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

>> Lou: THIS WEEK ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS, SOBERING STATS.

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN NEARLY TWO DECADES, A NEW REPORT ON ALCOHOL INDUSTRY LOBBYING SHOWS HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT TO KEEP AN ALCOHOL TAX FROM PASSING THE ROUNDHOUSE.

AND, FLAGGED OFFSIDES.

ONE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP IS ASKING WHY THE PLANNED NEW MEXICO UNITED SOCCER STADIUM IS BEING BUILT NEAR THEIR BACKYARDS.

>> Brooke: MANY OF THEM ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE BEING IMPACTED AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION IN THE AREA SHOULD THE STADIUM BE BUILT AT BALLOON FIESTA PARK.

>> Lou: NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS STARTS NOW >> Lou: THANKS FOR JOINING US THIS WEEK.

I'M SENIOR PRODUCER LOU DIVIZIO LAST NOVEMBER, ALBUQUERQUE'S CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A LEASE AT BALLOON FIESTA PARK FOR A NEW STADIUM FOR NEW MEXICO UNITED.

IT'S A DECISION THAT'S DRAWN ORGANIZED OPPOSITION FROM SOME NEIGHBORS OF THE PROPOSED SITE.

LATER IN TODAY'S SHOW, ANDY LYMAN, EDITOR AT THE ALTERNATIVE NEWS WEEKLY 'THE PAPER,' ASKS A NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE WHY SHE AND OTHERS ARE OPPOSED TO THE NEW SOCCER STADIUM.

WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AHEAD TO THE 2024 LEGISLATIVE SESSION AS WE BEGIN TO GET SET FOR OUR COVERAGE NEXT WEEK OF THE GOVERNOR'S STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS.

CLOSING TODAY'S SHOW, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT DURING THIS YEAR'S 30-DAY SESSION AT THE ROUNDHOUSE.

AND AS WE TIGHTEN OUR FOCUS ON STATE GOVERNMENT, WE'RE LEARNING THAT NEW MEXICO'S PARKS DIVISION HAS MISSED A SERIES OF DEADLINES AND IT MUST FORFEIT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FEDERAL FUNDING INTENDED FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION PROJECTS FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS.

IN THE SECOND HALF OF TODAY'S SHOW, FREELANCE JOURNALIST ELIZABETH MILLER SITS DOWN WITH MICHAEL CASAUS, THE STATE DIRECTOR OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, AND ASKS HOW THOSE FORFEITED DOLLARS COULD HAVE HELPED CITY PARKS AND OPEN SPACES.

BUT WE START WITH AN ISSUE THAT WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, THE STATE'S NATION-LEADING ALCOHOL-RELATED DEATH RATE.

COMMON CAUSE NEW MEXICO RELEASED A REPORT LATE LAST YEAR PROVIDING EVEN MORE CONTEXT ON THE ISSUE AND THE LEGISLATURE'S DECADES OF FAILURES TO ADDRESS IT.

ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, 141 BILLS AFFECTING ALCOHOL EXCISE TAXES HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED SINCE 1990.

ONLY 16 OF THOSE HAVE BECOME LAW, AND ONLY ONE WAS A MEANINGFUL TAX INCREASE.

TO UNDERSTAND WHY, COMMON CAUSE WORKED TO QUANTIFY THE INFLUENCE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS HAVE HAD ON LAWMAKERS.

FROM 2013 TO 2023, THE INDUSTRY SPENT MORE THAN $2.6-MILLION ON POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.

THAT INCLUDES CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, MEALS, AND ENTERTAINMENT FOR LAWMAKERS DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS.

FOR SOME PERSPECTIVE ON THOSE NUMBERS, WE TURN TO THE FIRST OF TWO ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS.

>> Lou: WELCOME TO OUR PANELISTS FOR THIS CONVERSATION ON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF ALCOHOL-RELATED PROPOSALS IN THE ROUNDHOUSE.

I'M HAPPY TO BE JOINED TODAY BY SINDY BOLAÑOS-SACOMAN.

SHE'S AN EVALUATOR WHO WORKS WITH MCKINLEY COUNTY ON BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ISSUES.

RETIRED STATEHOUSE REPORTER STEVE TERRELL, WHO WORKED FOR THE SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN FOR YEARS -- DECADES, THAT IS.

AND STATE SENATOR ANTOINETTE SEDILLO-LOPEZ SERVING DISTRICT 16 IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN ALBUQUERQUE.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.

I WANT TO START WITH RECENT HISTORY WITH YOU, SENATOR.

YOU SPONSORED A BILL LAST YEAR THAT CALLED FOR A TAX INCREASE OF 25 CENTS PER DRINK.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT PROPOSAL BOTH DURING THE SESSION AND AFTER ONCE IT REACHED THE GOVERNOR'S DESK?

>> Antoinette: WELL, I COULD PROBABLY WRITE A NOVEL OF ALL THE INS AND OUTS, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WRITING A BILL THAT ENDED UP BEING CONFUSING TO PEOPLE.

IT'S CURRENTLY TAXED IN LITERS AND GALLONS NOW, AND WE KIND OF CHANGED IT TO HAVE A TAX ON PER DRINK, AND THAT CAUSED A LOT OF CONFUSION.

BUT BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENED IS, AS IT TOOK THE RIDE OVER FROM THE HOUSE TO THE SENATE, A MISTAKE WAS MADE IN THE CALCULATIONS, AND THAT MISTAKE WAS NOT CORRECTED IN THE SENATE.

AND THEN IT WENT TO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AND WAS SHAVED DOWN EVEN MORE, AND IT'S HARD TO DESCRIBE ALL OF THE WAYS.

I MEAN, I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION.

AND THEN IT WAS KIND OF ANNOYING, BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE SAYING, THIS IS A 200% INCREASE.

WELL, WHEN YOU'RE TAXING SOMETHING BY TWO CENTS -- YOU KNOW, IT WAS JUST RIDICULOUS.

AND SO I THINK I'LL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONFUSION THAT HAPPENED ALONG THE WAY.

AND THEN WHEN THE GOVERNOR GOT IT, THE TRUTH IS I'M GRATEFUL TO HER FOR VETOING IT, AND THE REASON IS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT A ONE CENT PER DRINK INCREASE, AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HARD TO GET A MORE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE THAT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

AND THE REASON IT'S SO IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE WE NEED THESE RESOURCES.

WE ABSOLUTELY NEED MORE RESOURCES FOR RECOVERY, PREVENTION, TREATMENT, AND ALSO TO REMEDY SO MANY OF THE HARMS THAT ARE CAUSED BY ALCOHOL.

SO IT WAS A WILD RIDE, BUT WE'RE READY FOR A NEW RIDE.

>> Lou: NOW, IT DID GET THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE.

THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT'S HAPPENED IN DECADES, ALSO.

AND THE LAST TIME THAT A TAX INCREASE WAS PROPOSED WAS 2017.

THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT PAST ITS FIRST COMMITTEE.

SO EVEN WITH THOSE MISTAKES THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT, OR THE CONFUSION THERE, WERE THE CONVERSATIONS IN THE ROUNDHOUSE JUST AROUND TAXES, THE WILLINGNESS TO TAX ALCOHOL, ANY DIFFERENT THIS PAST YEAR?

>> Antoinette: I THINK WHAT WILL MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IS WHEN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THE MONEY ISN'T JUST GOING TO GO TO THE GENERAL FUND, BUT TO AN ALCOHOL HARMS ALLEVIATION FUND THAT WILL ADDRESS THE HARMS AND THEN DEAL WITH PREVENTION.

THAT'S WHAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO MANY LEGISLATORS, AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A DIFFERENCE, WHEN WE CHANGE THE FOCUS.

A SECONDARY BENEFIT IS THAT IT REDUCES CONSUMPTION, AND I THINK WE WERE EMPHASIZING TOO MUCH ON THE SECONDARY BENEFIT OF REDUCING CONSUMPTION.

AND AS WE FOCUS ON THE NEED FOR A DEDICATED FUND THAT CAN BE RELIED ON YEAR AFTER YEAR FOR PROGRAMS THAT WILL MOVE THE NEEDLE, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THROUGH -- WE'RE NOT GOING TO MOVE THE NEEDLE ON SO MANY SOCIAL PROBLEMS WE HAVE UNLESS WE DEAL WITH OUR ALCOHOL PROBLEM AND OUR SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEM.

>> Lou: NOW, SINDY, I WANT TO ASK YOU FOR SOME CONTEXT ON THE ISSUE.

WE KNOW THAT NEW MEXICO LEADS THE NATION IN ALCOHOL-RELATED DEATHS PER CAPITA AND HAS FOR SOME TIME.

YOU WORK IN MCKINLEY COUNTY WHERE THOSE NUMBERS ARE EVEN HIGHER THAN THE STATEWIDE NUMBERS.

BUT YOU TOLD JOURNALIST TED ALCORN LAST YEAR THAT THE ISSUE IS SO BIG THAT ONE PROGRAM, ONE COMMUNITY, CAN'T TACKLE THIS ALL ON ITS OWN.

WHAT CHALLENGES HAVE COME FROM A LACK OF MEANINGFUL LEGISLATION, STATEWIDE LEGISLATION, LIKE THE SENATOR JUST TALKED ABOUT?

>> Sindy: SO FIRST OFF, I'M AN EVALUATOR AT THE STATE LEVEL, SO I EVALUATE A VARIETY OF PROGRAMS.

McKINLEY COUNTY IS ONE OF THEM, AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S ONE OF THE ONES THAT FACES THE MOST ALCOHOL-RELATED PROBLEMS IN OUR STATE.

AND SO ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT I -- BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A MULTI-FACTORIAL PROBLEM.

I MEAN, WE HAVE NOT ONLY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ISSUES, WE HAVE DISPARITY ISSUES, WE HAVE INEQUALITY ISSUES, WE HAVE SO MANY ISSUES AND FACTORS.

I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT MCKINLEY COUNTY, THEY'RE ALSO OVER QUOTA WITH LIQUOR LICENSES.

THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT PROBLEMS THAT WE REALLY NEED UNIVERSAL PREVENTION.

WE NEED PRIMARY PREVENTION THAT'S TARGETING AT ALL THE DIFFERENT AREAS.

WE NEED -- I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT PREVENTION IN OUR STATE HAS BEEN FUNDED.

WE DO KNOW THAT.

AT VERY LOW RATES, THOUGH.

THERE HASN'T BEEN AN INCREASE IN, I THINK, THE 17 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN IN PREVENTION.

MOST PROGRAMS GET ABOUT $100,000.

THAT'S NOT A LOT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT PREVENTION AT COUNTY LEVELS.

SO I'M LOOKING AT TREATMENT, I'M LOOKING AT PREVENTION, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER DEPARTMENTS ARE THERE.

WE NEED SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS, WE NEED IOPs, WE NEED INPATIENT CENTERS FOR YOUTH.

WE'RE SENDING OUT OUR YOUTH AND WE'RE SENDING OUT OUR NATIVE COMMUNITIES OUT OF STATE WHENEVER THEY NEED ANY TYPE OF INTENSIVE TREATMENT.

WE NEED MORE MAT SERVICES IN AND ACROSS OUR STATE, ESPECIALLY IN RURAL AREAS.

TRIBAL COMMUNITIES NEED CULTURAL PROGRAMS THAT ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO THEIR SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES.

AND NOT EVERY COMMUNITY AND TRIBAL COMMUNITY IS THE SAME, EITHER, AND SO THEY NEED AN INPUT TO BE ASKED, WHAT WOULD PREVENTION LOOK LIKE?

IS IT REINTRODUCING CULTURE?

THEY SHOULD HAVE A VOICE WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT TYPE OF PREVENTION SERVICES ARE NEEDED.

WE'RE LOOKING AT SERVICES THAT ARE PAID FOR, TREATMENT THROUGH MEDICAID, LET'S SAY, IT'S A STIPEND.

IT'S A ONE-TIME STIPEND FOR CULTURAL SERVICES.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT, NOTHING THAT MAKES AN IMPACT OR A CHANGE IS GOING TO BE A ONE-TIME EVENT, RIGHT.

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

PREVENTION DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

SO IN GENERAL, WE NEED MULTIPLE PROGRAMS THAT ADDRESS MULTIPLE FACTORS ACROSS THE STATE.

>> Lou: NOW, STEVE, THAT REPORT FROM COMMON CAUSE NEW MEXICO THAT I REFERENCED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SHOW, THERE IT IS, 'STILL UNDER THE INFLUENCE,' YOU WERE A CO-AUTHOR WITH DEDE FELDMAN, WHO WE'LL HAVE ON IN JUST A MINUTE, IT DETAILS THE SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE THAT ALCOHOL INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS HAVE HAD IN THESE LEGISLATIVE DISCUSSIONS.

YOU WORKED ON THE REPORT OBVIOUSLY, LIKE I JUST SAID.

WHAT ARE A FEW BIG TAKEAWAYS FROM IT?

>> Steve: WELL, THE BIG TAKEAWAY IS THAT THE LOBBYISTS HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB OF PREVENTING A TAX INCREASE IN ANY SERIOUS WAY IN THE LAST FEW DECADES, AND THAT WAS A BIG ONE AS FAR AS THE POLITICAL ASPECT GOES.

THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY DOESN'T GIVE NEARLY AS MUCH AS, THE OIL INDUSTRY.

I'VE STUDIED THEM, TOO, AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S A DROP IN THE BUCKET AS FAR AS OIL MONEY GOES.

BUT WE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT'S PROBABLY JUST THE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THESE LONG-TIME LOBBYISTS, SOME OF WHOM ARE LIKE SECOND GENERATION, SOME OF WHOM ARE MARRIED TO LEGISLATORS.

AND A LOT OF THEM, A LOT OF THESE ARE CONTRACT LOBBYISTS.

THAT MEANS THEY HAVE A WHOLE ARRAY OF CLIENTS, NOT JUST IN THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY.

BUT WHEN THEY GIVE MONEY, YOU KNOW, IT'S -- I DON'T KNOW SENATOR LOPEZ-SEDILLO CAN PROBABLY ANSWER THIS BETTER THAN ME, BUT YOU DON'T ALWAYS LOOK, OH, WHERE'S THIS FROM?

WHO'S THIS FOR?

AND BY THE WAY, OUR STUDY FOUND THAT SENATOR LOPEZ-SEDILLO HAD ZERO CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY, AT LEAST SO FAR.

>> Antoinette: AND THEY'RE UNLIKELY TO GIVE ME ANY MONEY.

>> Steve: THIS WON'T HELP YOU.

>> Antoinette: I DON'T TAKE MONEY FROM THAT INDUSTRY.

>> Lou: WELL, SENATOR SEDILLO-LOPEZ, I DO WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THAT.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY'S LOBBYING POWER HAS DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE FAILURE OF PAST LEGISLATION ON THIS ISSUE?

>> Antoinette: WELL, THAT'S SUCH A COMPLICATED QUESTION, AND I THINK YOU SAW THAT WHEN YOU SORT OF FOCUSED LESS ON THE MONEY AND MORE ON THE RELATIONSHIPS, BECAUSE THESE LOBBYISTS REPRESENT A LOT OF DIFFERENT INTERESTS, AND THEY DO HAVE REALLY DEEP RELATIONSHIPS.

SOME OF THEM ARE FORMER SENATORS, FORMER REPRESENTATIVES.

SO IT'S REALLY COMPLICATED.

I DON'T TAKE MONEY FROM THE INDUSTRY, OR FROM OIL AND GAS, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT THEY HAVE ANY KIND OF INFLUENCE ON ME.

I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT I SEND THE MESSAGE THAT I REPRESENT WHAT'S BEST FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, AND THAT'S WHO I SERVE, NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS.

SO EVEN THOUGH SOME LOBBYISTS ARE CHILDREN OF FORMER STUDENTS OF MINE, OR FORMER STUDENTS, ACTUALLY, SOME OF THE LOBBYISTS WERE, I WILL LISTEN TO ANYBODY.

IF ANYBODY MAKES AN APPOINTMENT WITH ME, THEY'RE WELCOME, AND WHETHER THEY SUPPORT ME OR NOT, THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE.

BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO THINK ABOUT THE PERCEPTION.

WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE WHEN YOU TAKE A LOT OF MONEY FROM OIL AND GAS AND THEN YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE GREEN AMENDMENT?

YOU TAKE A LOT OF MONEY FROM THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY, AND THEN YOU DON'T SUPPORT AN INCREASE IN THE TAXES.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD LOOK, AND THAT'S WHY I DON'T DO IT.

>> Steve: I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF THE POWER OF LOBBYISTS.

BACK IN 2003, BILL RICHARDSON WAS THE NEWLY ELECTED GOVERNOR.

HE HAD A BLUE RIBBON TAX TASK FORCE, AND ONE OF THE -- THEY CONSIDERED AN AMENDMENT TO THIS PROPOSED TAX LEGISLATION.

IT WAS GOING TO BE A SWEEPING OVERHAUL OF THE TAXES HERE IN THE STATE.

AND PART OF IT WAS, I THINK IT WAS LIKE A DIME A DRINK RAISE IN THE ALCOHOL TAX.

THIS COMMITTEE PASSED -- THIS TASK FORCE PASSED THIS AMENDMENT RIGHT BEFORE LUNCH.

AND A REPORTER WHO'S MORE -- I FORGET WHO IT WAS, BUT THEY HAD MORE EXPERIENCE THAN ME WAS GOING, THIS AIN'T OVER.

AND SURE ENOUGH, RIGHT AFTER LUNCH, THE REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAD SPONSORED THAT AMENDMENT SAID, I'D LIKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, AND THEY RECONSIDERED IT.

AND BILL RICHARDSON WAS LIVID.

THEN HIS WHOLE TAX PACKAGE BASICALLY WENT DOWN IN THE SPECIAL SESSION THAT CAME UP.

AND HE GOES, IF THE LIQUOR INDUSTRY THINKS THEY'VE GOT THE BEST OF BILL RICHARDSON, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT ANOTHER THING COMING.

BUT THAT'S THE LAST TIME HE EVER BROUGHT IT UP.

>> Lou: OKAY, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT OUR CURRENT GOVERNOR, TOO.

I KNOW, SENATOR, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT YOU WERE HAPPY THAT THE GOVERNOR ENDED UP -- >> Antoinette: VETOING THE PENNY A DRINK INCREASE.

>> Lou: YES, SOMETHING THAT WAS WATERED DOWN TO THAT LEVEL.

BUT HOW SHOULD THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND THIS?

YOU TALKED ABOUT PERCEPTIONS.

YOUR STUDY SHOWED THAT GOVERNOR LUJAN-GRISHAM WAS ONE OF THE TOP THREE RECIPIENTS AMONG STATEWIDE CANDIDATES OF THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY, AS FAR AS CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.

>> Steve: I THINK SHE WAS THE TOP CANDIDATE.

>> Lou: OKAY.

SHOULD THE PUBLIC DRAW A LINE BETWEEN THE VETO AND HER CAMPAIGN RECEIVING THAT MONEY?

>> Steve: POSSIBLY NOT BECAUSE OF THE -- I DON'T THINK WE CAN SAY THAT'S TRUE, MAINLY FOR THE REASONS THAT THE SENATOR GAVE.

BUT THE FACT IS, SHE DID TAKE A TON OF MONEY FROM THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY.

>> Antoinette: AND I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH HER STAFF WITH THIS BILL.

SHE WAS VERY GRACIOUS, MET WITH US, TALKED ABOUT IT, AND WE'RE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH HER STAFF ON THIS NEXT BILL.

WE BELIEVE SHE WON'T VETO WHATEVER COMES OUT OF THIS SESSION.

I WOULD LOVE FOR HER TO ENDORSE IT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT SHE WOULD VETO IT.

>> Steve: AS A FORMER REPORTER, I'VE GOT TO SAY, THOUGH, SHE DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING THAT TO THE PUBLIC AFTER THE VETO.

SHE MAY HAVE PRIVATELY TO YOU GUYS.

>> Lou: NOW, SINDY, I WANTED TO FINISH WITH YOU HERE AND YOUR POSITION DEALING WITH THESE ALCOHOL-RELATED ISSUES AND CRISES.

YOU MENTIONED A FEW PROGRAMS BEFORE THAT COULD BENEFIT FROM MORE TAX DOLLARS.

HOW EXACTLY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THOSE TAX DOLLARS SPENT?

AND IS A LEGISLATIVE APPROACH NECESSARY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN?

>> Sindy: I DO BELIEVE THAT A LEGISLATIVE APPROACH IS NECESSARY.

I THINK IN OUR STATE, LIKE I'VE MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE TREATMENT, WE DO HAVE PREVENTION, BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE.

I THINK SINCE 2015, I REMEMBER HEARING OUR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, OUR EPI DEPARTMENT, SAYING WE HAVE AN ALCOHOL CRISIS, WE HAVE AN ALCOHOL CRISIS, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, AND YET IN 2021, WE REACHED OUR ALL-TIME HIGH.

SO IN REALITY, IF WE HAVE 2,276 NOW -- EDITED VERSION -- DEATHS IN OUR STATE IN 2021, AND THAT'S AN ALL-TIME HIGH, AND WE'VE BEEN SCREAMING SINCE 2015, WE NEED SOMETHING.

WE NEED SOMETHING MAJOR.

WE NEED SOMETHING REALLY, REALLY BIG AND IMPACTFUL.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THIS WAS A GRASSROOTS EFFORT, FIRST AND FOREMOST, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN, AS GRASSROOTS MOBILIZERS, COMMUNITY MOBILIZERS, EVALUATORS, TREATMENT AGENCIES.

WE HAVE A COALITION OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

WE ALL MET WITH A VARIETY OF ASSOCIATIONS, COALITIONS, TREATMENT PROVIDERS, AND SAID, WHAT DO YOU NEED IN YOUR COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO COMBAT THIS?

WHAT DO YOU NEED TO DECREASE ALCOHOL-RELATED HARMS?

AND WE STARTED AN ENTIRE LIST, AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME.

WE TOOK THIS LIST AND WE TOOK IT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, AND THEN THEY TOOK IT TO NINE DIFFERENT OTHER SECRETARIES, NINE OTHER DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING CYFD, AGING AND LONG-TERM SERVICES, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, AND THE LIST GOES ON.

WHAT THAT REALLY SAYS IS THAT THIS 250 TO 275 MILLION DOLLARS COULD GO INTO PROGRAMS IN ALL OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS.

NOW, THINK ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT THAT WOULD HAVE, RIGHT.

I MEAN, THE IMPACT IN ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS.

BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THIS IS NOT A ONE -- IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT DECREASING ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION, IT'S ABOUT TREATING THE DISPARITIES.

IT'S ABOUT TREATING -- YOU KNOW, THE ELDERLY HAVE A LOT OF SUBSTANCE USE, AS WELL.

IT'S NOT VERY KNOWN AND HARDLY EVER ADDRESSED.

AND IF WE LOOK AT EARLY PREVENTION, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EARLY PREVENTION.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, RIGHT.

THIS FUNDING TALKS ABOUT HOME VISITATION, EARLY PREVENTION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS.

SO WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT A VERY LARGE IMPACT.

AND AGAIN, I MENTIONED UNIVERSAL PREVENTION OR PRIMARY PREVENTION BEFORE.

SO THE LIST OF PROJECTS THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING STARTED AT THE GRASSROOT LEVEL AND THEN WENT TO THE SECRETARIES AND THE AGENCIES AND THE DEPARTMENTS FOR THEIR INPUT, AND THEN THE PRICE THAT THEY ENDED UP WITH IS A LOT HIGHER THAN WHAT WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED IN ORDER TO TACKLE THE NEEDS IN OUR STATE.

>> Lou: THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'RE OUT OF TIME THERE.

BUT SINDY BOLAÑOS-SACOMAN, STEVE TERRELL, AND SENATOR ANTOINETTE SEDILLO-LOPEZ, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK HERE IN LESS THAN A MINUTE WITH A NEW GROUP TO TALK ABOUT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THAT COMMON CAUSE REPORT.

>> Brooke: NEW MEXICO UNITED AND THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE HAVE FAILED TO DO A COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY TO SEE HOW BUILDING A STADIUM IN THAT AREA WOULD AFFECT AIR, WATER, NOISE QUALITIES.

>> Lou: THANKS AGAIN TO OUR PREVIOUS PANEL FOR THE DISCUSSION ON LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND LOBBYING INFLUENCE OVER ALCOHOL-RELATED ISSUES.

NOW, AS WE SHIFT TOWARDS CONCLUSIONS, I WANT TO WELCOME THREE NEW PANELISTS.

FIRST, MICHAEL BIRD, THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION.

TRIP JENNINGS, WE'VE SEEN YOU BEFORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NEW MEXICO IN-DEPTH.

AND FORMER DEMOCRATIC STATE SENATOR, DEDE FELDMAN, A CO-AUTHOR OF THIS REPORT THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FROM COMMON CAUSE NEW MEXICO.

NOW, WE JUST GOT DONE TALKING THROUGH THE INNER WORKINGS AT THE ROUNDHOUSE AND HOW THAT'S INFLUENCED LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON ALCOHOL, AND I WANT TO ZOOM OUT NOW AND KIND OF TALK ABOUT WHY THIS ISSUE IS SO IMPORTANT AND HOW WE CAN ELEVATE THE DISCUSSION THAT'S BEEN STAGNANT FOR DECADES, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF LEGISLATIVE PROGRESS.

LET'S START WITH WHAT THE AVERAGE NEW MEXICAN MIGHT THINK ABOUT THIS.

IF I'M A GUY AT HOME WITH A DRINK IN MY HAND WATCHING THIS, WHY WOULD I WANT TO PAY MORE FOR THAT DRINK?

HOW CAN INCREASING ALCOHOL TAXES, TRIP, BENEFIT THIS WHOLE STATE SOCIETY?

>> Trip: SO AS YOU MAY HAVE TALKED ON THE FIRST PANEL, NEW MEXICO LEADS THE NATION -- I JUST WANT TO START OUT WITH THIS KIND OF LIKE SOCIAL DETERMINATES HERE, WHICH IS, LEADS THE NATION IN ALCOHOL-RELATED DEATHS.

AND IT'S NOT PEOPLE DYING ON HIGHWAYS, LIKE DWI, IT'S CHRONIC CONDITIONS, LIKE CIRRHOSIS OF THE LIVER.

YOU'VE GOT ALL SORTS OF DATA THAT SHOWS THAT EVEN AMONG 25- TO 34-YEAR-OLDS, CIRRHOSIS OF THE LIVER IS ONE OF THE LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH.

THIS IS RELATED TO ALCOHOL.

AS FAR AS THE PERSON WHO IS SITTING THERE THINKING, WHY SHOULD I PAY MORE, I WANT TO SAY THAT OUR REPORTING AT NEW MEXICO IN-DEPTH, WE DID A BIG SERIES ON THIS, IS NOT THAT ALCOHOL IN AND OF ITSELF IS BAD, IT'S JUST THE OVERUSE, MAYBE, THAT HAPPENS.

AND THERE ARE STUDIES THAT HAVE SHOWN, IN OTHER STATES THAT HAVE INCREASED THE TAXES, THAT HAVE SHOWN THAT IT ACTUALLY REDUCES CERTAIN BEHAVIORS.

AND IF YOU'RE SOMEONE WHO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOMEONE WHO WATCHES THE STATE BUDGET, WHO THINKS ABOUT HEALTH SPENDING OVER THE NEXT 20 TO 30 YEARS, BECAUSE THAT IS PART OF THE CONVERSATION IN ANY LEGISLATIVE BODY -- CONGRESS, THE NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE -- IF YOU REDUCE KIND OF BEHAVIORS ON THE FRONT END, SOMETIMES YOU SAVE MONEY ON THE BACK END.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK ABOUT WHEN I'M SITTING THERE MAYBE HAVING A BEER ON A FRIDAY NIGHT, IS I DO THINK ABOUT THAT KIND OF STUFF, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN AROUND THE LEGISLATURE FOR SO LONG.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT I DO THINK THERE ARE WAYS THAT ARE IMPACTED.

PLUS, THERE ARE PERSONAL STORIES THAT PEOPLE HAVE AROUND THIS KIND OF STUFF.

>> Lou: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND MICHAEL, I WANT TO GO TO YOU WITH A SIMILAR QUESTION TO REALLY KIND OF NAIL THIS DOWN.

HOW DO WE GET EVERYONE ON THE SAME PAGE HERE, LEGISLATORS, STATEWIDE LEADERS, AND THE PUBLIC, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SOCIETAL BURDENS OF THIS CHRONIC OVERUSE THAT TRIP TALKS ABOUT ARE?

>> Michael: WELL, LET ME JUST SAY, IN ADDITION TO BEING PAST PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, AND FIRST AMERICAN INDIAN, WHICH IN ITSELF IS SOMETHING THAT HASN'T COME EASILY, I ALSO -- AND HAVING SPENT TIME AS A MEDICAL SOCIAL WORKER WITH THE SANTA FE INDIAN HOSPITAL EARLY IN MY CAREER DEALING WITH A HOST OF ISSUES, INCLUDING SUBSTANCE ABUSE THAT WAS IMPACTING NATIVE COMMUNITIES, AND A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE -- YOU KNOW, MY FAMILY, OUR FAMILY, WAS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED BY SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

MY FATHER, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY OVER THE YEARS, HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED BY SUBSTANCE ABUSE, AND, YOU KNOW, MY FATHER ACTUALLY DIED OF CIRRHOSIS.

THE IMPACT THAT HAD ON ME AS A YOUNG MAN GROWING UP, THE IMPACT IT HAD ON OUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY, WAS LONGSTANDING AND DEVASTATING.

I CAN JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, AS A YOUNG MAN GROWING UP, I DIDN'T HAVE A FATHER.

I DIDN'T HAVE A ROLE MODEL IN TERMS OF HOW TO BEHAVE AS A MAN, AS A FATHER, BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE THAT.

HE WASN'T IN MY LIFE.

AND THE ROLE MODELING I DID RECEIVE WAS NEGATIVE.

SO I THINK THAT WHEN YOU REALLY LOOK AT THIS ISSUE, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FAMILIES THAT ARE BEING IMPACTED, BECAUSE THE FAMILY OF ORIGIN IS WEAKENED WHEN YOU HAVE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY WHO ARE CAUGHT UP IN ALCOHOL ABUSE.

USE AND ABUSE, PRIMARILY ABUSE.

AND THAT HAS LONGSTANDING CONSEQUENCES.

IT ALMOST BECOMES, WITHOUT SOME INTERVENTION, THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING.

AND SO FAMILY OF ORIGIN IS UNDERMINED, AND IT MANIFESTS ITSELF IN A WHOLE HOST OF WAYS, INCLUDING SUBSTANCE ABUSE BY FAMILY MEMBERS AND A HOST OF OTHER ISSUES, YOU KNOW.

DWIs, PEOPLE NOT BEING GAINFULLY EMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HOLD THEIR JOBS.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS NOT JUST AN ESOTERIC ISSUE.

I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO GROW UP IN THAT ENVIRONMENT, AND I WOULD NOT WISH THIS UPON ANYONE.

>> Lou: THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT, MICHAEL.

>> Dede: AND YOU WONDER HOW MANY STORIES THERE ARE OUT THERE THAT ARE LIKE MICHAEL'S, AND THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN NEW MEXICO WHO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY ALCOHOL ABUSE.

I MEAN, YOU TALKED EARLIER ABOUT HOW MUCH IT'S COSTING THE STATE, AND I THINK THE ESTIMATE IS THAT IT COSTS $2.77 FOR EVERY DRINK THAT THE STATE MUST PAY IN MEDICAID, IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

BUT IT'S NOTHING COMPARED TO THE TOLL IT TAKES ON FAMILIES, AND THE UNRAVELING OF THE SORT OF SOCIAL ORDER THAT OCCURS AS A RESULT OF THAT.

WE'RE PAYING FOR THAT IN SO MANY WAYS IN NEW MEXICO, AND I THINK THE QUESTION NOW IS, ARE WE WILLING TO PUT UP WITH THAT, OR DO WE WANT TO TAKE SOME MEASURES TO ADDRESS IT?

BECAUSE THE MEASURES THAT WE'RE TAKING RIGHT NOW ARE THAT -- YOU KNOW, 75% OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ALCOHOL ABUSE DISORDER ARE NOT GETTING TREATMENT.

THEY'RE JUST SCRAPING BY, OR THEY'RE HAVING TO GO OUT OF STATE AND THE STATE ISN'T EVEN PAYING FOR IT.

>> Lou: NOW, ON THAT POINT ABOUT TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE WORKS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF IN THE LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW?

TO THIS POINT, ON THE LEGISLATURE'S WEBSITE, NOTHING'S BEEN PREFILED.

BUT DO YOU KNOW OF ANYTHING THAT COULD BE WORKING?

>> Dede: YES.

I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO INTRODUCE, AGAIN, A MEASURE TO INCREASE THE ALCOHOL TAX.

LAST YEAR, IT WAS BY 25 CENTS A DRINK, AND I THINK THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AMOUNT THAT THEY'RE GOING FOR THIS YEAR.

AND THAT MONEY WOULD BE PUT INTO AN ALCOHOL HARMS REDUCTION FUND THAT WOULD SPECIFICALLY GO TO REPAIRING THE DAMAGES THAT ALCOHOL IS DOING TO FAMILIES AND TO THE HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE OF OUR STATE.

AND I THINK THEY ESTIMATED THAT IT WOULD YIELD SOMETHING LIKE $250 MILLION EVERY YEAR, WHICH WOULD BE A REAL STEP FORWARD.

>> Trip: I WANT TO SAY, TOO, RELATED TO THIS, WHICH IS RIGHT NOW, THERE'S AN ALCOHOL EXCISE TAX, AND THE PROCEEDS THAT THE STATE TAKES IN, HALF OF THE MONEY GOES TO TREATMENT AND PROGRAMS, THE OTHER HALF OF THAT GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND OR THE STATE'S MAIN CHECKING ACCOUNT.

SO PART OF THIS MOVE THIS YEAR IS ALSO TO MAKE SURE, I BELIEVE, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING, THAT ALL THE MONEY GOES TO THE TREATMENT AND PROGRAMS, NOT TO THE GENERAL FUND.

SO THEY'RE REALLY TRYING TO BE SPECIFIC AND, YOU KNOW, DEDICATE THIS MONEY TO THESE TREATMENTS AND PROGRAMS, BECAUSE THAT HAS SHOWN THAT IT HELPS.

>> Lou: NOW, TRIP, BEYOND TAXES, JOURNALIST TED ALCORN, HIS SEVEN-PART SERIES THAT HE WROTE FOR YOU AT NEW MEXICO IN-DEPTH, HE GAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ONE OF THOSE -- THEY INCLUDE RAISING TAXES, OBVIOUSLY MEASURING ALCOHOL SALES, AND LOWERING THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR DRIVING FROM .08 TO .05.

THAT HAPPENED IN UTAH, AND THEY SAW A 20% DROP IN FATAL CRASHES.

GIVEN THE FAILURES OF TAX PROPOSALS TO THIS POINT, ARE THOSE TYPES OF CHANGES TOO AMBITIOUS OR IS THAT WHERE THE CONVERSATION NEEDS TO GO?

>> Trip: YOU KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO BE -- I WANT TO SAY THE CONTEXT FOR THIS DISCUSSION IN 2024, THESE ARE SOME THINGS -- YOU KNOW, WERE IN THE LEGISLATURE FOR A WHILE, SO YOU CAN MAYBE PUT A FINER POINT ON WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY, WHICH IS, OFTENTIMES TO PASS A MAJOR PIECE OF LEGISLATION, IT TAKES SIX OR SEVEN YEARS.

THAT'S ONE THING.

I WOULD SAY THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND, THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR.

DO WE PASS TAXES IN AN ELECTION YEAR?

THAT'S GOING TO BE REALLY INTERESTING.

I THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW LOCAL PRODUCERS ARE TREATED, YOU KNOW, VERSUS OUT OF STATE FOLKS, AND IS THAT GOING TO INCREASE THE CHANCES FOR A TAX.

I'VE TALKED TO A LOBBYIST WHO'S REPRESENTING SOME ALCOHOL FOLKS, AND HE THOUGHT THAT THE TAX WOULD PASS THIS YEAR.

IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE MAYBE -- YOU KNOW, HOW THINGS WORK IN THE LEGISLATURE IS, IT'S A NEGOTIATION.

YOU START HERE WITH 25 CENTS, AND YOU NEGOTIATE, AND WHERE THAT TAX WILL END UP, WHO KNOWS.

>> Dede: LAST YEAR, IT ENDED UP AT ONE CENT.

>> Trip: YES, IT WAS SORT OF STRIKING TO SEE HOW THAT HAPPENED.

BUT THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN AROUND THE LEGISLATURE, I WAS NOT NECESSARILY SURPRISED OR SHOCKED.

>> Lou: YES, WE TALKED TO ANTOINETTE SEDILLO-LOPEZ IN THIS FIRST SEGMENT, AND SHE SAID THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THAT, AND SHE KIND OF ATTRIBUTED THE WATERING DOWN OF THAT BILL TO THAT.

BUT MICHAEL, THE REPORTING ON THIS IS CLEAR, AS YOU'VE MENTIONED, THAT NEW MEXICO HAS A PROBLEM WITH ALCOHOL, THE NATION-LEADING PROBLEM.

MORE ELECTED OFFICIALS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, EVEN WITH THAT CONFUSION.

BUT THE GOVERNOR STILL VETOED THE BILL.

WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS A GOOD THING, AS ANTOINETTE SEDILLO-LOPEZ HAD SAID, TO KEEP THE CONVERSATION MOVING AND HOPEFULLY GET A BIGGER INCREASE THIS YEAR, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE SEEN THAT COULD INDICATE WHY THE GOVERNOR HASN'T BEEN AN ADVOCATE FOR THIS ISSUE?

>> Michael: WELL, YOU KNOW, I'LL TRY AND KEEP MY RESPONSE BRIEF.

WE HAVE THE BEST, IN THIS NATION TODAY, WE HAVE THE BEST GOVERNMENT THAT MONEY CAN BUY, AND WHEN IT COMES TO -- WHAT REALLY BREAKS DOWN FOR ME, WHAT DO WE VALUE?

DO WE VALUE HUMAN LIFE, OR DO WE VALUE THE DOLLAR?

AND MY GRANDFATHER, WHO HAS LONG SINCE PASSED ON, ONCE SAID TO ME IS WHAT THIS NATION VALUES IS THE GOD-ALMIGHTY DOLLAR.

WE NEED TO DO THE MORAL THING AND THE RIGHT THING.

WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF ALL PEOPLE.

WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT CHILDREN ARE PROTECTED, THAT FAMILIES ARE PROTECTED, AND ONE WAY TO DO THAT IS BY ACTING WHEN YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ACTION AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE, ALL PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO.

WHAT OTHER COURSE IS THERE?

>> Lou: THANK YOU, MICHAEL.

>> Dede: THE COURSE THAT'S BEING FOLLOWED NOW IS THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE, AND THE LAST TIME THAT THE LEGISLATURE INCREASED THE TAX ON ALCOHOL WAS IN 1993.

THAT'S A LONG TIME AGO.

AND YOU'RE ASKING, WHAT COULD BE DONE NOW IN PLACE OF AN ALCOHOL TAX INCREASE?

WELL, THERE ARE A LOT OF LEVERS THAT THE STATE USES WHEN IT COMES TO ALCOHOL, AND THOSE ARE LICENSES, THOSE ARE CONTROL OF THE HOURS THAT BARS STAY OPEN, THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS.

HOWEVER, IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE HAVE ACTED TO LOOSEN THE DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL, TO ALLOW HOME DELIVERS OF ALCOHOL, FOR EXAMPLE, TO INCREASE THE SUNDAY SALES, AND ALL OF THOSE LITTLE THINGS KIND OF ADD UP, YOU KNOW.

IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE MUCH, AND EVERYBODY WANTS TO HELP THE SMALL MOM AND POP LOCAL BREWERY, THE MICRO-BREWERY, WHICH IS A KEY TO LOCAL ECONOMIC, YOU KNOW, SELF-DETERMINATION IN A WAY, BUT THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST NOW.

AND ALL OF THOSE LITTLE FAVORABLE GIVEAWAYS THAT WE'VE GIVEN IN THE PAST COUPLE OF DECADES ARE MOUNTING UP, AND THEY'RE MOUNTING UP TO SIX PEOPLE DYING OF ALCOHOL-RELATED ABUSES EVERY DAY IN NEW MEXICO.

NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S A PRICE WE'RE WILLING TO PAY OR NOT.

WE'RE CERTAINLY ACTING AS IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR.

>> Trip: BASICALLY, THE DOLLAR STUFF, I KNOW YOU GUYS TALKED IN THE PREVIOUS PANEL ABOUT THE LOBBYING MONEY AND STUFF LIKE THIS, I WILL SAY THAT I THINK THE LOBBYISTS ARE FEELING THE PRESSURE.

I REALLY DO.

I THINK THAT THEY'RE -- THE MOMENTUM ON THIS THING IS KIND OF INCREDIBLE.

I'VE BEEN AROUND THE LEGISLATURE FOR 20-SOMETHING YEARS, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN SOMETHING MOVE THIS QUICKLY, ACTUALLY.

I WANT TO SAY THAT.

>> Dede: I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE FOUND IS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS THAT EVEN THE LOBBYISTS AGREE ON.

FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ALL OF THE MONEY THAT'S COLLECTED FROM ALCOHOL TAXES SHOULD GO INTO PROGRAMS THAT ARE ADDRESSING THAT PROBLEM.

>> Lou: THANK YOU.

I'VE GOT TO END IT THERE, BUT THANK YOU ALL.

TRIP JENNINGS, MICHAEL BIRD, DEDE FELDMAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND WE DO HAVE A LINK TO THIS REPORT FROM COMMON CAUSE NEW MEXICO, 'STILL UNDER THE INFLUENCE.'

THAT'S ON OUR WEBSITE.

THANK YOU >> Casaus: AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, IF YOU'RE A LOCAL PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR AND YOU APPLIED FOR AN LWFC GRANT IN 2021, AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T HEARD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WHETHER YOU GOT IT OR NOT, YOU'RE KIND OF CONFUSED AND FRUSTRATED.

>> Lou: THAT INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL CASAUS OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY WILL RUN IN JUST OVER 10 MINUTES.

NEIGHBORS NEAR BALLOON FIESTA PARK WANT A FOUL CALLED AFTER THE CITY APPROVED THE LEASE OF NEARBY LAND FOR A NEW SOCCER STADIUM APPROVED IN NOVEMBER, THE SEVEN-ACRE LOT WILL BE PRIVATELY DEVELOPED AS THE HOME FOR THE STATE'S USL SOCCER TEAM, NEW MEXICO UNITED.

LAST MONTH, ANDY LYMAN, EDITOR OF THE ALTERNATIVE NEWS WEEKLY 'THE PAPER,' INTERVIEWED UNITED CEO AND PRESIDENT PETER TREVISANI ABOUT PLANS FOR THE NEW STADIUM, AND TREVISANI PAINTED A PRETTY ROSY PICTURE.

TONIGHT, ANDY SPEAKS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE BROOKE JORDY ABOUT HOW THE CITY'S DECISION TO PUSH AHEAD ON NEW DIGS FOR THE SOCCER TEAM LEFT HOMEOWNERS FRUSTRATED ON THE SIDELINES.

>> Brooke: BROOKE JORDY, THANK YOU FOR COMING IN AND WELCOME.

CAN YOU START OFF WITH SORT OF EXPLAINING TO VIEWERS WHO YOU ARE AND YOUR ROLE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE STADIUM OVER AT THE BALLOON FIESTA PARK?

>> Brooke: SURE.

I'M ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO LIVES IN THAT LITTLE GREEN PATCH JUST WEST OF THE DIVERSION CHANNEL.

SO THERE'S A GROUP OF US WHO HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THE BUILDING OF THE UNITED STADIUM WITHIN BALLOON FIESTA PARK.

I, MYSELF, HAVE ONLY LIVED IN ALBUQUERQUE FOR ABOUT ALMOST SIX YEARS, AND THE PEOPLE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE BEEN THERE FOR DECADES.

AND MANY OF THEM ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE BEING IMPACTED AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION IN THE AREA SHOULD A STADIUM BE BUILT AT BALLOON FIESTA PARK.

>> Andy: SO YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY, BUT YOU'RE NOT REPRESENTING ANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR NEIGHBORS, YOU'RE JUST A NEIGHBOR THAT HAS SOME KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW TO FILE APPEALS AND THINGS LIKE THAT?

>> Brooke: RIGHT.

I AM AN ATTORNEY.

I AM NOT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE NEIGHBORS.

WE ARE DOING THIS PRO SE, AS OF NOW.

THERE ARE A GROUP OF US WHO ARE KIND OF THE MAIN INDIVIDUALS BEHIND IT, AND THEN THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY, I THINK, 72 INDIVIDUALS AND THREE OR FOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO BUILDING THE STADIUM.

AND THOSE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO SIGNED ON TO THE APPEAL.

>> Andy: MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE APPEAL PROCESS IS IT STARTS WITH A CITY HEARING OFFICER, AND THEN IT MAY GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

CAN YOU SHARE SORT OF WHERE IT IS IN THAT PROCESS?

>> Brooke: SO WE'RE APPEALING THE EPC'S APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN OR ZONING CHANGE TO PERMIT A MULTI-USE STADIUM TO BE BUILT WITHIN BALLOON FIESTA PARK.

SO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION HAD TO APPROVE BEFORE THE LEASE COULD BE APPROVED FOR UNITED.

WE APPEALED THE EPC DECISION, AND WE APPEALED THAT TO -- THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS THE ONE WHO ORGANIZES THE APPEAL.

A LAND USE HEARING OFFICER IS THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD HEAR THE APPEAL, AND THEN IT CAN GO FORWARD FROM THERE IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THE APPEAL.

EVENTUALLY WE COULD END UP IN DISTRICT COURT.

RIGHT NOW WE ARE WAITING -- BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY OF US, SO MANY APPLICANTS, IT MAKES IT HARDER FOR THE CITY TO ORGANIZE HOW THAT APPEAL IS HEARD, SO THEY ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON GATHERING THE RECORD, AND WE'LL PUT TOGETHER THE RECORD ESSENTIALLY TO BE SENT TO THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER, WHICH IS ALSO CALLED A LUHO.

AND THEN ONCE THE LUHO GETS IT, THEY WILL SCHEDULE A HEARING FOR US.

>> Andy: WHAT WERE SOME OF THE CONCERNS BOTH IN THE PROCESS OF HOW THIS HAPPENED, AND ALSO, WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THE STADIUM IS BUILT?

>> Brooke: NEW MEXICO UNITED AND THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE HAVE FAILED TO DO A COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY TO SEE HOW BUILDING A STADIUM IN THAT AREA WOULD AFFECT AIR, WATER, NOISE QUALITIES.

IT IS RIGHT OFF OF THE AMAFCA CHANNEL, WHICH IS THAT NORTH DIVERSION DITCH THAT PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT.

THAT CARRIES ALL OF ALBUQUERQUE'S RUNOFF STORM WATER AND TAKES IT INTO THE RIO GRANDE.

SO ANY KIND OF FALLOUT OR WATER POLLUTION THAT WOULD COME FROM INCREASED USE OF BALLOON FIESTA PARK, SUCH AS INCREASED FIREWORKS FROM THE STADIUM, WOULD POLLUTE THAT WATER WITH ALL OF THAT FALLOUT THAT COMES FROM FIREWORKS.

IT'S ALSO A VERY QUIET AREA.

LIKE I MENTIONED, THERE'S A LOT OF WILDLIFE.

WE'RE NOT TOO FAR FROM THE BOSQUE, SO THERE ARE PROTECTED WATERWAYS THAT ARE IN PLAY HERE.

THOSE CONCERNS, AND THEN ALSO A BIG ONE IS THAT THE CITY AND NEW MEXICO UNITED HAVE PRESENTED THEMSELVES AS PARTNERS IN BUILDING THIS STADIUM AND GETTING THE PLANS IN PLACE.

THOSE PLANS ARE EXTREMELY LACKING IN DETAIL.

AND ON TOP OF THAT, THE CITY IS SUPPOSED TO BE -- THE CITY COUNCIL IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING ROLE IN THIS PROCESS, AND THEY HAVE REPRESENTED THEMSELVES AS BEING AN AGENT, A PARTNER OF NEW MEXICO UNITED.

SO CONSENSUS PLANNING, WHO HAS THE PLANNING CONTRACT FOR THE STADIUM, HAS SAID THAT THEY ARE AN AGENT FOR THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE AND NEW MEXICO UNITED.

TO FILL THAT QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING ROLE, YOU HAVE TO BE NEUTRAL.

AND HOW CAN THE CITY BE NEUTRAL IN DECIDING FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER THOSE PLANS ARE ACCEPTABLE?

>> Andy: DO YOU SEE -- IS THERE ANY WAY THAT UNITED AND THE CITY CAN SORT OF RECTIFY THE SITUATION AND BUILD A STADIUM?

WHAT COULD BE DONE TO SORT OF MITIGATE THE DAMAGE THAT'S BEEN DONE?

>> Andy: I THINK A GOOD START WOULD BE, LIKE I SAID, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES.

FIGURING OUT HOW THE STADIUM WILL TRULY IMPACT CURRENT RESIDENTS OF ALL OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, REALLY.

AND I RECOGNIZE THAT MAYOR KELLER BELIEVES THAT WE AREN'T HIS CONSTITUENTS, AND SO OUR OPINION ON THE STADIUM BEING BUILT IS OF LESS CONCERN THAN HIS CONSTITUENTS.

HOWEVER, THE AIR POLLUTION AND WATER POLLUTION, THAT CARRIES MUCH GREATER CONCERN FOR ALL OF NEW MEXICO, REALLY.

IF IT'S GOING INTO THE RIO GRANDE, THEN THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT DOWNSTREAM, LITERALLY, THE REST OF NEW MEXICO.

AND WE SHOULD KNOW BY NOW THAT YOU CAN'T UNRING THE BELL WHEN IT COMES TO ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION.

IT'S 2024.

WE HAVE SEEN THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

IF YOU PUSH THINGS THROUGH AND SAY, WELL, IT'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, OH, IT'S GOOD FOR BUSINESSES, WHAT'S GOOD FOR BUSINESSES ISN'T NECESSARILY GOOD FOR A COMMUNITY AND ISN'T NECESSARILY GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

SO THERE'S THAT ASPECT.

ON TOP OF THAT, I THINK ENGAGING WITH INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE IN MY AREA WHERE, YES, I RECOGNIZE WE'RE NOT MAYOR KELLER'S CONSTITUENTS, BUT WE HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN PROTECTING THE WAY THAT LAND IS USED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE FOR THE STADIUM DON'T ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE VICINITY OF THIS STADIUM, AND WILL BE SOMEWHAT PROTECTED FROM ANY OF THE FALLOUT OF THE STADIUM.

PETER TREVISANI, FOR EXAMPLE, LIVES IN SANTA FE.

SO HE WON'T BE AFFECTED NEGATIVELY BY FIREWORKS EVERY TIME THERE'S A GAME.

I WILL ALSO SAY THAT THE CITY'S PROPOSAL INVOLVES BUILDING THE STADIUM NEXT TO THE OLD NAZARETH LANDFILL, WHICH HAS UNUSUALLY HIGH LEVELS OF LANDFILL GASES BECAUSE THE CITY NEVER BUILT THE PROPER VENTING SYSTEM THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO.

AND SO WE HAVE VERY HIGH LEVELS OF METHANE GAS THAT COULD BE RELEASED, AND IT'S CURRENTLY UNSAFE AS IT EXISTS TODAY FOR JUST THE BALLOON FIESTA USAGE.

SO BUILDING A STADIUM NEXT TO A LANDFILL GAS CONCENTRATION AREA IS DANGEROUS FOR INDIVIDUALS GOING TO THE STADIUM, BUILDING THE STADIUM, LIVING NEAR THE STADIUM.

AND ONE OF OUR BIG PROBLEMS, THE NEIGHBOR'S BIG PROBLEMS WITH THE STADIUM'S PLAN IS IT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR ANY OF THAT.

THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED WITH THE CITY, AND IT HAS FALLEN ON DEAF EARS.

NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE.

THERE HAS BEEN WHAT APPEARS TO BE NO GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO RECTIFY THE CONCERNS THAT NEIGHBORS HAVE VOICED IN PUBLIC COMMENT, AND I THINK THAT THAT SAYS ALL IT NEEDS TO.

>> Lou: THANKS TO ANDY FOR THAT INTERVIEW.

YOU CAN ALSO WATCH HIS CONVERSATION WITH TREVISANI ONLINE RIGHT NOW AT NMPBS.ORG, AND ON THE NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS YOUTUBE PAGE.

THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO HAS FORFEITED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN MONEY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SPENT ON OUTDOOR RECREATION AND LAND CONSERVATION PROJECTS OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS.

IT'S A STORY JOURNALIST ELIZABETH MILLER UNCOVERED THROUGH RECENT REPORTING FOR NEW MEXICO IN-DEPTH.

THIS WEEK, SHE JOINS US AS A CONTRIBUTOR FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AN INTERVIEW WITH THE NEW MEXICO STATE DIRECTOR OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, MICHAEL CASAUS, EXPLAINING HOW THIS HAPPENED AND WHY IT MATTERS.

>> Elizabeth: SO THE MONEY WE JUST HEARD ABOUT FROM LOU WAS PART OF THE FEDERAL LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND, WHICH IS MEANT FOR EXACTLY WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE, LAND CONSERVATION AND OUTDOOR RECREATION PROJECTS FOR COMMUNITIES.

AND THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY CAMPAIGNED FOR THIS POT OF MONEY FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.

WHY?

>> Casaus: THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND IS ONE OF THIS NATION'S MOST IMPORTANT AND SUCCESSFUL CONSERVATION FUNDING PROGRAMS IN THE PAST 50 OR 60 YEARS.

SINCE IT WAS ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS IN 1965, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN USED BY LWCF TO BUILD NEW PARKS, CONSERVE IMPORTANT AREAS, AND TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR HUNTERS, ANGLERS, AND OTHER OUTDOOR RECREATIONISTS.

SO FOR US AT THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, THIS PROGRAM NEEDED TO BE RE-ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS AND IT ALSO NEEDED TO BE FULLY FUNDED.

WHEN CONGRESS ESTABLISHED THE FUND, IT WAS SCHEDULED TO SUNSET AFTER 50 YEARS, AND SO WE WORKED REALLY HARD TO REAUTHORIZE, TO WORK WITH CONGRESS TO REAUTHORIZE LWCF.

AND CONGRESS NEVER, IN ITS 50-SOME YEAR HISTORY, HAD NEVER REALLY FULLY FUNDED THE PROGRAM, SO WE ALSO WORKED TO ENSURE THAT THE PROGRAM WAS FUNDED AT A LEVEL OF $900 MILLION AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED.

SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE ICONIC CONSERVATION PROGRAMS THAT REALLY IMPACTS EVERY COUNTY IN THE UNITED STATES, AND IT'S HAD A TREMENDOUS IMPACT IN EVERY COUNTY IN NEW MEXICO.

>> Elizabeth: RIGHT.

AND SINCE LIKE 1965, IT'S SUPPORTED MORE THAN 1200 PROJECTS AROUND THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, AND THAT'S REACHED EVERY COUNTY.

SO THE PROGRAM SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN WORKING IN THE PAST FOR A WHILE, AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED TO IT?

>> Casaus: I THINK WHAT HAPPENED, AS I REFERENCED, IS THAT CONGRESS WAS NEVER REALLY FULLY FUNDING IT, AND SO AS A RESULT, STATES WEREN'T RECEIVING REALLY HIGH LEVELS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

SO ONE OF THE PROGRAMS OF LWCF IS CALLED THE STATE AND LOCAL GRANT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, AND THAT PROGRAM IS MEANT TO PROVIDE MATCHING DOLLARS TO STATES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES, TO SUPPORT THEIR OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL VISIONS.

SO WHEN CONGRESS WAS CONTEMPLATING HOW BEST TO FUND THAT PROGRAM, THEY FOR WHATEVER REASON NEVER REALLY GAVE STATES THE LEVEL OF APPROPRIATION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED.

SO MAYBE IN THE EARLY 2000s, NEW MEXICO STARTED TO RECEIVE LESS AND LESS LWCF FUNDS FOR THIS STATE AND LOCAL GRANT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

IN SOME YEARS, IT WAS RECEIVING $150,000, OR $250,000.

AND SO I THINK DURING THOSE YEARS, NEW MEXICO STATE PARKS, WHO ADMINISTERS THE PROGRAM FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, REALLY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS WORTHWHILE TO PUT OUT A BROAD STATEWIDE CALL FOR PROPOSALS FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES TO APPLY FOR THOSE FUNDS, AND INSTEAD USED THAT LIMITED FUNDING FOR STATE PARKS PRIORITIES, WHICH DO BENEFIT ALL OF NEW MEXICO, ALL NEW MEXICANS.

BUT IT WASN'T REALLY GOING TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES AS IT WAS INTENDED.

SO WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE DINGLE ACT IN 2019, WHICH PERMANENTLY RE-AUTHORIZED THE PROGRAM, WHICH WE WERE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT, AND WITH THE SUBSEQUENT PASSAGE OF THE GREAT AMERICAN OUTDOORS ACT IN 2020, WHICH FULLY FUNDED THE PROGRAM, THE RESULT WAS THAT NEW MEXICO AND OTHER STATES STARTED TO RECEIVE HIGHER LEVELS OF FUNDING.

IN NEW MEXICO, WE STARTED TO RECEIVE ABOUT $3 MILLION A YEAR, AND THAT FUNDING IS BASED ON KIND OF A POPULATION FORMULA THAT THE LWFC PROGRAM HAS.

>> Elizabeth: LET ME BACK UP AND UNPACK SOME OF THAT A LITTLE BIT.

IT WAS LIKE THE STATE WAS RECEIVING SO LITTLE MONEY THAT IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO RUN A COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM.

LIKE, IT WAS TOO MANY PEOPLE TRYING TO REACH FOR THE SAME PIE, EFFECTIVELY.

LIKE, THERE WASN'T ENOUGH MONEY FOR THEM TO DOLE OUT, SO THEY WERE USING IT FOR STATE PARKS PROJECTS.

AND I THINK THE LAST OF THESE COMMUNITY GRANTS WE SAW GO OUT IN 2005 TO, I THINK IT WAS A SWIMMING POOL IN LOVINGTON, RIGHT?

>> Casaus: YEAH.

>> Elizabeth: SO WE GET THE PASSAGE OF THE DINGLE ACT IN 2019, AND THE GREAT AMERICAN OUTDOORS ACT IN 2020, AND THIS DOES KIND OF CHANGE THE STAKES.

SO WHAT DID YOU SEE CHANGE IN HOW THE STATE WAS SORT OF TRYING TO RISE TO MEET THIS NEW OCCASION?

>> Casaus: WHEN THOSE TWO CRITICAL BILLS PASSED AND WE WERE ANTICIPATING NEW MEXICO RECEIVING 3 PLUS MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, I BEGAN TO MEET WITH THE ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, AND NEW MEXICO STATE PARKS, TO SEE HOW WE CAN RE-ESTABLISH THE PROGRAM, WHICH AS I MENTIONED REALLY HADN'T BEEN FUNCTIONING IN NEARLY 20 YEARS.

SO I THINK THE FIRST STEP WAS TO RE-ESTABLISH THE PROGRAM ESSENTIALLY FROM THE GROUND UP, HIRE AN LWCF COORDINATOR, WHICH STATE PARKS DID, AND THEN IMPORTANTLY, TO PUT OUT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ACROSS THE STATE.

>> Elizabeth: WERE PEOPLE AWARE THAT THIS FUNDING SOURCE HAD EVEN BEEN AVAILABLE IN THE PAST BY THE TIME YOU STARTED DOING SOME OF THIS OUTREACH TO COMMUNITIES?

>> Casaus: YEAH, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY AT THAT POINT, WHEN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS PUT OUT, WE BEGAN TO OUTREACH TO OVER 50 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ACROSS THE STATE TO DO JUST THAT, EDUCATE THEM AND INFORM THEM THAT THIS GRANT OPPORTUNITY WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO ADVANCE THEIR OUTDOOR RECREATION PRIORITIES IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.

WE DID KIND OF A SERIES OF SURVEYS, LIKE PRE AND POST INTERVIEWS, AND WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY WEREN'T AWARE OF LWCF, IN GENERAL, AND ABOUT 90% OF THE FOLKS WE TALKED TO DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS OUT THERE.

SO I THINK WE PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE IN REALLY EDUCATING THOSE LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ABOUT LWCF, WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT, AND ALSO ABOUT THE MATCHING GRANT OPPORTUNITY.

LWCF DOES PROVIDE MATCHING GRANTS, SO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE OTHER HALF OF THE MONEY.

IT'S A ONE-TO-ONE MATCH PROGRAM.

AND SO AT THAT POINT, I THINK LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES WERE VERY INTERESTED IN IT, AND MANY OF THEM DID APPLY THAT FIRST YEAR.

>> Elizabeth: OKAY.

SO THE NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE, WHICH ADMINISTERS THIS PROGRAM ON A FEDERAL LEVEL, GIVES STATES THREE YEARS TO COME UP WITH PROJECTS TO SPEND THIS MONEY, AND WE TALKED ABOUT STATE PARKS WAS USING IT FOR A WHILE, AND THEN NEW MEXICO KIND OF STRUGGLED TO IDENTIFY PROJECTS, BEGINNING SOMEWHERE AROUND WHEN THE MONEY STARTED INCREASING AGAIN IN 2019-2020, AND STATE OFFICIALS RECENTLY ADMITTED THAT THEY FORFEITED $5 MILLION SINCE 2021.

CAN YOU HELP CHARACTERIZE WHAT KIND OF LOSS THAT IS?

>> Casaus: YEAH, THAT WAS A TREMENDOUS LOSS FOR NEW MEXICO, FOR OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES, FOR OUR TRIBAL COMMUNITIES.

IT WAS REALLY DISAPPOINTING.

BUT AS I MENTIONED, IT'S A CHALLENGE TO PROP UP A LARGE GRANT PROGRAM FROM SCRATCH.

BUT WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING WAS, I THINK SINCE 2020, NEW MEXICO HAD RECEIVED ABOUT $9 MILLION, $9.5 MILLION IN THIS STATE-SIDE FUNDING.

THEY HAVE THREE YEARS, AS YOU MENTIONED, TO APPROPRIATE THOSE FUNDS.

SO IN 2021 WAS THE FIRST YEAR IN NEARLY TWO DECADES THAT STATE PARKS PUT OUT THE CALLS FOR PROPOSALS.

THEY RECEIVED ELEVEN APPLICATIONS FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TWO APPLICATIONS FROM TWO OF THE PUEBLOS.

SO THERE WERE 13 IN TOTAL.

BUT FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, THOSE PROGRAMS HAVE YET TO BE FUNDED OR NOT FUNDED.

IN 2022, ANOTHER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS PUT OUT THERE, AND ANOTHER 13 OR SO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS APPLIED.

SO DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE SEE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 26 OR SO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS APPLYING FOR THE FUNDS, DUE TO A VARIETY OF REASONS, THOSE FUNDS HAVEN'T BEEN DECIDED EITHER WAY.

SO UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE SOME OF THE FUNDS THAT WERE APPROPRIATED BACK IN 2020 WEREN'T USED WITHIN THE THREE YEAR TIME-LINE, ABOUT $5 MILLION WAS GIVEN BACK TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

SO YOU CAN IMAGINE THE CITY PARKS, THE SWIMMING POOLS, THE BALL FIELDS, THE OPEN SPACES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CREATED WITH THIS FUNDING.

BUT WE'RE COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THE LUJAN-GRISHAM ADMINISTRATION AND STATE PARKS TO ENSURE THAT MOVING FORWARD, THAT THIS PROGRAM LIVES UP TO ITS PROMISE.

>> Elizabeth: I THINK IT'S BEEN ABOUT $2 MILLION EACH YEAR FOR '21, '22 AND '23, AND WE'VE HAD THESE APPLICATIONS SITTING THERE THAT HAVEN'T EVEN YET BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

I THINK THEY WERE GOING TO TRY TO SUBMIT THEM THIS MONTH.

SO HOPEFULLY SOME ACTION HERE, HOPEFULLY THERE'S STILL MONEY TO BE SPENT ON SUPPORTING SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, BUT IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.

WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM SOME OF THE COMMUNITIES YOU'VE WORKED WITH ABOUT HOW THEY'RE FEELING ABOUT HOW LONG IT'S TAKEN FOR THIS APPLICATION PROCESS TO MOVE FORWARD?

>> Casaus: YEAH, I THINK IT'S BEEN A MIX OF EXCITEMENT, BUT ALSO DISAPPOINTMENT.

AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, IF YOU'RE A LOCAL PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR AND YOU APPLIED FOR AN LWFC GRANT IN 2021, AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T HEARD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WHETHER YOU GOT IT OR NOT, YOU'RE KIND OF CONFUSED AND FRUSTRATED.

WE'VE SEEN INSTANCES IN SOME COUNTIES WHERE THEY'VE BASICALLY GIVEN UP ON THE PROJECT THAT THEY HAD APPLIED TO DEVELOP.

WE KNOW THAT ACOMA PUEBLO, FOR EXAMPLE, APPLIED FOR AN LWFC GRANT, AND BECAUSE IT WAS TAKING SO LONG FOR DECISIONS TO BE MADE, THEY FOUND THE FUNDING ELSEWHERE AND THEY'VE ACTUALLY COMPLETED THE PROJECT AND THEY'VE WITHDRAWN THEIR APPLICATION.

AND WE DID SEE FIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATIONS FROM THAT 2021 POOL.

SO HIGH LEVELS OF FRUSTRATION, BUT ALSO EXCITEMENT, BECAUSE MANY COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE STATE ARE DEVELOPING OUTDOOR RECREATION PLANS, THEY NEED FOUNDING, SMALLER RURAL COMMUNITIES DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MONEY TO PURCHASE LAND TO DEVELOP A NEW PARK, OR THEY DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING TO BUILD THAT NEW SOCCER FIELD THAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS.

SO WE VIEW THIS LWCF STATE-SIDE GRANT REALLY AS A 50% OFF COUPON THAT LOCAL COMMUNITIES CAN USE TOWARDS IMPLEMENTING THAT OUTDOOR RECREATION VISION.

>> Lou: THANK YOU TO ELIZABETH MILLER FOR SHARING HER REPORTING AND FOR THAT INTERVIEW.

NOW, LOOKING AHEAD, THE GOVERNOR'S STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS IS COMING UP NEXT WEEK, AND YOU CAN WATCH IT LIVE TUESDAY AFTERNOON RIGHT HERE ON NMPBS.

THE GOVERNOR'S SPEECH MARKS THE START OF THE 2024 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, WHICH WILL LAST JUST 30 DAYS WITH A PRIMARY MISSION OF PASSING A STATE BUDGET.

THE LEGISLATIVE FINANCE COMMITTEE IS PROPOSING A $10.1-BILLION PLAN FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR, WHICH AMOUNTS TO A NEARLY 6% INCREASE IN GENERAL FUND SPENDING.

THAT'S ABOUT $400-MILLION LESS THAN WHAT THE GOVERNOR WANTS TO SPEND.

BOTH PLANS ARE JUST A FRACTION OF THE EXPECTED $3.5 BILLION SURPLUS CREATED IN LARGE PART BY BOOMING OIL AND GAS REVENUES.

ONE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO PROPOSALS IS SURE TO DRAW DEBATE.

THE LFC IS RECOMMENDING A 4% PAY RAISE FOR ALL STATE EMPLOYEES, WHILE THE GOVERNOR WANTS TO GIVE MOST STATE WORKERS A 3% BUMP, PLUS 14% MORE FOR STATE POLICE OFFICERS AND AN 8% INCREASE FOR PRISON GUARDS.

BUT THE BUDGET PROBABLY WON'T BE THE ONLY THING LAWMAKERS FOCUS ON.

REPRESENTATIVES HAVE ALREADY PREFILED DOZENS OF BILLS ON A WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES, AND WE'RE STILL WAITING TO HEAR THE GOVERNOR'S CALL.

THAT WILL FORMALLY DETERMINE OTHER ITEMS THAT LEGISLATORS WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER.

WE'LL BE FOLLOWING ALL OF THE ACTION, WITH CORRESPONDENT GWYNETH DOLAND BRINGING YOU WEEKLY REPORTS FROM INSIDE THE ROUNDHOUSE.

THE SESSION OFFICIALLY STARTS WITH THE GOVERNOR'S STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS LIVE ON NMPBS JANUARY 16th.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

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