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

>>Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus, a street level view of the DEA█s decision to let.

Hundreds of thousands of fentanyl pills fled Albuquerque, and-- >>Caden: If we assume all this is true, it's how easily the government has the capacity to take someone's constitutional rights away.

>>Nash: A group of pre-law students examines the infamous Roswell incident.

But for constitutional violations, not aliens.

New Mexico in Focus starts now.

Thanks for joining us, I'm Nash Jones.

79 years ago this week, if you picked up a copy of the Roswell Daily Record, you'd see a big, bold headline declaring the Army Air Force had captured a flying saucer on a ranch near Roswell.

Well, the story was based on a military press release that would be retracted the very next day, pointing instead to a weather balloon.

Well, tonight you will hear from UNM students asking questions not about little green men, but about how the government responded to the crash and to the New Mexicans who said they saw something.

If you're in Albuquerque or have been to the city over the last few weeks, you've surely seen something.

A dry riverbed.

It's the second year in a row that the Rio Grande has dried through the metro, a distressing sight that hadn't appeared for decades until just recently.

We'll learn more about what's going on from the director of the Interstate Stream Commission a little later on.

But before we get on with the show, a bit of news on a matter that we've been following closely.

The proposed acquisition of TXNM energy the parent company of PNM, the state's largest electric provider, by Blackstone, a private equity behemoth.

In a related case, the Public Regulation Commission late last week ordered the two companies to undo a $400 million stock sale, where Blackstone purchased 8 million shares of TXNM last year.

The order also comes with a combined $300,000 in fines.

The commissioners voted 2 to 1 in favor of a recommendation last month by hearing examiners that argued the stock sale violated state law, since the PRC didn't approve it.

The hearing was packed with opponents to the proposed acquisition.

Laughter even erupted when no one in the room raised their hands in favor of the buyout.

But remember, the matter of Blackstone buying TXNM was not the question in front of commissioners.

It was the stock sale and what to do about it.

Commissioner Greg Neubert, the sole vote against the order to unravel the stock sale and impose a maximum fine, said he hoped to get on with the question.

Most in attendance were focused on >>Greg: What we're here today on is, is.

I hate to put it this way, but it's a sideshow.

It's not the real issue before us.

>>Nash: He said he was against the order, in part because the law in question was unclear, though he agreed the company's violated it.

He said he was also worried about blowback on PNM customers if TXNM had them shoulder any of the cost.

>>Greg: That transaction being null and void means exactly that.

The stock gets canceled or has to be returned to TXNM.

TXNM has to write a check for $400 million.

My concern is it doesn't have the resources to write that check.

Commissioner Gabriel Aguilera argued that its concern was unfounded.

>>Gabriel: You know, I hear what you're saying, Commissioner, about the transaction and that it could potentially impact customers and and hurt them.

But that is what the requirement in the order to ensure that customers are held harmless is for, is to address that.

>>Nash: He also had a different take on the notion that TXNM doesn't have that $400 million to undo the stock sale, since CEO Don Terry told commissioners last month that the company had already spent it.

>>Gabriel: We don't know exactly how those-- how the funds from the financing transaction were used.

We do know that some of it was used to pay down debt, but when you drill down into it, really what happened is that PNM it has deprived the commission of an ability to look at whether those funds were used prudently.

>>Nash: Now, the commission's vote does not end the merger application, though it does delay it until the parties can comply with this latest order and show their work.

Mario Nanas, executive director of New energy, economy and renewables advocacy organization opposed to the acquisition, told the Albuquerque Journal that due to that delay, the PRC█s latest vote is a possible nail in the coffin for the merger.

All right, now on with the show.

We begin tonight with the multi-layered, ever evolving story of the Drug Enforcement Administration alleged drug walking in Albuquerque.

A whistleblower complaint filed by former agent David Howell and obtained by the Associated Press in Albuquerque Journal lays out the highly controversial practice, which Howell says ran from at least 2023 through 2025.

DEA agents would watch large quantities of fentanyl pills, change hands, and rather than make arrests on the spot, use the transactions to set up wiretaps in an effort to identify higher level traffickers.

One voice we are dying to hear is this story keeps moving is that of Alex Uballez who is U attorney for the District of New Mexico.

During at least part of the time that the drug walking took place.

That also means that Uballez who ran unsuccessfully for Albuquerque mayor last year, would have overseen operations in which agents used this tactic.

He mildly defended it in the initial news reports from the AP in the Journal, but has since clammed up after a week plus, Uballez finally sent us a statement, quote, the Office of Special Counsel previously determined that the original complaint was totally unsubstantiated.

As this matter is currently under review by the state, I'm not commenting further at this time.

I respect the process and look forward to addressing the facts when appropriate.

Uballez is referring to a 2024 OSC determination that found, quote, investigative teams appropriately exercised their discretion.

Meanwhile, plenty of other high level officials have been a lot less camera shy since this story broke.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, for instance, has promised congressional hearings and vowed to go to the white House to seek restitution and justice.

And Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller has said that learning about the DEA█s tactics comes as a slap in the face, as his administration spends hundreds of millions of dollars to address the city's fentanyl crisis.

But this week, we here at in focus wanted a closer view of how this federal law enforcement maneuver could be impacting the people most vulnerable to it the city's unhoused population.

Albuquerque Health Care for the homeless has been serving them for 41 years, and substance use has been a primary focus ever since.

Tonight, the organization's CEO, Rachel Biggs, and chief clinical officer Kate Morton join executive producer Jeff Proctor to talk about the DEA scandal and its ripple effects on Albuquerque's streets.

>> Jeff: Kate, Rachel, thank you both so much for being here for this conversation.

>> Both: Thank you for having us.

>> Jeff: We just heard from Nash, a little refresher on the whistleblower allegations of the DEA “walking fentanyl” and Albuquerque as they tried to work up to key cartel figures.

The story seems to have gotten some momentum, with lots of reaction, outrage, demands for justice from New Mexico politicians.

But, Rachel, I'm curious from your perspective as a frontline care worker for more than a decade.

What was your reaction when you read about these allegations?

>> Biggs: Well, when I first saw the allegations, I think my mind first went to the fact that -- we can just relate so many people in our community, so many people we work with, know and love someone that has died due to an overdose.

And so this really hits home for the work that we do, and really drives the importance of the work at Albuquerque Health Care for the homeless.

A lot of this work is personal for our staff.

People have lived experience.

They have family members.

I think a lot of us in the community in Albuquerque know someone that has passed away due to an overdose or has struggled with addiction.

And so to see this story, it brings that back and it brings in the personal aspect of the work that we do and the human aspect of the work.

>> Jeff: I'd like to reframe the discussion a little bit, and I'll stay with you for a moment, Rachel.

What█s missing from the way we█re talking about this story, or how we're sort of conceptualizing the story?

>> Biggs: I'd really like for us to focus on the people that have been most affected and really understanding that fentanyl and overdoses and substance use has a real human toll and a real harm in our communities.

And thinking about the people that were most, deeply affected by this and who this disproportionately impacts most in our communities.

You know, overdose and addiction are health issues, and they need to have health solutions.

And that can't be solved solely through enforcement and crackdowns.

It's not solely the work of law enforcement.

It really is the work of health care providers and the work that our teams do every day to make sure that people have access to high quality care.

>> Jeff: Gotcha.

Kate, you are the Chief Clinical Officer for health care for the homeless.

Tell me, please, a bit about your work, especially when it comes to the substance use and harm reduction spaces.

What kind of services do you offer?

>> Morton: Yes.

So, we offer a whole host of services at Health Care for the homeless.

We have medical services, so primary care.

we have behavioral health, psychiatry services, a whole host of social services to help people get housing and to get access to Medicaid and things like that, as well as dental, pharmacy.

We have Art Street, which is a community art space, and then almost every single thing that we are able to do on campus, we can also do out in the streets on outreach.

And that is actually a really big component of the work that we do with our harm reduction teams and our street medicine teams.

We call it integrated health outreach.

>> Jeff: Gotcha.

So, anything you can do in the building, you can also throw an van and take out onto the street.

>> Morton: Pretty much.

>> Jeff: Okay.

Talk to me about the people you serve, who are they and why might they be particularly vulnerable to the tactics we█re reading about from the DEA?

>> Morton: Yeah.

So, by definition, we're a federally qualified health center, and we serve people experiencing homelessness.

And our definition for that, we follow the -- >> Biggs: Health and Human Services.

>> Morton: Health and Human Services definition of what it means to be experiencing homelessness.

And so that could be people who are sleeping on the streets or in a shelter.

It could be people who are doubling up, couch service, couch surfing, precariously housed.

And there's a lot of our folks who have real difficulty with stability and having good routines and stable housing, really in general.

So that puts people at huge risk for being open to accessing substances while they're on the street.

We do -- not every one of our patients, of course, has a substance use disorder.

But we do see it prevalently in our population.

And it can be really difficult for folks to access treatment.

Many of them have been disenfranchized by the health care system in general.

And so that's why our outreach and our integrated Health outreach teams are so important, because we can actually go to people and see them where they are and help them meet many of the challenges that they're facing.

>> Jeff: So, when we're talking about a reduction and access to potential services, treatment, etc., and an increase in access to the drugs themselves, I can see that vulnerability line going up that way.

Do I have that right?

>> Morton: Yeah, absolutely.

And I think in an ideal universe, there would be -- it would be easier to access treatment than it would be to access fentanyl.

I mean, that would be -- from a public health standpoint, that would be fabulous, because then it wouldn't be you know, this sort of -- It wouldn't be so easy and so inexpensive to access fentanyl and some of those things where people feel like they need to have it, where there's this -- where they're experiencing these terrible symptoms of withdrawal and they, they're -- they feel like they really need to to get access to fentanyl.

If we had access to treatment and our treatments work, there are three different treatments that are approved for opioid use disorder.

And treatment can save lives and up to 40 to 60% of cases.

And so we know it works.

We know it's a good strategy and we just need to make it more available.

Even the DEA█s own -- data shows that fewer than 20% of people who need access to treatment, get it.

>> Jeff: I think people don't really understand when we're talking about opiate addiction, in particular the way the body expresses need.

I want to read a quote from the whistleblower and then ask you both to react to it a little bit.

He's a guy named David Howell.

He's a DEA Special Agent, and this is part of what he told the Associated Press.

“We poisoned our community to make cases.

We don't really know what happened to the drugs, but we 100% got people killed.” I'm curious, and I'll start with you, Rachel.

Given who you serve and the way you serve them, what it felt like, in your work, to learn that the federal government was not only not helping you save lives, but actively undermining that work?

>> Biggs: Well, it does feel like undermining when we are spending so much time and so much of our resources working on improving access to treatment and care.

We spend a lot of time out on street outreach and street medicine, meeting people where they are.

We spend a lot of resources on making sure people are accessing Suboxone or other medications for opioid use disorder.

And so when I hear that and react to what was happening -- I take pause and think about more work that we'll have to do and more resources that we'll need to go into addressing the needs of people now that will be struggling with addiction because -- because of these actions.

So new people with substance use disorder, new people finding a harder time to exit homelessness because of substance use disorder.

I think it's also important to state clearly, though, that it's important not to conflate homelessness and substance use.

We hear that a lot in the media.

Sometimes my first reaction to these new stories are, “oh my goodness, who is going to be stigmatized in these conversations?” And to be really clear that, homelessness is really driven by our lack of affordable housing, first and foremost.

And then, of course, not having housing makes people more vulnerable.

And so, folks that we are serving on the street that are using substances without access to housing, which is one of the most preventive factors in addressing premature death, makes me really nervous for the life expectancy and the health outcomes of our patients.

It's also hard not to look at the data and see that during that time frame, there was a huge spike in overdoses here in New Mexico.

New Mexico is one of the only states that has been seeing an increase as of late in overdose deaths.

We look at homeless mortality data very closely with the office of the medical investigator, here in New Mexico, and we have been seeing an increase in homeless overdose deaths as well.

So it's hard not to make that correlation when you see the time frame of what was happening in the spike in overdose deaths.

>> Jeff: Let's roll the numbers out while we're at it.

And before I get there, I'd like to say thank you for talking about the stigmatizing nature of the conversation, and I appreciate you making that distinction.

Nationwide, during the period of time that we know this happened, drug overdose death rates decreased by 14%.

In New Mexico, they went up by 21%.

I don't want to sit here and just make the correlation, straight up.

Causation is a more difficult thing to prove than that.

But I wonder your reaction, to looking at those two timelines, laid next to each other.

>> Morton: To your point, it's really hard to -- It's hard not to see some sort of parallel -- We can't make any causal relationship there.

But, but yeah, it does -- It does feel like this could have been -- potentially prevented and -- for sure, could have been prevented if we had had access to treatment for folks.

>> Jeff: I want to get back to the question that I asked Rachel, that I didn't give you a chance to answer yet.

From what Rachel was describing, it sounds like it might make the task, the job, the work that you're doing, particularly with Street Outreach, that you described before, in the substance use and harm reduction spaces, feel a bit of sisyphean, does it?

>> Morton: Yes it does in some ways, I think we were really passionate about the work hat we're doing.

This is a human rights issue.

This is really near and dear to my heart.

And I know Rachel's too, and everyone who works at Health Care for the Homeless.

And so we will continue to get up every day and do this work, of course, we will not be -- we will not be stopped.

This is -- there's urgency here.

An we need to get this work done.

But it is challenging, for sure.

And it does feel like -- a step in the wrong direction when we hear things like this.

>> Jeff: Let's talk about the drug itself for just a minute.

Has fentanyl changed the landscape of this part of the work that you do?

Is it as different as my sense of it suggest that it might be?

>> Biggs: Well, I think what we know in general is that fentanyl and other synthetics right now are just more potent than other drugs were in the past, and they're also cheaper than they ever were before.

So that just shows that addressing the supply side and the enforcement side is not going to do anything to change the fact that these drugs are getting cheaper, they're getting more potent.

What we need to do is address the demand side, and the treatment side and access to services side, because of those changes, even more so now, we know what works.

We still know what works when it comes to opioids and overdose prevention.

We know that overdoses go down when we have more access to naloxone for overdose prevention, when we have access to on demand and high quality treatment and services, when we have medications for opioid use disorder.

Kate shared the data.

I mean, it's remarkable what we can do when people have access to this type of care that we know saves lives.

And we've seen things, we've seen overdoses go down, when we increase those services.

So what we're looking at right now, and when we're thinking about our work, is that our work is even more vital.

It's even more important.

And like Kate said, these are what our team members signed up to do and what they're excited to do to get out and make sure people have access to all of the things that we know work.

So we're saving lives every day.

We're seeing success in treatment every day, and that is addressing the demand side and not the supply side, which is what law enforcement is focusing on.

And it just can't be one side or the other.

>> Jeff: I appreciate that being part of the conversation now, too.

No one ever talks about the demand side.

There are a number of questions still floating around this thing, and I'm sure you guys have some too.

I know that Mayor Tim Keller, for example, he wants to know if Albuquerque was targeted for this type of tactic or if the DEA is using it elsewhere.

He also wants to know if it's still going on.

I wonder if those are questions that both of you still have, and if you have other questions about all of this, that in particular might cause you to shift strategy, if you have the answers to them.

>> Biggs: I think we have very similar questions, and I think it's important to think about the historical context here in Albuquerque and New Mexico, about what impact structural racism has on tactics that are used on vulnerable people in our communities.

It's hard to know, but was Albuquerque chosen?

Was New Mexico chosen for any specific reasons?

Would like to have answers to those questions as well?

Would also really like to know if this is still going on.

I think what the most concerning thing about this story is that this was the only reason we know is because a whistleblower came forward, and it's hard to imagine how else we would know if something was still going on unless there was another whistleblower that came forward.

And so being really aware and really attuned to what our clients are saying, what we're hearing in the community, getting real time feedback, making sure we're sharing high quality information and education with our clients and our community is of utmost importance.

And then thinking about what we know will work in the future and get into some of those solutions at the end of this, too.

But there's there's a lot of things that we know can be improved, and maybe this can be a moment to take hold of that and show what really works.

>> Jeff: Bless that whistleblower and the reporters who found his complaint.

Organizationally speaking, does seeing news like this -- push up an idea for a policy proposal or a strategy shift for an organization like Health care for the Homeless?

>> Morton: Yeah, I think we've we've already been working on strategies around different policies and different advocacy efforts.

That's that's one very large arm of what we do.

we feel like it's important for us to advocate for the clients that we serve.

I think one of the things that we we know is always a big foundational policy effort for us is around affordable housing.

I think that's -- Rachel talked about that a little bit earlier.

That's a big one for us.

I think we've also been doing a number of things to try and increase access to opioid use disorder treatment.

So the states can now decide, for example, if pharmacists are able to prescribe and make available this medication so that it's more accessible for folks in rural areas and just even that on demand treatment.

So that's something that we're hoping to pursue here in New Mexico We are -- We would also love to see the decriminalization of homelessness in general, but also many substance use related issues -- >> Biggs: I would add Medicaid as a top priority right now.

As we know, this is all coming on the heels of changes to Medicaid in a very harmful way.

And so starting January 1st, there'll be new work reporting requirements.

Our population is going to be really impacted by the administrative burden of trying to reapply for Medicaid more often.

There are still some advocacy efforts that we have at the state level.

There will be room for exemptions, although limited, that the state has ability to do one of those exemptions.

That seems possible still at this moment as to exempt people that are in a substance use treatment program from those work reporting requirements and be considered medically frail due to their participation in those programs.

So things like Albuquerque Health Care for the Homeless Suboxone program.

So the medication for opioid use disorder that we prescribe has high effectiveness.

And we have really integrated programing for our our clients to access those services.

If the state can include that in an exemption for the work reporting requirements, that's also going to be a high impact policy priority moving forward.

And then of course all the funding priorities.

So making sure harm reduction services are funded.

Our state is very fortunate that we've had a harm reduction program since 1998.

The Department of Health does an excellent job.

We've been a harm reduction provider since the very beginning, and there's always a need for more funding and services across the state so people have access to these life saving services and care, and then more funding for medication assisted or medications for opioid use disorder like Suboxone, like methadone, increasing that access in primary care settings like we do at Albuquerque Health Care for the homeless.

>> Jeff: Real quick, I've got a minute or two left here.

Is there a way for the feds to make this right?

What would you like to see happen next?

Is there something that the that the DEA could be doing that would bolster your efforts to keep people alive?

>> Morton: I think that's a really good question.

One of the things that I think would be very impactful to be able to increase access to opioid use disorder treatments like Suboxone is, if the DEA were to carve that out of some of the higher scrutiny and higher regulatory -- elements that they're doing at this point.

>> Jeff: Schedule it differently.

>> Morton: Yeah, schedule it differently, or at least carve it out from certain reporting requirements.

I think that's that should be a pretty easy win.

And it makes a lot of sense.

And so I'd love to see that happen just to really again make it make it really easy for us to prescribe it and for folks to, to get it.

>> Jeff: Kate, Rachel, thank you both so much for the conversation.

I really appreciate it.

>> Morton: Thank you so much for having us.

>> Biggs: We appreciate you.

>>Caden: In the response to the Roswell incident itself, the Roswell crash.

And a lot of this is alleged.

None of this is or for the most part, none of this is confirmed.

The government took a lot of steps that may have not only infringed on free speech rights, it's basically like whether or not someone can talk about what they saw.

They took a lot of steps that they certainly lied to the public about something.

>>Nash: A legal analysis of the 1947 Roswell crash is coming up in about 15 minutes.

And thanks so much to Rachel Biggs and Kate Morton for their perspective on the DEA fentanyl scandal.

The Rio Grande has run dry in Albuquerque again.

This is the second straight year water supplies have dwindled to the point of exposing the riverbed through the state's largest city, and the third time in just four years.

But this did not used to be the norm.

Before 2022, the river hadn't dried like this, the city in 40 years.

So what, if anything, other than the climate itself has changed in the last half decade?

Well, to help us understand, senior producer Lou Divizio speaks with Hannah Riseley-White She's the director of the Interstate Stream Commission, a state agency that protects, conserves and develops New Mexico's waters.

Here's Lou, >> Lou: Interstate Stream Commission Director Hannah Risley White, thank you so much for being here.

>> White: Thank you.

>> Lou: Now it's another summer, another season of this.

We're showing it to you right now.

A dry riverbed on the Rio Grande through Albuquerque.

Other than the obvious to the passer by, what is the situation right now on the Rio Grande?

And what's the forecast like for the rest of the summer and into the fall?

>> White: First, thank you so much for having me.

Really appreciate the opportunity to talk about this critical issue.

I'd like to talk a little bit about how we got here, which is truly unprecedented conditions from a hydrologic standpoint.

We just experienced the lowest snowpack on record in the Rio Grande basin.

In fact, at what would have been the peak snowpack level in the upper Rio Grande, we had less than half of the lowest snowpack on record.

So beyond believable how snowpack sort of fell off the cliff this past winter.

And then in parallel to that, we've experienced incredibly warm temperatures this March, the average temperature for the upper Rio Grande basin was four degrees higher than the average highest temperature on record.

So we are truly experiencing completely unprecedented hydrologic conditions.

The five hottest years on record in the 130 year period of record occurred in the last five years.

So not only was this year particularly bad, but we're coming into it after a series of really bad years.

And so what we're seeing now, as you just mentioned, is almost 90 miles of river drying in the Middle Valley.

So between Cochiti and Elephant Butte, which is almost 50% of the river channel, completely dry.

And so this is very unusual and extreme conditions.

But I also should say it's not entirely unanticipated.

As part of our work for the 50 year water action plan called for by Governor Lujan Grisham, we worked with New Mexico Tech and the Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources with the scientific foundation for that plan, which says that we were planning to experience this kind of ratification in New Mexico.

But what we're seeing this year, I really see as a wake up call for New Mexicans about how important it's going to be to invest in water solutions for New Mexico.

>> Lou: Sure.

So what can an organization like yours tasked with managing these waters do to mitigate what we've been seeing for the last few years, and even more so this year.

>> White: So Inter-State Stream Commission doesn't isn't a regulator.

We work really closely with office of the State Engineer that does water rates permitting.

However, Inter-State Stream Commission can do many things to support New Mexicans in confronting this challenge.

Our primary mission is supporting New Mexico and complying with our interstate compacts, which become increasingly challenging given these conditions.

But we also do planning water planning both for the whole state but also regional water planning.

And we're really excited, especially at this moment with this big wake up call related to increasing scarcity, to be kicking off an entirely new regional water planning process beginning next January.

Standing up these new regions, we're very much encouraging people to engage in that process and learn more about it.

If anyone listening would like to see more, we have a website.

mainstreamnm.org Again, mainstreamnm.org That's the hub for that regional water planning effort.

There's a lot of information there.

Interstate Stream Commission also funds a number of projects that can increase efficiency in our systems, both river channels themselves, but also investing in solutions and communities across the state.

>> Lou: Okay, now you mentioned compacts.

How does the recent US Supreme Court's decision to approve a revised settlement agreement in the Rio Grande Compact?

How does that affect water deliveries, but also what you've been doing for the last few years.

>> White: We're really pleased to be at this moment where the court has accepted that settlement, because we've spent a lot of resources and time in costly and lengthy litigation.

So being able to pivot at this moment towards investing those resources on solutions in the ground is is a great moment.

There also will be significant work ahead for us, including with those stakeholders in the lower Rio Grande to implement that settlement.

There's three main components that the state has committed to.

One is an additional delivery at the state line.

And I want to be really clear, we still have a delivery telephone Butte Reservoir.

There's significant effort happening in the Middle Valley to support getting more water to Elephant Butte.

The second thing is to reduce groundwater depletion in the lower Rio Grande through a voluntary water rights acquisition program.

And then the third is we have two years under the settlement to work with local water users and stakeholders on a long term Lower Rio Grande water management plan that will involve a lot of stakeholder input and hopefully essentially be the opportunity for that community to set its destiny in terms of water management in the lower, lower Rio Grande.

>> Lou: Okay, you mentioned efficiency, and I know drought can lead to less efficient water distribution on the river channel itself.

What other impacts is this new water reality creating throughout the Rio Grande in New Mexico?

>> White: Yeah, I mean, I think communities up and down the basin are experiencing this scarcity real time in a very real way in terms of livelihoods and incomes.

Right.

And that includes small communities.

Big communities were fortunate in New Mexico in that our municipalities, both Albuquerque, Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority and the City of Santa Fe, are some of the leaders in the West in terms of water use conservation.

They've dramatically reduced per capita water use in the last several decades.

So we're really lucky that we already have those activities underway in terms of our agricultural communities.

Last year, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District farmers received about 30% of an average supply.

This year, the Elephant Butte Irrigation District is receiving about 10% of a usual supply, so farmers up and down the basin are having to recalibrate their plans for the season.

We've also been in shortage, sharing on the Chama, since early June, which was much earlier than we've ever implemented that.

So throughout the entire basin, the impacts of this drought are being felt very, very real time.

>> Lou: Okay, what about ecologically, not just individuals, but the actual ecosystem all the way down the riverbed?

>> White: Absolutely.

Thank you for asking.

Significant impacts to our local ecology based on this scarcity.

This is very challenging for everyone, including all the species that depend on our water resources to thrive.

And so obviously, we have real concern about the implications for those ecosystems.

And also the implications for those ecosystems have implications for people as well, in terms of increased likelihood of fire.

And then all of the potential complications to our water supply post-fire.

So definitely something that we're concerned about.

>> Lou: Okay.

Now we're taking in all these variables that we've been discussing.

What does this year's show for the longer term trajectory five, ten years out throughout the Rio Grande.

>> White: So I mentioned earlier the study that we worked on as the scientific foundation for the governor's 50 year Water Action Plan.

The takeaway from that report that came out in 2022, and you can find it on the website I mentioned earlier, is that we should anticipate 25 to 30% less water in our streams and recharging our aquifers by 2070.

We're seeing that now real time.

And so I think it is incumbent on all of us to work together to get ahead of those challenges now by participating in water planning processes, by implementing water conservation initiatives, by working on developing additional supplies where that's relevant, thinking about stormwater management, how do we capture those storms when we have it?

If we're going to have less, less snowpack, and then protecting the water quality of the increasing limit, increasingly limited supplies that we're seeing.

>> Lou: Okay, I know it's a little bit early on a 50 year water plan.

And it's it's maybe dangerous to get too far ahead when you have so much work to do every single year.

But is our the goals of that plan realistic given what we've seen in recent years?

>> White: Absolutely.

I think that plan lays out a really solid roadmap for New Mexico in terms of what what we need to tackle.

I think those investments now pay dividends on the back end.

And I also think we can continue to have economic development communities thriving if we invest in the right moments in those solutions and ensure that those solutions make sense to the communities on the ground who need to implement them.

And that's something we're really excited to do through the planning process that I mentioned.

>> Lou: Sure.

What role does conservation plan this on an individual level?

I know some of it is forced, unfortunately, but the type that is enforced, what can folks do to help mitigate this problem at least a bit?

>> White: I think every drop matters.

We are all going to need to be working to be stewards of the increasing, increasingly limited supply that we have.

The very first bundle of recommendations in that 50 year water action plan all have to do with conservation.

As much as we can look towards developing additional supplies and we should like brackish water or stormwater that I mentioned earlier, it will not be enough to close the gap.

So all of us are going to have to do our part to conserve water to make that happen.

>> Lou: Is there anything that I'm missing, any part of this equation that you think is valuable for people to know, >> White: Increasing your understanding of where your water comes from and what goes behind protecting it and getting it to your faucet is really important.

And then engaging in the solutions that we all need to to protect future generations of New Mexicans is, is what I'm encouraging everyone to do.

>> Lou: Got it.

Thank you.

Interstate Stream Commission Director Hannah Risley White, thanks so much for being here.

>> White: Thank you so much for having me.

>>Nash: Thanks to Lou and to Hannah Riseley-White for that conversation on the dire state of the Rio Grande.

The Roswell incident of 1947 has been scrutinized, conspiracies studied and discussed for decades.

Mention anything about UFOs.

Most people turned their eyes to southeastern New Mexico.

It was 79 years ago this month that something crashed in the desert.

And questions remain.

But you may be surprised by which ones students at the University of New Mexico are asking.

Undergrads, in Professor Lawrence Jones's constitutional law class looked past the aliens, focusing instead on the actions of the US government.

Recent graduate Tatiana James and senior Caden Salazar were among a group who presented their findings at an online seminar hosted by UNM, along with New Mexico's State Library, Department of Cultural Affairs and Museum of Space History.

This week we sat down to discuss their work, how the US government handles classified information, and when civil liberties can be pushed aside in the name of national security.

>> Nash: Tatiana, Caden, welcome to New Mexico in Focus thanks so much for being here.

>> Caden: Thank you for having us.

>> James: Yes, thank you.

>> Nash: Well, while it's safe to assume that most people watching have heard of the Roswell incident, they may know what happened.

I would like us to start by just having some shared understanding before we get into this coversation.

So, Tatiana, get us on the same page.

What do we know about what happened on that July night in 1947?

>> James: Basically, there is a pretty large storm -- thunderstorm that night on July 2nd, and -- the next day there was some loud crash noises, that sort of thing, which was relatively normal.

But the next day, local rancher Mack Braswell went out to check for pasture for his livestock to see kind of where there was more moisture in the land.

He went out looking for that and found the wreckage site, the crash debris, it was probably about, he said it was about three miles long and about a quarter mile in length and width, so, it was pretty spread out and large.

He described the wreckage as not able to break very light as a feather and violet purple in color.

>> Nash: It's kind of like, maybe plastic, but this is pre plastic, isn't it?

>> James: Yes, yeah.

>> Nash: So, pretty unique material that he's -- that he█s finding out there.

So -- Caden, while people have speculated for generations whether this was a UFO crash, that wasn't really what your class was aiming to answer.

Is that right?

>> Salazar: That's correct.

Like you said, basically everyone has questioned whether or not there are actually UFOs, and I certainly have an opinion on it.

But I will say what we were focusing on is more of the constitutional issues behind the response from the US Federal Government, the Department of War, at the time, later the Department of Defense, a couple of months after that.

>> Nash: So, why is -- the Roswell crash a good case study for constitutional law students to inquire about?

>> Salazar: So, excellent question.

So in the aftermath and in the response to the Roswell incident itself, the Roswell crash.

And a lot of this is alleged, none of this is -- or for the most part, none of this is confirmed.

The government took a lot of steps that may have not only infringed on free speech rights, it's basically like, whether or not someone can talk about what they saw.

They took a lot of steps that they certainly lied to the public about something.

There were multiple conflicting accounts between the 1940s and then the 1990s, and then also with some of the alleged incidents, specifically with Ms.

Frankie Dwyer Rowe There seemed to have been some due process violations under the 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment.

>> Nash: And we'll get into Rose█s testimony here in a little bit to to make sure folks understand what she what she alleged and what some of those violations may have been.

So let's get into some of those constitutional questions in a moment.

But I do want to kind of set the stage once more about kind of the media landscape, almost in 1947.

How were people learning information about something like a crash in the desert outside of Roswell at the time?

Tatiana.

>> James: Yeah, this is pretty vs in most homes.

So most information is coming from radio and local newspapers.

So there is a lot of I guess, like with the travel of media and the travel of news, that's a very different landscape back in the 40s and as well as the context of the World War II and the bombing of Japan as well, that -- that was started in New Mexico, the Trinity Project or the Trinity -- >> Salazar: Trinity test.

>> James: Thank you.

The Trinity test, that sort of thing.

So that context really adds a lot to how people were feeling about what's coming out of the sky.

And then kind of local newspapers and radio wasn't traveling as fast as you would see media, especially now.

>> Nash: And there was a headline, very eye catching headline in the Roswell Daily Record, still a paper in that city to this day did that kind of spark a lot of conversation outside of New Mexico.

Was that more of a local conversation that got started from that newspaper headline?

>> James: Yeah, it didn't, surprisingly didn't spread super outside localized areas, during that time.

You would think it would.

But I think just due to the conflicting reports that were happening, during that time, and kind of in those following months, following the incident, that it didn't spread as far as you would think, especially because TV media hadn't really gotten to that point yet.

>> Nash: All right.

Well, you talk about conflicting reports.

Let's get into that.

So Caden, there were basically two press releases back to back.

One came out that the Army said that it was a flying saucer that had crashed, and that the Army Air Force had recovered that and had captured the flying saucer.

The very next day, a conflicting press release came out, retracting that statement and saying that it was a weather balloon.

So what are the legal issues concerning the government changing its story so quickly like that?

>> Salazar: So, the government in this -- this is largely dependent.

The government is allowed to, in certain cases, lie in the interest of protecting national security interest.

And this happens regularly.

There is certainly an interest in protecting their own national security.

But the legal issues that came from this largely stem in that there was a lot of and kind of talked about this with the Roswell Daily Record.

There was also a radio station that was essentially threatened by the FCC that if if you don't stop transmitting, stop broadcasting about what they found about this alleged flying saucer, that they would pull their license or that you were not allowed to talk about this.

So a lot of the constitutional issues stem from the reporting on this incident and reporting on the the way that the government had changed its story.

So that's certainly a change in that's certainly perhaps a violation in of someone's freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.

>> Nash: You talked about that.

There's kind of a threshold for the government being able to lie in the interest of national security.

Does the, Is it clear that there was a lie in these press releases?

>> Salazar: It seems that way.

So in 19, so fast forward way in the future.

In 1997, the government released an additional report where they attributed what happened in Roswell to something called Project Mogul, which was a project that was designed to detect Soviet nuclear tests.

And they said that that was what had crashed.

And that was certainly an issue.

Obviously, the Soviets would develop a nuclear weapon a couple of years after this, and that was certainly something that was this is the very beginning of the Cold War, there█s certainly something based on those three, the three different reports first flying saucer, first the then the weather balloon and then Project Mogul.

Not all three of those could be true at the same time.

And so there was certainly >> Nash: some somewhere this story is not adding up.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, Tati ana, isn't the military allowed to keep things confidential, to classify certain information, to keep it from the public?

And how how can they justify state secrets?

And and would this be the case where they could.

>> James: Yeah, there's there is a case that happened about three years after the Roswell incident, the United States versus Reynolds case, kind of dealing with something similar with the plane crash that happened.

There was a spouse who they weren't basically including any information, the death report about what happened.

And she was a military spouse.

So the government basically was saying like, this is a state secret.

We can protect national interests, like what Caden said.

And Supreme Court ruled that, yes, the executive branch does have that power to retain state secrets in the interest of national security as the executive branch.

So that obviously then then covers military.

>> Jones: Okay.

And so in the interest of national security, did Roswell rise to that level?

>> James: That's a great question.

It's a little bit, I think, up for debate.

And I think when we're going back to the 40s, like the context of that time does mean a lot with World War Two and sort of the beginning of the Cold War with the 1997 report.

There's obviously a lot of context that was now sort of at the end of the Cold War.

So I think that has a lot to do with why they were starting to discuss Project Mogul, because then it wasn't in the interest of national security at that point, because it's so far removed now.

But it's a great question.

I don't know if we'll ever really know.

>> Salazar: I'll jump on to that too, I think if the project mogul story is true, I think there's certainly a compelling argument, given that the given that the Soviet Union and the United States were very much kind of on that brink of war for about 40 years, and then obviously in 1997, the Soviet Union already fallen, Cold War was over, and they had nuclear weapons.

That was pretty well established.

And if they were actually trying to detect a Soviet nuclear test, if that's what was really happening in Roswell, I think that there's a compelling argument that it was in the interest of national security, though perhaps not all of their actions were lawful still.

>> Nash: Okay.

Well, you all reviewed several firsthand accounts of the incident in Roswell.

Caden, you mentioned Frankie Dwyer Rowe This was a person who was 12 years old at the time of the crash, and she's been on video since as an adult, recounting what happened to her and to to focus in on part of her account that is has a legal analysis attached to it.

Her dad, who was a firefighter, she was home sick from school.

She went to work with her dad to the fire station.

According to her account, a state police officer came into the firehouse with a substance that he said he had pocketed at the crash site.

This was an unusual substance that was solid in his hand, and she says that when he dropped it to the table, it turned into liquid.

A few days later, she's at home.

She says a military police officer came to her house and threatened her, telling her not to, not only not to talk about what she had saw at the firehouse, but that she was ever at the firehouse, and that intimidation included a threat of being sent away to a POW camp or even killed.

And this is a 12 year old child.

So, Tatiana, if this intimidation did take place, if we're if we're taking Dwyer Rose account as factual, how could it be seen legally?

And what case law exists around trying to keep the public quiet around something like this?

>> Ja mes: Yeah, that's a great question.

I think with with Frankie, obviously in her testimonial, we can really see like where kind of things went wrong and like what Caden was saying about First Amendment violations and what that means in the context of national security.

But obviously we know, like, there are still constitutional rights that you still hold in times of war.

And that has brought a lot about a lot of case law in terms of what the government can get away with, with free speech.

And that kind of goes to some case law from like the 60s during the Vietnam War and protests there.

But in terms of intimidation, I might have to pass this off to Caden.

I feel like you have a little bit more knowledge on that.

>> Nash: Well, what about this?

Is this a form of, like, indirect censorship?

>> James: Yes, there's one case, I think, the Bantam Books case, which discussed more censorship in publications.

So I think it kind of goes back to First Amendment rights as freedom of speech, but also freedom of the press.

During this time frame in the Bantam Books case, there was censorship for certain books being published and a committee that was maybe taking intimidation too far, where they were sending unofficial letters to publishers and saying, like, you can't, you can't give this to school children because it's obscene or not appropriate for them, but they didn't actually have necessarily like the power to do that and fully censor school boards, basically.

And that kind of threat was over in writing, which I think is a little bit different distinction from this situation where it was intimidation in person.

But in that case, they they did rule that the Supreme Court ruled that that was unconstitutional.

>> Nash: did you have something to add?

>> Salazar: Yes, and there was one there are a couple cases that focus on this is something called this can be interpreted as something called prior restraint, which is stopping speech, preventing speech from someone before it happens in several times.

The Supreme Court has ruled since the 60s that such restrictions on speech, such as what the military police officer is alleged to have done to Miss Row e, that those are presumably unconstitutional.

And so that's without the threat whatsoever.

Even if he was just saying, hey, you can't talk about this, and obviously she's a child, so there's an additional protection there.

But if he was just saying, hey, you can't talk about this, that's still like presumably unconstitutional, there's a very, very high burden to just tell someone that they can't talk about this.

It's happened in the New York Times of the United States case, I believe, is when that original that originated >> Nash: that's the Pentagon Papers case, the Pentagon Papers and Richard Nixon >> Nash: n you mentioned that there's an added piece of this that that Frankie Dwyer Rowe was a child at the time.

Where does that play in?

>> Salazar: So the government or the Supreme Court, even this Supreme Court has largely taken the side that children have an extra constitutional protection, that there is a compelling government interest in protecting children and that children, obviously, there's a there in a very formative development, developmental time, something like going into a child's house could potentially be I mean, obviously that could be traumatic.

If you've seen the interview with Miss Dwyer Rowe, even later in her life, she was clearly affected by what she alleged.

>> Nash: Yeah, she's tearful as she recounts it.

>> Salazar: Yeah, absolutely.

And I think because of that, that kind of shows why.

But the Supreme Court has ruled that there is -- there is largely -- a compelling government interest in protecting children.

And so that going forward in this military police officer alleged to have threatened her, that raises an additional constitutional standard, that there is even more of a necessity for her due process rights to be obeyed and continued too.

>> Nash: Now, you guys mentioned Project Mogul, Tatiana, if the object that crashed around Roswell was in fact a piece of this secret project -- the fact that the government is alleged to have tossed this object up into the air, are they really to expect privacy when anybody could look up in the sky and see this?

Like, what expectation of privacy, or confidentiality is there, when this is something that anybody could see?

>> James: Yeah, that's a great question.

There's a case where, I think the 80s in Florida, where a man was growing marijuana in his backyard, and it kind of brought up the Fourth Amendment question we discussed a little bit earlier about privacy and due process and like protection for searches and seizures without a warrant.

And in that case, they -- the police in Florida used military or police helicopters to survey his backyard to see if there was marijuana growing.

And then they were able to use the evidence that they discovered from the aerial vantage point to then get a warrant.

So that kind of brought up the same question, which is like, can you expect privacy reasonably in those situations?

And in that case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was lawful and constitutional for the police to be able to do that and survey from an aerial point of view -- >> Nash: Because the field was so visible?

>> James: Yes, so I think -- Yeah, in that case, it would be very interesting to say like, well, then if the public is able to view Project Mogul, can the military expect reasonable amounts of privacy?

>> Nash: Okay.

I really appreciate this legal analysis.

And I guess to wrap up, Caden, and I'm curious what you would say to folks who think about Roswell as happening almost 80 years ago, this week.

What you would say to them about why this legal analysis that you all have laid out for us is, is still relevant today.

>> Salazar: One of the most important lessons from Roswell, is how easy, assuming everything that is alleged true, especially with Mrs.

Rowe if we assume all of this is true, it's how easily the government has the capacity to take someone's constitutional rights away, Right.

The Ten Amendments in the Bill of rights and everything beyond that are so integral to how American society, how American politics and how American government functions.

And if the government can just go into your house with military police officers So not even like a New Mexico State police officer, this is a member of the United States Army, can go into your house without a warrant and then sit down and essentially interrogate a child and threaten violence, threatened imprisonment if they speak about something that's a violation of that's potentially a violation of the first, the fourth, the fifth and the eighth Amendment.

And so much of that is is very concerning because it happened so quickly.

And it can be, so much can be said in the interest of national security.

So much can be done in the interest of national security.

And it's a reminder of how vigilant people have to be in protecting their own rights.

And that the ten amendments and then every all 17 after that, they aren't just words on a paper.

We have to actually work to keep those.

>> Nash: Well said.

Thank you both so much for sharing your analysis with us.

>> Salazar: Thank you for having us.

>> James: Thank you so much.

>>Nash: Thanks again to Tatiana James and Caden Salazar for sharing their fascinating work.

And to everyone else who contributed to the show for New Mexico PBS, I'm Nash Jones.

Until next week, stay focused.

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