New Mexico Viewpoint

Incumbents Booted Out By Voters

From Clearly New Mexico: A week ago, the earth moved in New Mexico. It was an electoral earthquake, largely overlooked by the mainstream media that was focused on the high profile U.S. Senate and Congressional races. But a seismic voter shift occurred that has significantly brightened the prospects for passage of ethics reform in the state of New Mexico.  After years of corruption scandals, the voters spoke. What happened? The June 3rd primary election left in its wake a vastly altered legislative landscape. In Albuquerque, Democratic Primary voters tossed out three supposedly unbeatable incumbents - and most significantly, two powerful committee chairmen. And in Roswell's District 57, Republican voters dumped the ethically challenged House Minority Whip, Dan Foley. All four of them were beneficiaries of a State Capitol culture fueled by copious gratuities from lobbyists and gobs of campaign money from industry special interests. Their contribution reports were a veritable "who's who" of special interests -- insurance and pharmaceuticals, big oil and big developers, the banking industry and payday lenders, liquor and tobacco.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash. All of these incumbents were roadblocks to reform.  Now they're gone. Voters send a message In Senate District 17, Shannon Robinson, a 21-year incumbent and chairman of the Corporations Committee was crushed by political newcomer Tim Keller - 66% to 34%. In Senate District 14, James Taylor, a 14-year legislative veteran, took a thumpin' at the hands of former Albuquerque City Councilor Eric Griego - 63% to 37%. And in probably the biggest upset of all, Dan Silva in House District 13, a 23-year incumbent and chairman of the House Transportation Committee, was defeated by Local 1199 Hospital Workers union organizer Eleanor Chavez - 54% to 46%. And there were two other incumbents who also had very close calls. In SD 30, David Ulibarri - known as "Senator Yellowcake" for his relentless promotion of a revival of uranium mining in his mostly Cibola County district, is clinging to a narrow lead over Clemente Sanchez with a recount in process. (In this three-person race, the anti-incumbent vote was a combined 63%.) Finally, in Albuquerque South Valley's Senate District 11, Rules Com- mittee chair Linda Lopez barely avoided another stunning incumbent downfall by a slim margin (53%). Under Lopez's chairmanship, Senate Rules has become known as the Devil's Island for ethics reform bills. It's where bills were sent to languish and rot as the session clock ran down. In recent weeks, Lopez, Taylor and Silva have all been stung by criticism for their advocacy of a multi-multi-million dollar taxpayer giveaway to a California based developer, SunCal. Historically Unprecedented As is the case with Congress, the incumbent re-election rate to the N.M. legislature is well over 90%. So the toppling of three such prominent and powerful legislators - in a primary election and by landslide margins no less -- is historically unprecedented. Yet voters in these distinct districts all sent the same unmistakable message. It was a collective rebuke of the special interest, money-driven way business has been conducted at the State Capitol. It was a call for ethics reform. But at the national level, at least one Democrat does get it: (USA Today, 6/6/08) Barack Obama put his stamp on the party Thursday, announcing the Democratic National Committee would no longer accept donations from political action committees or federal lobbyists. That brings the party in line with his campaign's policy... "We are going to change how Washington works," he said. Perhaps some New Mexico legislators still don't get it.  But for those who don't, here's a handy compendium of a few of the media and blog stories that grasp the point the voters were making so eloquently last week: Albq. Journal Editorial: Back Lawmakers Who Support Ethics Reform(Albuquerque Journal, 5/21/08) Too many are comfortable with the status quo. Some argue that this is a solution where no problem exists or say raising the subject of the potential for corruption in state government is an insult. That's an insult to voters' intelligence. Progressive victories create hope for ethics reform (Heath Haussamen blog, 5/6/08) "On Tuesday, Democratic voters in Albuquerque proved that they want reform and they're willing to vote against candidates who stand in its way. In the process, they knocked out two opponents of reform and changed the landscape in the state Senate." Roundhouse Roundup: New, progressive order for Senate? (Steve Terrell, Santa Fe New Mexican, 6/4/08) "It's easy to imagine the two newcomers banding together with fellow Albuquerque progressives like Cisco McSorley, Dede Feldman and Jerry Ortiz y Pino -- plus perhaps Santa Fe's Peter Wirth, who will be moving from the House to the Senate -- and give new life to ethics reform, which for the past few sessions has withered and died in the catacombs of the Senate." Ethics Issue Propelled Keller (New Mexico Independent, 6/5/08) "Keller's campaign focused hard on ethics and campaign finance reform, two particularly weak points for Robinson, who had been criticized for improperly diverting funds to the UNM club rugby team (which he coaches), and failing to disclose a long list of tangles with the law." It's time to speak out, now more than ever. Governor Richardson is talking about calling a special session of the legislature to address healthcare. Will the health insurance industry lobbyists call the shots?  Will they produce health care "reform" that enriches their industry while the public gets the shaft again?  Send your state senator and state representative a message. (See below.) Let them know that, after years of corruption scandals, the time is NOW to stand up to special interests.  It's time for comprehensive ethics reform.  The time is now to curb corporate lobbyist influence in Santa Fe and make our legislators accountable to the voters again! Tell them you support: campaign contribution limits independent ethics commission webcasting of legislative floor sessions "Clean Elections" public financing of campaigns By visiting the Clearly New Mexico website, you can use our Legislator Contact tool to email your senator and representative.

David Iglesias Comes Clean

From The New York Times Magazine:

The Prosecutor

Interview by DEBORAH SOLOMON

Published: May 25, 2008

Q: In 2001, you were tapped by President Bush for your dream job — U.S. attorney for New Mexico — only to end up as one of the eight federal prosecutors whose firing five years later set off an outcry. With your book “In Justice” about to come out, have you heard anything from President Bush? No, not even a little note of thanks. If somebody served honorably, you at least have your staff member send a form letter or something: thanks for your service.

Are you still a Republican? Yes, a disillusioned Republican. I can’t blame the Democrats for this mess. It was fellow conservatives, people who thought and acted and dressed like me, who threw away their moral compass.

Just last month, the Senate Ethics Committee officially admonished Pete Domenici, the longtime New Mexico senator, for making an improper phone call to you. I thought their public rebuke was a roughly fair result.

He pressured you into indicting Democrats before the 2006 election? He attempted to get me to hurry, and he was unsuccessful. He called me at home on a weekend and asked me for some very sensitive information, which was: Is this going to get filed before November?

After serving as senator for 36 years, he has said he won’t be seeking re-election this year because of his health, in particular degenerative brain disease. He would have found a way to work around his illness. I think he’s stepping down in part because his legacy was tarnished.

And Heather Wilson, the U.S. congresswoman who also called you about that same case, is now running for his Senate seat. Do you think she can win? No. She’s damaged goods.

Why is Domenici so loyal to her? She is his protégée.

But so are you. I was. I’m the fallen protégé.

The primary for the U.S. Senate seat in New Mexico is coming up on June 3. Whom will you vote for? I’ll tell you who I am not voting for. I am not voting for Heather Wilson.

What makes all of this so startling is that you’re practically a poster boy for a new kind of Karl Rove-style Republican. I’m a military veteran, I’m Hispanic and I’m an evangelical Christian. Those are three enormous pillars of the Republican base.

As a Christian, do you forgive your political tormentors for their role in all of this? Yes. Karl Rove, Domenici, Heather Wilson. When I’m praying in the morning, if I feel bad vibes for anybody, I’ll say I forgive that person. It is important not to let hate or bitterness take root in your heart.

Do you think Karl Rove mentions you in his prayers? My understanding is that he is agnostic. I didn’t find that out until a couple of months ago. The irony is you have this agnostic using the religious beliefs of evangelical Christians for political purposes.

Do you have a new job? I’m an adviser on homeland security and border issues for a global consulting firm.

That sounds suspiciously vague. Are you with the C.I.A.? No. I would love to work for the C.I.A., but that ship has already left.

I was surprised you needed a co-writer on this book. You would think a former U.S. attorney knows how to write. I just couldn’t sit still for 8 to 10 hours cranking it out. My cocker spaniel beckoned, my kids beckoned. I have four daughters, who keep me young.

Whom are you planning to vote for in the presidential election? I don’t want to say. Any answer is going to be the wrong answer for some people, so I’m going to keep it private.

That’s a drag. If this scandal hasn’t taught you that speaking up is more important than worrying about offending a few people, what has it taught you? Boy, that’s a hard one. You really save the zinger for the last.

INTERVIEW CONDUCTED, CONDENSED AND EDITED BY DEBORAH SOLOMON

Learn How to Bird-dog the Opposition

All Eyes are on New Mexico in 2008!

Make sure your issue is
Front and Center on Election Day

New Mexico has four out of five Congressional seats up for election. We are a Presidential swing state. We are currently being flooded by special interest groups, personnel and money.  We need to prepare and be trained and ready so that we, the people of New Mexico, will be the ones to determine the outcome of our local and Congressional races.

                                                                      Learn to "Bird Dog" ** like the pros!

Seasoned “bird-dogger” Arnie Alpert with the American Friends Service Committee joins us from New Hampshire to offer an all-encompassing training on the techniques to raise the issues that matter with candidates.

***Bird-dogging” means following candidates and tracking their positions in order to make sure that the issues important to you are part of the campaign agenda and in the forefront of media coverage.

Photo: Arnie Alpert questions Mitt Romney on the war in Iraq.

SANTA FE: Saturday April 5th

2:00 to 5:00 PM

Santa Fe Unitarian Universalist Church on Barcelona

TAOS: Friday, April 4th

Kit Carson Electric Cooperative Board Room

1118 Cruz Alta Road

Registration at 5:30 and closes at 8:00 PM

ALBUQUERQUE: Sunday, April 6th

Albuquerque Peace and Justice Center

202 Harvard Southeast

Registration at 5:00 and closes at 7:30 PM

$10 suggested donation

---

Event Cosponsors Include:

Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety - Faithful Security - NM Conference of Churches

Network of Spiritual Progressives of Northern New Mexico

Peace and Social Concerns Committee of the Santa Fe Friends Meeting

Santa Fe Veterans for Peace - Santa Fe Unitarian Forum - Voting Matters

Info: Joni Arends - 986-1973 jarends@nuclearactive.org

Holly Beaumont - 471-2962 habeaumont@aol.com

Forum Opposes Expanded Nuke Production

www.nukewatch.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Updated February 22, 2008

Contact:

Jessica Wilbanks, Faithful Security

(575) 758-1206 office; (410) 713-0335 cell

jwilbanks@faithfulsecurity.org

New Mexico at Risk from Expanded Bomb Production: Learn More on March 1st

On Saturday, March 1^st at the Genoveva Chavez Community Center, a diverse range of organizations and community leaders are co-sponsoring an all-day forum spotlighting the threat to New Mexico’s residents and natural resources posed by the Department of Energy’s recent proposal for the “transformation” of its nuclear weapons complex.

At 10:00 AM, March 1^st, a press conference at same location will feature Governor Craig Quanchello of Picuris Pueblo, Rev. Barbara Dua, Executive Director of the New Mexico Conference of Churches, Mayor Joseph Maestas of Espanola, Allen Sanchez, Executive Director of the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Mayor David Coss of Santa Fe.

The Santa Fe City Council recently passed a resolution opposing the expansion of nuclear weapons production at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).

Event speakers include Robert H. Gilkeson, former lead consultant to LANL’s Groundwater Protection Program, Joni Arends of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, and many others.  Attendees will have the opportunity to prepare written comments and/or film testimony to be submitted to the Department of Energy.  For more information, please visit www.nuclearactive.org and www.nukewatch.org. 

Under the Bush Administration’s proposal for the future of the nuclear weapons complex, Los Alamos will remain the nation’s only producer of plutonium pit “triggers” for nuclear warheads. However, that mission is to be expanded from 20 pits per year to up to 80. An even more extreme alternative under consideration calls for the production of up to 200 plutonium pits per year at LANL. 

At the higher level of pit production, the Lab could increase airborne pollutants by 28%.  Precious natural resources would be stretched to the limit as the Lab’s current water rights would be exceeded by 10%.  In the event of a facility accident at LANL, the chances of fatalities would also increase. 

“These figures are shocking, but what’s even more troubling is that New Mexico residents in the Rio Grande corridor are doubly affected by the combined hazards at both the Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories. The DOE has not looked at the cumulative environmental and public health impacts of the two facilities located within 60 miles of each other,” said Joni Arends of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety.

A Community Event to Protect Our Health, Children, and Water from the Nuclear Weapons Complex will take place Saturday, March 1^st from 11:00 AM to 4:00 PM at the Genoveva Chavez Center, 3221 Rodeo Road in Santa Fe.  Event sponsors include the City of Santa Fe, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Faithful Security, the New Mexico Conference of Churches, and Nuclear Watch New Mexico.

# #

Event sponsors and speakers are available for interviews, including:

Joni Arends, Executive Director

Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety

jarends@nuclearactive.org;; (505) 986-1973

Rev. Holly Beaumont, Legislative Advocate

New Mexico Conference of Churches

habeaumont@aol.com; 505-660-5018

Jay Coghlan, Executive Director

Nuclear Watch New Mexico

jay@nukewatch.org;; 505-989-7342

To contact other speakers, please contact Jessica Wilbanks at 505-758-1206 or jwilbanks@faithfulsecurity.org..

Draining New Mexico

The following article presents a serious issue in New Mexico that has, to this date, received no widespread public attention and which merits our concern.  The article asks who in our state government is behind this private takeover of a State water resource.  I would hope that one of our readers out there would follow up and do some digging on this issue.  The article was first posted on the website Counter Punch.

Mining Water in the Desert

By ARTHUR VERSLUIS

                     Dr. Arthur Versluis                                              It began with a non-descript legal notice in the local paper, the kind of thing most people don't ever really look at.  The notice said that in Catron County, New Mexico, Augustin Plains Ranch LLC intends to drill thirty-seven twenty-inch water wells, down to a depth of 2,000 feet, to withdraw 54,000 acre-feet of water a year from the high desert aquifer.  In case you're not up on how much water that is: an acre-foot is 325,851 gallons, so the proposal is to pump out over 17.5 billion gallons of water a year from these wells in the high desert country of New Mexico.

You might wonder what they intend to do with 17.5 billion gallons of water a year.  The applicant, according to the legal notice available from the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer,
"proposes to divert and consumptively use 54,000 acre-feet of ground water per annum for domestic, livestock, irrigation, municipal, industrial, and commercial purposes of use, to include 'providing water to the State of New Mexico to augment its capacity to meet [Rio Grande Compact] deliveries to the State of Texas ... at Elephant Butte dam,' and '[offsetting] effects of ground water pumping on the Rio Grande in lieu of retirement of agriculture' via a pipeline to the Rio Grande."

As far as I know, to date, not a single newspaper has run an article on this proposal, let alone investigated it, nor did the state hold any local hearings concerning it.  What you are reading is exclusive to this website (Counter Punch).  Why?  How is it that a proposal to deplete an aquifer in the high desert can go forward with only a small legal notice in the local paper?  Who is responsible?  Is there some backscratching deal with the state, so public rights become private profit once again?  One hardly needs to ask the last question, of course.  I guess it was rhetorical.

The state engineer will accept public response if submitted by 16 December, 2007, but responses must meet certain conditions.  The legal notice is somewhat limiting as to who can offer a response:

"Any person or other entity shall have standing to file an objection or protest if they object that the granting of the application will:

(1) Be detrimental to the objector's water right; or

(2) Be contrary to the conservation of water within the state or detrimental to the public welfare of the state, provided that the objector shows how they will be substantially and specifically affected by the granting of the application."

Let's think about this, because almost exactly the same mentality governs this notice as governed a recent Michigan  Supreme Court decision on a water mining case there.  Note the provision here: that the "objector" has to show how they [he or she] will be "specifically affected".  In Michigan, the Supreme Court - which has been ruled by a clot of Republican justices for some years now - decided in August, 2007, that the 1970 Michigan Environmental Protection Act, which allows "any person" to bring suit for environmental protection, nonetheless does not apply to "any person".  Rather the Republican majority of the Court determined (following their own earlier decision of 2004, the clear wording of the Act itself notwithstanding) that individuals had to show concrete, particular injury to themselves in order to have legal standing.  In other words, the law now extends only to property owners in the immediate area of a water mining project, for instance, and then only when they can show direct injury, which in practice means after the fact.  That is, after the water is gone.

The moderate Republican Gov. William Milliken, who signed the Michigan Environmental Protection Act into law back in 1970, said that the 2007 Michigan Supreme Court decision went directly against the clear intent and wording of the law, which empowers citizens of the state.  He should know.  In effect, the Republican Supreme Court justices unilaterally abrogated a key provision of the Michaigan Environmental Protection Act so that a foreign corporation, Nestle, could mine water for profit from an aquifer in the state's central lower peninsula.  This, my friends, is Republican judicial activism in action.

I mention this Michigan Supreme Court decision because a similar limitation applies in the legal notice for the proposed massive water mining project in New Mexico: to object, one has to show that one's own water right will be affected.  The only leg for the concerned citizen to stand on here is the provision that one show the proposal is "contrary to the conservation of water within the state."

So let's investigate the idea of conserving water.

Under the San Augustin plains in this high desert country is an aquifer, what remains of a Pleistocene lake.  The proposal is to extract billions of gallons of water and pump it through dozens of miles of pipeline to the Rio Grande River, where what doesn't evaporate can be channeled into unsustainable agribusiness or other uses, what's left trickling on down to Texas.  As the aquifer is depleted by water mining, one can foresee that wells will fail for towns like Datil, and for the ranches in the vicinity, until eventually perhaps it will all become uninhabitable, a ghost region.

Obviously, this water mining project - probably greased with the usual sorts of unsavory government-corporate connivances - will not conserve water in this arid region.  Even an imbecile could see that at a glance.  Indeed, the project would pump out billions of gallons of ancient underground water and dump them into the shallows of the Rio Grande - until when?  Until the acquifer is depleted?  The whole profligate project is the very epitome of squanderville, so absurdly anti-conservationist that one can scarecely believe it has been proposed, let alone seriously considered.

From what I've heard, bellicose local ranchers and townspeople oppose the project, and perhaps they will  prevail in derailing this particular water mining project.  I hope they do.  But their success in this instance, if it comes, will not change the American mining mentality, the inclination to deplete whatever can be depleted until there is nothing left.

This mining mentality explains a great deal about American attitudes toward the land more generally.  I asked a group of university students recently what they thought would happen if this New Mexico water mining plan was approved.  Would the water miners eventually stop?  Or would they deplete the aquifer down to the very last drop if they could, and then kick a stone into the dry hole?  I was curious to hear what the students would say.

They'd use it up, the students replied.  Right down to their neighbors' last drop.

Arthur Versluis teaches American Studies at Michigan State University, and is author of various books, including Island Farm and The New Inquisitions.  He can be reached via his website, www.arthurversluis.com

© Copyright Arthur Versluis