Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers Like You >>Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus the longest government shutdown in U.S.

history is over.

But the partisan divide remains over what got funded and what should come next.

>>Stansbury: What I know, as somebody who grew up in New Mexico without health insurance is that when you cannot afford health insurance, people go without care and people get sick and people die.

>>Nash: Plus, state lawmakers wrapped a quick Special Session to ensure access to food just in case the dysfunction in Washington persists.

New Mexico in Focus starts now.

Thanks for joining us, I'm Nash Jones.

It has been a busy week, but then again, I can't remember the last time that wasn't the case.

So let's get right into it.

The state legislature set a land speed record on Monday, gathering out a Special Session just under four hours after introducing a single bill.

It sets aside more than $160 million to shore up the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, or food stamps.

After President Donald Trump shut off the federal spigot amid the government shutdown, this was Just-in-Case money in anticipation that the shutdown might stretch into the holiday season.

State Democrats said they weren't taking any chances, particularly given that New Mexico relies more heavily on SNAP than any other state.

It turns out that money might never be spent with the shutdown ending, but nevertheless, our team was in Santa Fe this week to document the action, and we'll get into that in a bit We're also going to dive into some water.

Figuratively, of course.

Last year, State officials launched the 50 year Water Action Plan, a blueprint for conservation, protection and development of new sources over the next half century in the face of a bleak outlook as climate change tightens its grip.

Later this hour, Executive Producer Jeff Proctor, walks through the latest actions on that plan with state engineer Elizabeth Anderson.

We're also going to check back in on plans to redevelop the state fairgrounds.

A board overseeing that effort has approved the first chunk of change for a significant facelift in the middle of Albuquerque's International district.

I joined two board members at the site that's soon to be demolished, then rebuilt as a space that's more livable.

But first, let's get to the story that is front and center for so many of you.

The end of the longest federal government shutdown ever.

Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico joins us from Washington to offer her perspective on why the shutdown happened, how it ended, and what to expect now.

Congresswoman, thank you so much for making the time.

The House voted Wednesday to reopen the government.

You voted against the funding bill, why?

>>Stansbury: Well, let me clarify.

I did not vote against reopening the government.

I voted against the dirty deal that came out of the Senate.

And there's a whole slew of reasons why I voted against it.

One is, it is not the deal that we agreed to.

In fact, this deal was shoved through, it was a continuing resolution mixed with three appropriations bills.

And tucked into it were all of these dirty side deals, including, an 11th hour deal that came from Senate Republicans, which gave eight Senate Republicans this massive payout, who were investigated for the January 6th Insurrection.

So now, because of the passage of this bill, which, by the way, not a single one of my Republican colleagues in the House would vote to take out of the bill during a Rules committee hearing We have eight senators that can now claim million dollar payouts from the Department of Justice for participating in January 6th, and so -- >>Nash: It allows them to sue.

I believe that speaker Mike Johnson said that he also found out about it at the 11th hour, and said that he was interested in pulling it and would fast track a vote on that next week.

>>Stansbury: Well, so I find that hilarious because it came out of the Senate and folks knew what was in the bill.

And as I mentioned, not only was there a vote in the Rules Committee, there were multiple Amendments put forward over the seven hours that the Rules Committee met and multiple Republicans on the panel said that they found it repugnant.

And by the end of the night, because I was actually sitting there, Mike Johnson was not, the chairwoman of the committee asked Republican members to leave the room because she didn't like that they were commenting on how terrible the bill was.

So Mike Johnson knew it was in the bill.

I hope that he is earnest about taking it out.

But here's the deal.

Do we think those same senators who voted to put it in are going to take it out, even if he fast tracks it in the house?

I think that he has zero commitment from the Senate that they're going to take that paid out of there.

And I think it's part of a bigger pattern of corruption that we've seen by this administration, where now U.S.

Senators think that they're entitled to payouts as well, if the federal government investigates them for criminal behavior.

>>Nash: Now, while democratic opposition to the funding bill was significant, six of your colleagues in the House, in your caucus voted for it.

And it only got to your chamber because eight Democrats in the Senate, across the aisle on Monday.

What have you heard from those colleagues?

And what would you like to say to them?

>>Stansbury: My job is to represent the people of New Mexico.

So it's not my job to tell my colleagues how to vote.

What I know is that the people of New Mexico, resoundingly, through the vast majority calls that we got to my office.

The federal workers who I sat down with and the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people that I met with through physical town halls, thousands through my telephone town halls.

The overwhelming response that I got to my office was, hold the line, continue to do the work, fight for health care.

And yes, we want the government to reopen, but we've got to stop this bully who's trying to gut health care and gut food assistance and all of these important programs that sustain our communities.

>>Nash: Democrats are outnumbered in both chambers of Congress.

Why pick the fight to extend ACA credits in the first place?

>>Stansbury: Well, I mean, because there's an emergency happening.

Open enrollment began on November 1st for the vast majority of Americans.

And, the result of people having their health insurance skyrocket once those Affordable Care Act, subsidies expire, is that 15 million Americans could lose their health insurance.

And that's not only an emergency for those 15 million people.

That's an emergency for the health care system.

So in New Mexico, for example, we already have a very fragile health care system.

Everybody knows that.

It's difficult to even get in to see a doctor or specialist.

And because of the Big Ugly Bill, that the President and the GOP passed in July, they literally are taking $1.5 trillion out of the health care system between the Affordable Care Act, the cuts to Medicaid, the cuts to Medicare.

When you do that to the health care system.

That means the entire system could collapse because of the lack of coverage for people who are uninsured.

Skyrocketing hospital bills.

And what I know is somebody who grew up in New Mexico without health insurance is that when you cannot afford health insurance, people go without care and people get sick and people die.

>>Nash: Speaker Mike Johnson said about a vote in the House, quote, “The Republicans would demand a lot of reforms before anything like that was ever possible.” Any sense of what reforms he's looking for and whether there's an appetite in the Democratic caucus to negotiate that?

>>Stansbury: Well, I think we would all love to know what Mike Johnson is actually talking about.

And we would like to see real proposals on the table.

And I think that is why we were searching for assurances that were not just in words, but in writing.

So we put a deal on the table.

In fact, there's a discharge petition on the House floor right now to extend the Affordable Care Act for the next three years.

But listen -- I am all for health care reform.

I believe in universal health care.

I would love to have a bipartisan conversation about fixing our health care system.

Do I think that it is achievable in two and a half months to come up with a wholesale health care reform and pass it through the United States Congress?

I don't think so, right?

It took many years and a lot of political power to even get the Affordable Care Act passed.

But the emergency that we're facing right now is that you have all these people whose health care subsidies are expiring.

And so I understand that they want to do these wholesale reforms.

And I agree with that, actually, not necessarily his specific, kind of reforms.

So let's have that conversation.

But in the meantime, we can't let 15 million people drop off health insurance.

And that's part of why New Mexico had a Special Session at the beginning of October and made the decision to use state funds to shore up those health subsidies until June, because our governor, who does have a background in public health, understands that we can't let people drop off of health insurance because not only is it bad for them, it's bad for the entire system.

>>Nash: Now, this funding bill, it funds SNAP through September.

Can you give New Mexicans any sense of long-term outlook for SNAP benefits?

>>Stansbury: For now -- [Laughs] people should be fine with regards to SNAP.

And you know, I think in many ways part of why the Trump administration tried to do this is, number one, his own director said at the beginning of this shutdown that he wanted to maximize pain.

We didn't realize he meant on th American people, but they also I think we're trying to test presidential, funding authority.

And I think that is part of why they took this case to the Supreme Court, because we've seen this administration over and over again, try to challenge Congress's authority of the purse.

And I think this was a potent and damaging way to do that.

But I think we were very clear in the funding bill that we just passed.

It was very clear that those contingency funds are to be spent in an emergency.

And folks SNAP benefits should be okay.

But I'll just say one more thing I was, at food banks over the last week and a half all across Albuquerque and Rio Rancho.

Sandoval County, people are scared.

Last weekend -- last Friday, I was in the International District with Roadrunner Food Bank, and they had doubled the number of families come getting food, at the food bank.

And that was before all the snap stuff had kind of imploded last week because people just don't know.

And people are already living on the edge and because SNAP already isn't enough.

And so that's why the state has taken such proactive action.

So it's also important that people continue to support our food banks as well.

>> Nash: Thanks for that.

And kind of back to your, work in Washington.

You said in a statement after the vote that our battle is just beginning.

What fronts do you see that battle playing out?

What tactics may you employ?

>>Stansbury: Yeah.

I mean, the battle is just beginning because this was the first of many fights we're going to face over the next year.

And health care in particular.

If you tracked the passage of what the White House called one big, beautiful bill acted what we called the big ugly Bill had $1.5 trillion in cuts to health care.

That includes half, billion dollars in cuts to Medicare, which is going to restructure the Medicare program for seniors It's massive cuts to Medicaid that's going to kick tens of millions of Americans off of Medicaid.

It's these Affordable Care Act subsidies, and it includes all of these other cuts and, changes to policy that are basically going to break the health care system.

But many of the start dates don't begin until next year.

So the Affordable Care Act's subsidy expiration is the first of multiple emergencies that are going to happen because of the big beautiful bill.

So we're going to have to fight every single one of those.

And many of those actually are triggered next fall.

Next, winter.

So that's part of why the battle's just begun.

But also because the lawlessness I mean, we've just seen it over and over and over again.

It's like every single day, a new assault on our constitution, the rule of law, civil liberties is coming down the pike.

And so we just know we have to stay in the battle and keep fighting.

In terms of tactics, you know, I think that we have used every tool that we have.

We're using congressional oversight.

We're using the court system very effectively, by the way.

And also just the power of community.

And this is what democracy is.

You know, Albuquerque participated in the No Kings Rally.

It was the largest public protest probably our city has ever seen.

I don't know if you were there - >>Nash: We were there.

>>Stansbury: It stretched -- yeah, it stretched for miles, right.

So, we just have to keep showing up and doing the work.

Congresswoman Stansbury, thank you.

>>Stansbury: Thank you.

>>Nash: During the shutdown, federal funding for the SNAP program was suspended for the first time in the program's 60 year history But New Mexicans' EBT cards never ran dry.

And the beginning of the month, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham allocated $30 million in emergency state funds to cover the first ten days of November.

Then, as that end date approached with the government still shut down and the near future of SNAP funds still up in the air, She called lawmakers into a Special Session to keep state food assistance flowing.

Lawmakers convened Monday, and were in and out in just hours.

They passed a single funding bill.

It puts $162.5 million towards state food assistance as needed, through the first few weeks of January.

If federal SNAP funding is anything but full and complete during that time.

Lawmakers also approved another $30.2 million that will definitely be spent.

That includes $30 million to replenish the emergency account the governor tapped earlier in the month.

Additionally, $75,000 to pay for the special session itself.

Finally, $100,000 for added security and equipment for the administrative office of the courts.

While large majorities in both chambers approved the bill in its final passage on the Senate floor, drew some debate.

Here's some of what we heard.

>>Trujillo: What I want to talk about today just quickly, is my experience using Snap benefits back in the 1990s.

I had a serious family event happen, and I was unable to purchase food for my family that included my children and myself.

I went in and was able to apply for and qualify for Food Stamps.

What I struggled with is that I learned that Snap benefit are really supplemental, so it is not an abundance of food.

It's a minimum of food.

And when we say supplemental, what that truly means is that you're given enough to buy some basic necessities.

Beyond that, you are still likel going to need some income to ensure that your family has good quality food and in some cases, enough food.

So during this time, I really struggled to make sure that there was enough food on the table.

And the thing that I struggled even more so was with nutrition.

I was able to find a group of other mothers that were similarly situated, and we formed a group, and once a month we would get together and we would make meal plans, and each of us brought in different meals.

We tried.

We talked a lot about nutrition.

We talked a lot about portions.

And then we would go out and we would buy the food, and we would come and get back together and cook the food in one day for approximately 30 meals.

We would freeze those, and that predominantly got us through dinners.

I just want to remind everyone, during this period of time in my life, I was working full time.

I was working full time.

I was a head start teacher.

Snap is more than a good policy.

For many, it's survival.

For me and my family, it was survival.

>> Scott: Various newspaper articles that have been discussing SNAP in the last few weeks.

One of those, and this would be contrary to the good senator who spoke previously, would be contrary to her experience.

But one of those was a lady that has been on Snap for three decades.

Now.

Madam President and Senator, I would submit that this program has morphed from a hand up to a hand out, and that needs significant reform moving forward.

>> Nash: Republican Senator Larry Scott, who you just heard from, was one of just 15 lawmakers from his party who voted against the bill.

On the national stage, the issue of Snap funding has been far more starkly.

partisan, fueled by President Trump's administration, which went to court to keep from dipping into reserves to continue funding the program, even partially during the shutdown in New Mexico.

Support for keeping food assistance afloat has been bipartisan.

I asked Democratic Speaker of the House Javier Martinez about that after the session adjourned.

>> Martinez: Yeah.

There is support from a lot of Republicans for this work because we all have people who are impoverished in all of our communities, and we care about them.

We're not going to allow the chaos in Washington, DC to force our families to go hungry, especially as we near the holidays.

I mean, what a tragedy for seniors to not be able to put food on their table, or for parents to not be able to prepare a Thanksgiving meal for their kids.

So I'm grateful for the broad bipartisan support we saw today.

And I'm grateful for both House and Senate teams, leadership teams, members, committee chairs and all of the incredible staff that made this happen.

>>Nash: Before the session began several judges issued rulings about whether the federal government had to release Snap funds, causing considerable confusion.

Last Friday, complying with the court ruling, the feds sent a memo to states saying they would fund Snap benefits in full for November.

New Mexico, along with some other states run by Democrats, quickly loaded those EBT cards with those funds But then the Supreme Court temporarily stayed.

That ruling and the USDA over the weekend called on states to pull that money back.

So come Monday, as lawmakers gathered in Santa Fe, New Mexicans had their full November benefits and the Senate vote to reopen the government was soon approaching.

So why, then, did the state feel the session was still necessary?

That was the first question I asked Speaker Martinez that morning before he gaveled it in.

Speaker Martinez, thanks for the time.

Why are we here?

>> Martinez: We're here to ensure that no New Mexican goes hungry over the next couple of months dealing with that federal dysfunction coming out of D.C.

The state of New Mexico is once again stepping up and creating this assurance policy, if you will, $162 million through the health care authority to fill any gaps coming from the federal government for people who are receiving Snap.

>> Nash: And when you say any gaps, it could be some flexibility.

Then, in terms of what comes up in the coming days, weeks.

>> Martinez: Correct.

Because what we've seen since the shutdown began, first of all, the unprecedented step taken by President Trump to not fund Snap, which had never happened before with any federal shutdown, he unilaterally ended Snap funding starting November 1st, hurting a lot of families.

Millions of families across the country.

The courts, pushed him to actually fund Snap He refused.

Now there's potentially this congressional deal, to end the shutdown.

Either way, we're not going to stand idle.

We don't trust Washington.

We don't trust President Trump.

We don't trust Speaker Johnson.

And so we're going to ensure that there's funding in state government to assure people that they will not lose their benefits.

Under our watch.

>> Nash: And now New Mexico loaded up EBT cards with the full amount of Snap benefits on Friday.

Now the Trump administration is saying that states have got to rescind that money.

But what's the status of, Snap beneficiaries in New Mexico in terms of their November benefits?

>> Martinez: Whatever he wants to do to us, bring it.

We are ready to fight you.

But no family in New Mexico, no low income senior, no veteran is going to go hungry >> Nash: Is there a legal, standing for what he's saying or what the federal government saying in terms of, asking asking states to undo that work?

>> Martinez: Absolutely not.

And there's also no legal standing for him unilaterally ending Snap benefits, on, on November 1st because of the shutdown.

Yet he doesn't care about the rule of law.

We do.

That's why we're doing what we're doing to ensure that people do not go hungry, to ensure that we are, in compliance with state and federal law.

The courts need to push back on him and hold him accountable for breaking the law.

>> Nash: Later that day, a federal judge ruled that states did not have to pull those November benefits back.

But that's basically a moot poin now that the government shutdown is ended and Snap funding has been restored through September.

But Republicans tacked an amendment onto the funding bill that is still relevant, and it got bipartisan support.

It requires that the Legislative Finance Committee evaluate how the state administers the Snap program.

New Mexico has one of the highest error rates in the nation when it come to snap, at just under 15%.

Those errors include over and under paying benefits because of mistakes, sometimes very simple ones by applicants or the health care authority itself, which administers the program under Trump's big bill, states with error rate that high would have to pay into the program as a penalty, which Health Care Authority Secretary Kari Armijo says could cost at least $150 million a year.

Preliminary findings on how the department can improve its error rate are due to lawmakers.

In January, Republican Senator Pat Woods sponsored the amendment in that chamber.

>> Wood: When we get the preliminary findings in January, we will need to work together to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to the system these taxpayer dollars, and we must continue to demonstrate that we're being responsible on how they are spent.

And that starts by identifying where the problem is.

And this evaluation will do just that I support.

Ask for your support for this event.

>> Steinborn: I am not going to support the amendment because we see a lot of misdirection, frankly, that Snap is getting these benefits, intentional misinformation about it.

And I see this is just not necessary.

But I'm really not interested.

Intriguing talking point that would just further, you know, casts any kind of aspersions on people receiving Snap and the nature of the program and somehow saying that this crisis have anything to do with that.

>> Nash: Secretary Armijo says she's open to the evaluation, though her department is already working on lowering its Snap error rate.

We asked Legislative Finance Committee director Charles Salle how he feels about his department's assignmen to find out what more can be done, along with part of the bill that didn't seem to relate to any of this.

There were several million dollars passed in the last special session for Snap benefits.

How does this differ?

>> Sallee: So in the last special session, there was money for the administration of Snap, to start trying to get our error rates down, which is what the federal government's penalizing us in.

House resolution one that was passed by Congress earlier this year, as well as to pay for benefits for certain legal immigrants who no longer will qualify, because of that legislation.

>> Nash: Okay.

And there was an amendment that was just passed here in this committee that would have your department, the legislative Finance Committee, evaluate those error rates.

Is that, it would be more of studying why it's happening rather than the funding you're talking about from last time, which is really about, curbing that error rate.

>> Sallee: That would be correct We have that performance information, but we don't know exactly what could drive better performance yet.

We've got a project that's coming out this month that's going to hit on Snap.

It's a big program.

It's a potential huge liability for the state if we can't get these error rates down.

So it's time to roll up our sleeves and learn more about how this program is operating for the state, so that we can mitigate the potential really devastating effects of the state having to to match benefit cost for a program we've never had to do that.

That could potentially begin as early as, FY 28.

And that could be upwards 150 to $200 million a year.

That would be at the expense of other types of programs and funding streams that, the state funds with its general fund would have to be diverted.

It looks like, to pay for Snap benefits.

>> Nash: There was a section at the end of the bill that you addressed with some of the lawmakers, that you referred to as an exercise kind of a fiscal exercise because, revenues, did not match up with, projections.

Is that what I'm understanding correctly?

Can you tell me more about that?

>> Sallee: So there's a provision that the, appropriations bills typically allow that if revenues are not coming in to fully fund all the appropriations that the legislature's made, then money can be transferred out of the reserves to make those appropriations whole.

But the fiscal year is already closed on this particular question.

And this is simply an accounting exercise to allow, the executive to show on paper that it had enough money to balance the budget.

>> Nash: Is this kind of maneuver, sign that, there's a concern?

>> Sallee: I'm concerned that the economy is slowing and that revenues are slowing.

If the administration has asked for this at this point in time.

Yes.

>> Nash: And thanks to everyone on our team who got up to Santa Fe to help us document the sprint.

That was this special session.

Now we are going to step away from the often bitter ins and outs of passing bills and budgets, both in state and federal government and home in on an issue that might land a bit more personally, especially here in New Mexico.

Water.

Last year, the state launched what officials are calling a 50 year water action plan.

It's a roadmap of sorts that looks ahead to when forecasts show roughly a quarter less water than what our state has now, and that already isn't enough to meet New Mexico's needs.

The action plan can be scooped into three vital buckets conservation, protecting existing water and developing new water supplies.

To help us understand how all of this works, executive producer Jeff Proctor caught up with state Engineer Elizabeth Anderson.

>> Jeff: Elizabeth Anderson, welcome to New Mexico InFocus.

Thank you for being here.

>> Anderson: Thank you for having me.

>> Jeff: So last year, New Mexico launched a 50 year water plan, and I would like to begin by sort of setting a baseline.

Where are we now and what would the status of the state's water look like in the 2070s without taking action?

>> Anderson: You know, looking into the future, we expect 25% less water in our water systems in the next 50 years.

Climate change is has a dramatic impact on all the western states, all the world.

However, I think with the 50 year water action plan, we've really laid out a solid future for, the things that we need to do to be prepared, the things that we're already doing, the things that we need to do.

In terms of near-term impacts on what we're seeing here in the state, I think everyone's noticed, this was an exceptionally dry year.

Sometimes it's hard to see what's happenin to those around you when you're experiencing something just up close.

And a lot of people are experiencing water shortages up and down, particularly looking at the Rio Grande.

But throughout the state, of course, New Mexicans are we're accustomed to drought.

We're good at working together.

We have strong communities that understand the need to share the resource.

The trauma this year, people wer in shortage sharing operations from early in June, earlier than they usually would be.

Through the middle Rio Grande.

We saw people with water shortages as well.

In the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District.

They're saying their, customers had less than half of the water supply.

They usually would, I think even less than that.

The San Juan trauma contractors, they get water from the Colorado River through a series of tunnel that brings the water into the Rio Grande basin.

They only got a 31% allocation of water.

So across the board, this year's been extremely dry.

The lake levels at Elephant Butt have been exceptionally low, which has a severe impact on the local economies there and recreation and tourism So we and then the folks downstream of Elephant Butte as well, have had extremely low supplies of water this year.

The Elephant Butte Irrigation District only had a six inch supply of water when a full allocation would have been three feet.

So up and down the river we've had people sharing and shortages And I just think it's it's good to get some visibility on that big picture.

It, it was the lowest water supply, that we've seen in terms of snowpack, on record.

So this is an extremely bad year It's an example of what it looks like when we're having to have all those, those measures in place.

But I think it's also really, really positive to see that we are able to do that and that the people that are living with these dry conditions have have mechanisms to share the supply and the strong communities that are able to support that.

>> Jeff: And of course, a lot of people here in Albuquerque were freaked out during various parts of this yea by driving across the Alameda Bridge, for example, and seeing the river dry here in Albuquerque.

You mentioned a 25% reduction by the 2070s.

Is that without planning or is that period?

This is where we're headed.

>> Anderson: The ultimately that's regardless of planning.

We expect the hydrology that will experience with climat change will result in 25% less water in our surface water systems that then means less water going into recharging our groundwater systems.

So across the board, we're expecting a drier hydrology.

What, what the 50 year water action plan does is it really lays out, strategically, what we can do in terms of conservation, protecting our resources and the developing new water supplies.

>> Jeff: And I want to get into those three buckets in a moment.

I just want to kind of continue to set that baseline for a moment.

Good planning requires good data And on this front, the best I can tell, at least there's a little bit of a dearth of that In terms of the work your office does and maybe related to the plan as well, how does that envision a better sort of data collection and analysis effort?

>> Anderson: The work that we're right now at the state is there's a lot of work being done with the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources on aquifer characterization, which helps us, you know, put more wells in the ground to monitor the supplies that we have and better understand what those resources are in terms of groundwater.

We're also doing a lot of research on surface water, of course, but sometimes it's those underground resources that are not well understood.

So the data is a critical piece of all of this.

Also, in my time at the office of the State Engineer, the one of our, our big focus areas is on modernization and modernizing our data systems Is is a critical need in the state and the legislature and the governor's office.

Realize this.

They realize the need for the data.

>> Jeff: Let's get into it just a little bit.

You mentioned kind of those three buckets, conservation and protection of existing water and also development of kind of new water sources.

I would like to begin with conservation.

Are we talking here about me turning off the faucet when I'm brushing my teeth, or using a drip line in my garden, or more sort of systemic bigger focused ideas in terms of conservation?

>> Anderson: I think we're talking about all of those things.

And that's that's a critical piece of all of this, is we want there's no one solution for the water problems in New Mexico.

We have to we have to use all the tools in the toolbox, essentially.

That means people at the local level, individuals conserving water wherever they can.

Recognizing that our, our resources are limited even though the water comes out of the ground with a that supply is a diminishing supply in a lot of cases.

So, people working at the local level to just turn off the faucet is a huge, huge, has a huge impact on our systems And part of what the Water Actio Plan lays out is an initiative for water education.

And that's really to get out there and get more curriculums into the schools that educate kids on water, get more media out there, and more information for people to consume that will help them understand how they individually can make a difference.

But then at the larger level, we are definitely looking at, conservation.

In agriculture, for example, finding ways to help farmers, have the resources to, to sustain the, the gaps in supply, while having a vibrant farming community also looking at ways to reduce in some areas.

>> Jeff: Let's stick with agriculture for just a moment, is adoption of the kind of practices and technologies that are discussed in the plan, voluntary, or is there a way that you can get folks to come along, either by crook or by hook?

>> Anderson: I think that ultimately, the best programs are going to be voluntary, and we've seen a lot of interest through the, through the programs that we're implementing right now.

There's currently a, a pilot project underway in the lower Rio Grande where the community members, the farmers are coming in, and, and doing some voluntary conservation measures on a year by year basis But we're going to be transitioning that into a permanent fallowing program, permanent, voluntary fallowing and compensated.

>> Jeff: Obviously, agriculture uses a huge amount of water.

Pecans, for example.

How can the state work with that industry to ensure a sustainable water future?

>> Anderson: That's, you know, ultimately looking at the lower Rio Grande again, the Texas, the New Mexico settlement that, that we just issued to the Supreme Court, is for their decision is something that's really going to support, support that part of the state in finding balance within their systems.

So that that type of approach, that sort of, ultimately more of an active water resources management strategy is what we need to to help communities broadly, share the supplies.

And sometimes that looks like reducing the number of acreage that, you know, permanently is, is, irrigated.

But it also it can look at, you know, year by year at the supply that's available and help people find strategies working between different water users to, to share that supply.

>> Jeff: Let's move on to protection of existing water resources for a moment.

Much of this is about cleaning u contaminated groundwater sites.

The 50 year plan set a benchmark of this year to launch and fund a state program to take care of 100, quote, neglected sites that have no responsible party and that do not rank for the federal Superfund program.

Where does that effort stand today?

>> Anderson: I think it's a really exciting thing to see us being so proactive about cleaning up these sites.

Water quantity is something that our agency deals with regularly.

Water quality is something that the New Mexico Environment Department deals with, and we work hand in hand with them in lockstep.

Because if you don't have clean water, then it doesn't it doesn't help to have the water.

So, it was exciting last year to see that the legislature funded, the protection and restoration of, of our water systems with about 50, $64 million of that, about 25 million was fo non Superfund contamination, cleanup and Superfund sites.

So we've got a lot of support coming through just this last session.

>> Jeff: Let's talk for a moment about watershed restoration.

That's another significant element of course of water protection.

The nonprofit New Mexico Water advocates argue this kind of work, quote, remains embattled, fragmented and relatively small scale.

Do you agree?

>> Anderson: I think that there's a lot of work to be done And the 2020 Forest Action Plan lays out a path to get there.

The the legislature also funded another $20 million to bridge forest management and restoration projects.

So I think there's a it's a it feels like a monumental task to manage our forests, but we have tools to do this.

And, and it's it's a necessary piece of, maintaining our water systems when we don't, when we, when we have these horrible, devastating wildfires.

It's horrible for communities.

It's horrible for the forests and those ecosystems.

Ultimately, what we get is, runoff that has a lot of sediment in, coming down into our waterways.

And so it significantly impacts our ability to move water through the state, get water to the people who need that water, and get water to our compacting states.

So there's there's multiple reasons why we need to manage our forests.

>> Jeff: Could those efforts be more coordinated, >> Anderson: I think from the state level and from the federal level we really are working in lockste with federal partners to, to implement this as well as local partners.

The Rio Grande Water Fund, is a is a resource that the Nature Conservancy set up, set up that local communities, local utilities, local water conservation districts, they can contribute to, to support forest management projects that are within their watersheds So we have a lot of great structures like that in place and partnerships working with the federal government.

>> Jeff: Okay.

Finally, let's turn to the third tenant of the 50 year plan developing new supply, a bill passed earlier this year to support removing salt from brackish water found underground across the state, along with surveying how much is out there?

How is that coming along?

>> Anderson: They, they did issue the RFP to get the proposals in, and have had a ton of interest for people coming in that legislation.

Is providing $40 million this year.

Hopefully we'll recruit more funding for that.

That fund next year in this session.

But I think there's a lot of interest in developing brackish water supplies and putting those to use for, you know, lots of different needs here in the state.

>> Jeff: How will they be used?

>> Anderson: I think it's a great resource for, economic development projects or drought resiliency.

There are brackish water supplies that we're still evaluating throughout the state.

>> Jeff: Speaking of water that has an adjective before it, along with cleaning up the brackish water, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has more controversially been pushing to reuse treated oil and gas wastewater known as produced water.

Obviously, she sent a couple of cabinet secretaries to a water quality Control Commission meeting, to push ahead with this plan to expand the use of so-called produced water beyond the oil fields.

Environmental groups and some Democratic lawmakers have pushed back.

I wonder your thoughts on the use of so-called produced water outside the oil field.

>> Anderson: I think that, again going back to that toolbox, it's an important resource that we need to figure out how to use in the state.

So reuse of municipal wastewater, reuse of I, you know potable or produced water.

They're all very important resources for the state.

And it's exciting to see the movement that's possibly there.

>> Jeff: We are just around the corner from yet another legislative session that begins in January.

Any kind of priorities or things that your office will be looking to the legislature for come of the beginning of next year.

So I already mentioned the enforcement, and the need to be able to help people administer water supplies That's a primary goal of our agency and an area where we need more support.

Because water supplies are getting tighter as we have less water, there's more administration that has to be done.

Hand in hand with that, we need to progress our Indian water rights settlements.

We have five right now in Congress awaiting approval and more underway.

This state, under this governor's administration has made that a huge priority and had a lot of success.

In getting those across the finish line here in the state.

Now we need to get them across at the federal level.

But having the Indian water supply, our water, settlements in place provides more, certainty of the structure of administration within the state.

So I see that is going hand in hand with enforcement.

We're also doing a lot of work on conveyance systems to get help water move through the state more efficiently.

There's asks along those lines for, support to, to improve our conveyance through water systems.

I think those are some of the, the top ones.

>> Jeff: Gotcha, state engineer Elizabeth Anderson, thank you so much for the chat.

I really appreciate it.

>> Anderson: Thank you.

It's great to talk with you.

>> Nash: Thank you to State Engineer Anderson for dropping by to talk water management.

So back in September, we brought you to the state Fair where patrons weren't exactly excited about the idea of it moving to a new location as part of a redevelopment effor on that plot of state land in Albuquerque's International District.

We also, though, heard from former mayor Marty Chavez, who's spearheading the effort for the governor, on why the move is a good idea.

Well, this week we bring you the latest on a project dubbed Fairgrounds Reimagined, a board formed to oversee as much as $500 million in investments in that property, has approved the first chunk of bonds $67 million worth We met up with two members of the state Fairgrounds District board, Albuquerque City Councilor Nichole Rogers and District six Neighborhood Coalition President Peter Belletto to learn about what those initial funds are meant for, when we can expect them to be spent, and what else is on the horizon for the long neglected Southeast Albuquerque neighborhood.

>>Nash: Welcome, and thank you so much for joining us here at the State Fairgrounds.

Councilor Rogers, the fair board has, about $500 million in bonding capacity for those unfamiliar with bonds.

And how they work, revenue bonds What does that mean, exactly?

What money is this?

>> Rogers: Yeah.

So a bond is is of our ability as a tax increment district to borrow money, to do development projects.

So we have the capacity to borrow up to 500 million.

That doesn't mean we're going to you know, do that for the full amount, although hopefully.

Right.

We need that much investment in our district.

But we've actually approved of that capacity.

The $500 million capacity.

We've approved 67 million, for that bonding capacity.

And so what money are you borrowing like from who?

Yeah.

So this would be from tax increments that we get mostly for the state fair district.

It's really going to be the casino and the racetrack that are the biggest generator of tax revenue.

And that's where we are able to borrow from.

>> Nash: Okay.

And, Doctor Belletto, what would this 67 million dollars in bonds go towards?

>> Belletto: At this particular time It'd be phase one construction, the demolition of certain buildings on the fairgrounds and the redevelopment of the new vision for the fairgrounds as part of phase one.

>>Nash: So new buildings.

What else is part of phase one?

>> Belletto: Well, that there's going to be a beautiful, wall.

Well, that's not really determined yet We're going to have a community meeting on the 18th.

>> Nash: Right.

And we'll talk more about the community, >> Belletto: And we're going to get more input.

>> Nash: There is kind of some draft concepts that have been drafted up by.

>> Belletto: You know, it's, you know, you go off Central there's this beautiful plaza walkway, tree lined, safe.

A safe place to be could include small businesses, could include some housing.

It's just a remarkable re idea of what the fairgrounds can become.

>> Nash: All right.

And we are on California Street right now and kind of the intersection with Domingo Road.

This is basically the center of, where the demolition area is.

Can you describe kind of, what is here right now?

>> Rogers: Sure.

So right now, what we're standing in the middle of is what the governor proposes to acquire to add to the tax district.

And that's what we approved in the bond, right, was to be able to, acquire these businesses because, again, we have to pay a fair market value for their businesses, their land, their structures, so that we can use this to redevelop the beginning stages of the redevelopment of the fairgrounds.

>> Nash: And is the 67 million is that part of what would help you acquire these private businesses?

>> Rogers: So it would be, some of the acquisitions, some of the demolition, pedestrian safety for street improvements and the concept that the community will weigh in on more for the ten acre park concept.

>> Nash: Yeah, yeah.

So that concept and of course, it's just a draft at this point, nothing is set in stone.

But, what does it look like on this whole block >> Rogers: Yeah.

So we saw some of the conceptual you know, drawings that will go to community at our last Tid meeting.

And basically, it's really the thing that I'm most excited about is the pedestrian safety improvements.

We know that both corner San Pedro and Louisiana have a high, probability and actually a lot of pedestrian deaths.

And so for me, that's the most important is that we're doing extra crossings on central.

We want to open it up to where we're actually able to use this space all year round, and not just during the fair.

And so I'm most excited about about those opportunities also for some more built infrastructure for potentially for our flea market and those folks that are patrons, of the flea market that people love.

>> Belletto: And adjacent roadways will also be developed.

There'll be a pedestrian buffer, to further, speak to the needs of safety.

There will be benches development it'll be it's just going to be a marvelous entryway for growth.

>> Nash: And you mentioned the flea market.

Also, of course, the state fair has been held at the fairgrounds That's been something that people have been very interested in, whether or not the state fair is going to have to move due to redevelopment of the site.

Any update on that idea of that proposal?

>> Belletto: No, there's no update at this time.

Everything is on the table.

There's going to be, recommendations from Santec, which would include the fairgrounds.

And Santec is the firm that's spearheading the concept.

>> Belletto: That's right they're doing their needs assessment.

And there would be another version or two without the fair.

But in any regards, we should understand that supposedly fairgrounds is to be moved.

It's going to be seven, eight years.

You've got to acquire new land.

There's a lot to moving a fair.

Okay.

So it's not going to be too disruptive.

But we're we'll know a little bit more on the 18th and the final report will be done in February.

>> Nash: Okay.

And so the the 67 million and what that could be allocated towards that doesn't have anything to do with whether the fair moves or stays.

>> Rogers: Correct.

The idea is, that we're working on things that we can do on the peripheral whether the fair moves or stays.

This will be a great addition to this area in this neighborhood.

And for me, I think that's the most important because people are always asking what's your opinion, counselor?

Do you want it to move or do you not want it?

>> Nash: How do you feel about it?

>> Rogers: I feel like this.

Whatever.

Like we need a transformational project on this land.

Period.

Whether and I think personally we can do everything here.

Right.

>> Nash: But meaning the fair as well.

>> Rogers: Yeah, absolutely.

But the good thing is, is that the people that make that decision is the State Fair Commission, right?

>> Nash: That's not your board.

No, no.

The board.

We make decisions on how the money is spent in this geographic area of the district.

Right.

But the decision, the final decision on whether the fair moves or stays is the State Fair Commission.

And those folks are appointed by the governor of our great state.

So I think I'm excited about any investments in this area, in this district, whether it's here or on the outsides of the state fairgrounds, because we need transformational development that's going to help lift up the whole neighborhood.

And that's what I'm most hopeful about.

>> Belletto: The redevelopment of Southeast Central.

And the ID has been the number one priority for the district six coalition of neighborhoods.

We've been, suggesting and working with, local government, to come up with ideas.

And, you know, why is this so important?

Housing for all, a living wage, opportunity, a slice of heaven like is found in other places.

And that's why it's so very important that the community have a strong voice in how the development occurs.

And, I promise you, you're going to see a lot of community recommendations in the final product.

>> Nash: And so, in some ways, Doctor Belleto, I believe as the president of the district six Neighborhood Coalition, you are kind of representing the community voice on the board We're going to talk a little bit about, future opportunities for public input.

But what have you been hearing so far?

>> Beletto: Well, I do want to call to your attention that our city councilor also represents district, and she hears a lot of things as well.

But this is what I've heard some say we should keep it unilaterally.

Some say it ought to be moved, some don't have an opinion.

And that's kind of where we are now.

We need more information so folks can will have the time and the opportunity to think through the process and come up with a plan that will really benefit this area.

This area of town has been neglected for decades economically, and it's high time that something like this happened.

This part of town needs a new deal.

And this fair project, would be the starting point for for that economic growth.

>> Nash: And you all mentioned the 18th, Councilor Rogers, can you talk more about, what that opportunity is on Tuesday and how people can get involved?

>> Rogers: Yeah.

So November 18th, Santec is having another community meeting that will start at the Fine Arts Building on the state fairgrounds.

So just kind of look at kind of like a charrette of some of the concepts that we reviewed as a board.

So the community can can have some time to digest those.

And then we'll be moving over to have an actual town hall, for the second portion of the meeting so folks can weigh in on that.

Those conceptual plans give their feedback directly to the folks putting the reports together for the governor's office.

If they can't attend that meeting, there's all there's still a survey on, the Fairground Reimagined website that folks can still put in their information into about what they feel about the fair.

But again, this is about activating this space in a way that we can use all year round, not just during the fair.

And I think that's what really we are hearing from community, that regardless of what happens with the fair, they want the walls to come down They want us to be a space that community can utilize a walkable, safe are that folks can gather in all year round.

And so I'm excited to see that we're listening, in that way, >> Nash: 67 million down, 433 million left to go.

Any sense of what, what more could be, invested in what more that could look like for this area?

>> Beletto: One concept that's come up is, the development of an arena and athletic arena that that could be centered here And just just think what an arena would bring to this area.

Jobs build it, jobs to run it, jobs to maintain it.

And as Councilor Rogers says, this will be a year round.

A venue.

The walls will come down, the walls are really detrimental Someone the other day said to me you know, why do you want to mess with the fair?

It's so nice inside, I said, of course it is, because it's walled, I said, but we need you to integrate.

We need to integrate the fair grounds property into the city proper.

So, don't be, a lot of opportunity.

And again, phase one, phase two, phase three.

Hopefully we'll finish it.

>> Rogers: And I think the question I get the most is what's the difference now.

And all the other governors that have tried to do this, I mean, I've read plans from the last 30 years from back to even Bill Richardson about.

>> Belletto: That's right.

>> Rogers: Things that they wanted to do here and big grand plans.

>> Nash: What is the difference?

>> Rogers: The difference is we have a funding mechanism this time that can actually allow us to dream with a backing of funding that we haven't had from generation to generation.

So regardless, this is a good thing for our all the neighborhoods, not even just district six.

We forget district seven, on Lomas and nine all have a vested interest in this property.

And this activating this space for something more positive all year round.

And I think that also means we know we have to deal with the public safety.

There's a lot of fear around when the walls do come down.

Who's going to protect this space?

And just like I say, to constituents with our parks, we aren't going to make a huge investment in our neighborhoods without the ability to protect that space.

And the truth is, we saw this with Phil Chacone Park.

People were like, oh, it's just going to get run over.

It's going to get run down.

It's going to people are going to occupy that space, to live.

Right.

And that's not what we're seeing We're seeing neighbors actually using that space.

There's eyes passive surveillance from community members who want to take back our community.

So I'm hopeful we can, all of us because we have the county, we have the city, we have the state all pushing in the same direction.

Whatever investments we make here, we're going to be able to protect.

And so let's dream big.

Let's not say someone's going to come ruin it.

So we don't deserve nice things here.

Let's take the opposite approach and dream big, people.

Let's dream big.

>> Nash: The public input meeting on the redevelopment plans starts at 6 p.m.

on Tuesday at the Fine Arts Building at the fairgrounds You have to attend the informational portion of the meeting between 6 and 7 if you want to give input.

During the town hall portion that follows at 7:15.

Thanks to Councilor Rogers and Peter Belletto: and everyone else who contributed to the show, and a programing note, [New Mexico] in Focus will step aside next Friday for Ken Burns' The American Revolution we'll be back at it the week of Thanksgiving on November 28th.

For New Mexico PBS I'm Nash Jones.

Until next time, stay focused.

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