDREN.

THEY SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RISKS ARE AND WHAT THE RULES ARE, AND YOU KNOW, HOW CASES WORK.

INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, CHIEF JUSTICE CHAVEZ WROTE AN OPINION BACK EARLY IN MY TENURE WITH THE AOC THAT RECOGNIZED WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE ALLOWED TO SERVE ON A JURY EVEN IF YOU DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH.

IT'S THE ONLY STATE IN THE COUNTRY THAT HAS THAT IN THEIR CONSTITUTION.

AND WE HAD IGNORED IT FOR 90 YEARS OR SO.

PEOPLE ROUTINELY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SERVE ON A JURY IF THEY DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH.

OUR SOLUTION WAS, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE RULES THAT ALLOW AN INTERPRETER TO ASSIST THAT PERSON DURING JURY SERVICE AND MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES TO THIS DAY SAY I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN POSSIBLY DO THAT.

IT'S NOT THAT HARD, ACTUALLY.

THE COURT WROTE SMART RULES, AND IT WORKS JUST FINE.

THAT WAS ANOTHER DRIVER THOUGH.

WE HAVE ENOUGH -- IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT IN ANY STATE, WELL, YOU PROBABLY PICK CALIFORNIA BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE MOST PEOPLE WHO DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH.

BUT AS A PERCENTAGE OF OUR POPULATION -- AND AFTER ALL, IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

AND THAT'S WHY WE DO IT.

>> Jeff: ARTIE, MY LEST QUESTION IS A TWO-PARTER.

WHAT DO YOU SEE AS NEXT FOR THE COURT SYSTEM IN NEW MEXICO?

AND WHAT'S NEXT FOR YOU?

>> Pepin: FOR THE COURT SYSTEM, YOU KNOW IT'S NOT UP TO ME ANYMORE, BUT I HOPE THE COURT IS SUCCESSFUL IN A SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVE IN THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO GET OUR EMPLOYEES PAID BETTER.

OUR JUDGES ARE PAID WELL NOW, THANKS TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR SIGNING THE LEGISLATION.

THAT'S GREAT.

OUR EMPLOYEES ARE PAID ROUGHLY 10% TO 12% LESS THAN COMPARABLE EMPLOYEES ON THE EXECUTIVE SIDE.

LET ALONE, IS THAT A LIVING WAGE TO BEGIN WITH.

DATA TELLS US NO.

IT'S NOT.

WE HAVE LOTS OF EMPLOYEES WHO WOULD QUALIFY FOR A PUBLIC DEFENDER OR FOR AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN, I DON'T THINK THEY CALL IT THAT ANYMORE.

OR S.N.A.P., ALL THOSE FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT ARE POVERTY-BASED.

YOU HAVE 150% OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL.

THAT SHOULDN'T BE.

YOU SHOULD MAKE A LIVING WAGE IF YOU'RE WORKING FOR THE COURTS.

OUR EMPLOYEES ARE GREAT.

THEY'RE DEDICATED.

GENERALLY, THEY REALLY LOVE THEIR WORK, WHICH IS GREAT.

BUT THEY SHOULD GET PAID BETTER.

I HOPE THAT SUCCEEDS.

I THINK WE'RE FINALLY GETTING CLOSE TO BEING ABLE TO BROADEN PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT DATA.

YOU CAN ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE COURTHOUSE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE AGE WE LIVE IN.

WE'D LOVE TO MAKE IT MORE -- THE DATA MORE AVAILABLE.

>> Jeff: ABSOLUTELY, SAYS A REPORTER.

>> Pepin: YEAH.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE BROADENED IT, BUT THAT DOOR NEEDS TO BE OPENED FURTHER AND I THINK WE'LL WORK VERY HARD ON DOING THAT.

AND OTHER THAN THAT, THERE'S ALWAYS NEW ISSUES AND NEW PROBLEMS THAT COME UP.

THAT'S ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS ABOUT THE JOB THE SUPREME COURT GAVE ME, WHICH I WAS PRIVILEGED TO HAVE FOR A LONG TIME AND ENJOYED VERY MUCH DOING.

SOMETHING NEW ALWAYS ON THE HORIZON THAT YOU WANT TO DIG YOUR TEETH INTO.

>> Jeff: ARTIE PEPIN, OUTGOING DIRECTOR OF THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.

AND ENJOY YOUR RETIREMENT.

>> Pepin: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> Lou: THANKS TO AGAIN TO JEFF AND ARTIE PEPIN FOR THAT INTERVIEW.

THAT WAS JUST A PIECE OF A 24-MINUTE CONVERSATION.

YOU CAN WATCH THE WHOLE THING ON THE NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS YOUTUBE PAGE.

NOW BACK TO LAURA PASKUS AND HER CONVERSATION ABOUT A PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE TO LOS ALAMOS.

THIS TIME, SHE SITS DOWN WITH THE PUEBLO OF TESUQUE'S FORMER GOVERNOR MARK MITCHELL.

THEY TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS OF TRIBAL CONSULTATION AND THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF THE LAB ON PUEBLO COMMUNITIES LIKE TESUQUE.

>> Laura: FORMER GOVERNOR MARK MITCHELL, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

TODAY YOU'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF GOVERNOR HERRERA AS HIS DESIGNEE.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> Mitchell: THAT'S CORRECT.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.

OR HAVING ME.

>> Laura: SO, WE'RE GOING TO START BASIC NERD LEVEL FIRST.

WHAT IS -- YOU KNOW UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WHAT IS GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT TRIBAL CONSULTATION, AND HOW ARE TRIBES SUPPOSED TO BE CONSULTED FOR IMPORTANT PROJECTS?

>> Mitchell: SO, IN OUR OPINION, TRIBAL CONSULTATION SHOULD START AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF A PROJECT.

I'VE BEEN HARPING ON THE FEDS AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN BETWEEN THAT WHEN A PROJECT IS HAPPENING, AT THE VERY MOMENT SOMEBODY THINKS OF OR BRINGS FORWARD A PROJECT, THAT'S WHEN THE TRIBE SHOULD BE AT THE TABLE.

IF IT'S TRUE GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT, THEN THAT'S WHEN WE SHOULD BE AT THE TABLE.

AND NOT THOUGHT OF SEVEN TO TEN STEPS AFTER THE FACT.

BUT IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL, CONSULTATION SHOULD BE A COMPREHENSIVE AND TRANSPARENT TYPE OF MEETING.

GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT.

IT SHOULD ALSO HAVE ON OUR END, OR ON THE TRIBES END, THOSE TRIBES THAT ARE IMPACTED BY A PROJECT SHOULD BE THERE THROUGH AND THROUGH.

BECAUSE WE'VE ALWAYS FELT IF THEY HAVEN'T -- OR IF THEY'RE NOT A PART OF AND THOUGHT OF AFTER THE FACT, WE ASK QUESTIONS LIKE, OKAY, SO YOU'VE DONE YOUR ARCHY CLEARANCES, YOUR ARCHEOLOGICAL CLEARANCES, AND HOW MANY TRIBES ARE INVOLVED WITH YOU GUYS.

USUALLY THE ANSWER IS WE DID IT ON OUR OWN.

>> Laura: RIGHT.

>> Mitchell: OKAY, WELL WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND REDO IT AGAIN.

AND SO IT HAS TO BE TRANSPARENT.

IT HAS TO BE A COMPREHENSIVE MEETING.

THE OBJECTIVE IS TO HAVE A WIN-WIN SITUATION.

ONE IS TO PROTECT THE LANDSCAPE.

SO ARCHEOLOGISTS ARE TRAINED IN ONE DIRECTION, WHILE THE ACTUAL INDIGENOUS PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIVED OFF THE LAND KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE.

AND SO, IT'S KIND OF AWKWARD WHEN YOU POINT OUT A PROFESSIONAL ARCHEOLOGIST THAT YOU MISSED THIS AND YOU MISSED THAT, AND THEY'RE LIKE -- DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

YEAH, WELL -- SO, IN A NUTSHELL THAT'S HOW WE LOOK AT IT.

AND THEN MOST IMPORTANTLY IS THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY THAT THEY HAVE.

THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO IT.

YOU KNOW, IF THEY DON'T, THEN WHERE IS OUR AVENUE TO PURSUE THE WRONG TO MAKE SURE THEY CORRECT THE WRONG.

MOST LIKELY, THEIR PROCESS USUALLY IS FOLLOW OUR POLICIES.

YEAH, BEEN THERE, DONE THAT.

IT'S KIND OF AWKWARD.

I KNOW IN THE PAST I'VE QUESTIONED THAT AS A SITTING GOVERNOR.

AND THE ANSWER ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE WAS, WELL, GOVERNOR, THESE ARE OUR POLICIES.

DOESN'T SAY THAT WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT YOU ALL HAVE AND WHAT YOU SAY.

IT'S OUR POLICIES AND WE'VE MET THEM.

AND NOW WE'RE MOVING FORWARD.

>> Laura: RIGHT.

OFTEN A CHECKLIST.

>> Mitchell: CORRECT.

>> Laura: SO, WITH THIS PROPOSED POWER LINE TO LOS ALAMOS, WAS THE PUEBLO OF TESUQUE CONSULTED IN THIS GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT WAY?

>> Mitchell: YES, AND NO.

IT'S A TWO-PART ANSWER, I GUESS.

I KNOW THEY WERE ALREADY WORKING ON IT BEFORE '21.

2021.

THAT'S THE TERM I WAS GOVERNOR.

SO, THE PROJECT MANAGER REACHED OUT AND THIS IS HOW WE FOUND OUT.

HEY, WE'RE HEADED OUT TO THE CAJA DEL RIO AND WE WANT YOUR INPUT ON THIS, THIS AND THIS.

SO WE SAID OKAY, WE'LL MEET YOU OUT THERE.

SO, THAT'S HOW WE FOUND OUT.

AND AFTER THAT, WE STARTED DISCUSSING THE DETAILS AS I MENTIONED EARLIER.

HOW COME WE WEREN'T CALLED EARLIER?

WELL, WE SENT LETTERS OUT.

WELL, OKAY HOW COME YOU DIDN'T JUST PICK UP THE PHONE AND SAY HEY, THERE'S A PROJECT COMING UP.

WE WANT YOUR INPUT, WE WANT TO SIT DOWN WITH YOU GUYS.

SO, WE ENDED UP GOING OUT, BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

MY TEAM, THE PUEBLO TEAM, AND THE TEAM FROM THE LABS.

AND SO WE DISCUSSED, OUT IN THE FIELD, WE DISCUSSED THE LAY OF THE LAND.

WE DISCUSSED THE DIRECTION OF THIS POWER LINE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO THROUGH.

THEY INFORMED US THEIR LENGTH OF TIME.

THEY'RE LOOKING AT HAVING ACTUAL VEHICLES OUT ON THE GROUND TO, YOU KNOW, START WORKING ON THE CONSTRUCTION PART.

SO, WE STARTED OUR DISCUSSIONS AT THAT POINT.

AND I WANT TO SAY WE'VE PROBABLY WENT BACK AND FORTH -- BACK AND FORTH MEANING WE MET AT THE TRIBAL ADMINISTRATION, WE MET UP ON THE HILL MAYBE ABOUT FOUR TIMES.

AND THEREAFTER IT KIND OF SLOWED DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

AND I DON'T RECALL IF DURING THE YEARS OF '22 AND '23 THERE WERE ACTUALLY MEETINGS BECAUSE I WAS SERVING AS THE THEN CHAIRMAN OF THE ALL PUEBLO COUNCIL SO I HAD TO KIND OF STEP INTO THIS OTHER ARENA BEFORE GOING BACK TO THAT ONE.

SO, THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER.

>> Laura: BROUGHT IN KIND OF LATE.

SO, I WAS ALSO HOPING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT JUST ABOUT THE LAB AND THE AREA IN GENERAL.

SO, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF A NUCLEAR WEAPONS LAB IN THE JEMEZ MOUNTAINS, WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP DID THE PEOPLE OF THE PUEBLO OF TESUQUE HAVE WITH THE LANDS, WATERS, AND ANIMALS THERE?

>> Mitchell: PRIOR TO THAT, THAT'S BEFORE MY TIME.

OUR ELDERS WOULD SAY, YEAH, THERE'S PLACE NAMES.

THE RELATIONSHIP UP THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, IT WAS FREE TO -- FOR THEM TO ACCESS THE AREA WITHOUT NOBODY STOPPING THEM.

LIKE GOING HUNTING AND HARVESTING ANIMALS UP THERE, OR GOING PINON PICKING OR MEDICINAL PLANT PICKING.

OR ACTUALLY JUST GOING OUT TO PILGRIMAGE.

I BELIEVE WHEN THE LABS WERE CREATED UP THERE, IT DID NOT ONLY IMPACT THE PUEBLO OF TESUQUE, BUT THE REST OF THE PUEBLOS AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK ON THEIR OWN.

BUT FOR US, AT TESUQUE, NOW THERE'S A FENCE.

NOW THERE'S RULES.

WHAT USED TO BE IS NO LONGER.

AND HOW DO WE COPE WITH THAT?

HOW DO WE REALLY LOOK AT HOW WE CAN ENTER ONTO THE LAND THAT WAS ALREADY THERE WITH DIFFERENT SITES AND LOCATIONS?

NOW WE HAVE TO SEEK PERMISSION FROM SOMEBODY ELSE.

THE ANALOGY I USE IS IF YOUR RELIGION IS, SAY, CATHOLIC, AND THE STATE OR THE FEDS SAY YOU CAN'T ENTER INTO THIS CHURCH NO MORE.

LET US KNOW WHEN YOU'RE COMING.

I'M PRETTY SURE PEOPLE WILL BE UP IN ARMS WITH THAT.

BUT BECAUSE IT'S THE LANDSCAPE AND BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ARE TIED INTO THE LAND IS, I BELIEVE, IS PART OF THE ISSUE.

SO, IT HAS IMPACTED US IN THE NEGATIVE WAY BY WAY OF NOT BEING ABLE TO GET UP THERE AND PRACTICE OUR RELIGION.

HUNT, FISH, AND GATHER AS OUR ANCESTORS USED TO DO.

WE STILL DO INFORM OUR PEOPLE AND YOUTH ABOUT PLACE NAMES, WHAT USED TO BE.

AND WE'VE LEARNED OFF THAT AND SAY IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY.

WE SHOULD JUST STILL GO OUT THERE AND DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

>> Laura: YEAH.

I FEEL LIKE IN NEW MEXICO WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LAB.

THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY, BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A LOT OF PUBLIC CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

FOR A COMMUNITY LIKE TESUQUE, HOW DOES THAT REALLY POWERFUL ENTITY DOING, YOU KNOW, REALLY QUESTIONABLE ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE CULTURE -- HOW DOES THAT AFFECT US?

>> Mitchell: YEAH, THE LAB BEING IN OUR BACKDOOR, SO TO SAY.

IN SOME PUEBLOS IN THEIR FRONT DOOR.

IT DOES HAVE IMPACTS TO US.

AND I WOULD EXPLAIN IN WAYS LIKE THE IMPACTS TO HARVESTING THE WILDLIFE FOR TRADITIONAL USES, OR FOR ONE'S OWN FOOD ON THE TABLE, SO TO SAY.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PARTICULATES ARE FLOATING IN THE AIR.

AND WHERE IT LANDS.

AND BEING OUTDOORSMEN AND WOMEN, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THE RIVER.

AND WE HARVEST THE FISH, WE HARVEST THE PLANT LIFE AND THE ANIMAL LIFE AND WE CONSUME THEM.

SO, WE DON'T KNOW IS THAT WHERE THE SICKNESS OF CANCERS COME FROM, AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

DRINKING THE WATER, AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

SO, YEAH, IT HAS IMPACTED US.

NOT ONLY TESUQUE, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE OUR SISTER PUEBLOS AROUND THE LAB.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO WRAP OUR MINDS AROUND NOT ONLY THIS AREA BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CAJA DEL RIO, BUT GENERALLY THE ENTIRE LANDSCAPE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, THE FOUR CORNERS STATES, THE SOUTHWEST IS CONSIDERED SACRED.

IT'S CONSIDERED ALREADY BEING IN USE BY WAY OF OUR ANCESTORS.

AND WE'VE KNOWN OF ALL THIS BY PLACE NAMES.

SO, IT HAS IMPACTED US.

OUR WORRY IS WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE.

WHAT ABOUT IMPACTS TO THE FUTURE AFTER THIS?

YOU HINTED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PLUTONIUM PIT PROJECT AND PROCESSES THAT ARE HAPPENING UP THERE.

84/285 IS THE WHIP ROUTE THAT SPLITS OUR RESERVATION RIGHT IN HALF.

AND SO WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

THERE'S OTHER ISSUES WHEN THEY LEAVE POINT A AND ARRIVE AT POINT B, CARLSBAD, THEY'RE PUTTING THESE THINGS UNDER THE EARTH.

THAT'S A CONCERN.

YOU KNOW, HOW IS THAT GOING TO IMPACT US IN THE FUTURE?

LET ALONE, THE WILDLIFE, THE PLANT LIFE, THE SURFACE LIFE, THE WATER FLOW.

I WONDER IF ANYBODY EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THAT.

AND YOU KNOW, AGAIN, HARVESTING THESE ANIMALS FOR FOOD TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE TO FEED THE FAMILY.

AND THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS WE TALK ABOUT.

WE WONDER, YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT -- OR HOW IS THAT GOING TO IMPACT US IN THE FUTURE?

>> Laura: RIGHT.

VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION.

FORMER GOVERNOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

I APPRECIATE IT.

>> Mitchell: THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> Lou: THANKS TO LAURA PASKUS, HER GUESTS, AND EVERYONE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THIS SHOW.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

>> FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS IS PROVIDED BY VIEWERS LIKE YOU.