Funding for New Mexico inFocus is provided by viewers like you.

>> Nash: This week on New Mexico inFocus competing visions for the future of our state's public lands.

As general election season rolls on.

>> Eichhorst: We've been able to show kind of a 2% decline in productivity with every 1% increase in the beetle abundance.

So it does scale up, but not as, not as fast as what people were hoping for.

>> Nash: Plus, we head into the field to take stock of a biocontrol program meant to slow the spread of a resilient, invasive plant species.

New Mexico inFocus starts now.

>> Nash: Thanks for joining us I'm Nash Jones.

Early voting has begun in the 2026 general election.

Well, you may know that you're weighing in on a new governor and someone to represent you in both the U.S.

and state House.

You may be less familiar with some of the consequential matchups and questions further down the ballot.

We hope to change that, at least for a couple of them tonight.

In addition to introducing you to the candidates for New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands.

We'll dig into one of the four constitutional amendments.

You'll be asked to decide on the question: Should New Mexico lawmakers earn a salary?

Stay with us as we hash out the pros, cons, and nuances of that idea.

And hey, if politics aren't your cup of tea, we will have a palate cleanser for you on the other side of our election coverage tonight, we take you to the Bosque south of Albuquerque, to learn about a bug that is leading the effort to eradicate an invasive tree there and how that's panning out.

But first, a quiz.

Do you know how many acres of state land New Mexico has?

Well, if you said, well, that depends on whether you're talking surface or subsurface.

You're right.

And you're a nerd.

But that's okay.

We love nerds around here.

I count myself among you.

The answer is 9 million surface and 13 million subsurface or mineral acres.

And the official charged with managing all of that land, including how it's leased and cared for, is the commissioner of the state Land office.

Right now, that is Democrat Stephanie Garcia Richard.

Deb Haaland█s running mate with an open seat in a history of the office flipping between parties since the early 90s.

It is a hotly contested race this year between Democrat Juan De Jesus Sanchez III, and Republican Michael Perry.

Politics correspondent Gwyneth Doland sits with both of them tonight to help inform your decision on a race that maybe hasn't been but should be on your radar.

Let's begin with Perry, who's both a former game warden and assistant commissioner of public lands.

Here's Gwyneth.

>> Gwyneth: Mr.

Perry, thank you so much for being with us today.

>> Perry: Thank you for having me.

I appreciate you giving me the opportunity.

>> Gwyneth: It's our pleasure.

Stephanie Garcia Richard has been the Land Commissioner for eight years.

The Land Office says it has generated more than $15 billion during her time there, while expanding renewable energy and conservation protections.

What is she doing wrong?

>> Perry: What's she's doing wrong -- Well, you could -- I mean, production on State Land right now, and I'm using the oil and gas information from both NMOGA and the independent petroleum producers.

And production is actually 20% down what it was eight years ago.

So while the numerics are up and while they are bringing extraction, seems like it's really high because the numerics in dollars are high, the production is actually down.

So what I would say is we could be producing more and giving more money to the state that we currently are.

Even though they are at record numbers.

And that's typically because we've just been a little hard on the regulation side of the producers that are currently producing on State Land.

>> Gwyneth: So what would you reverse?

What particular thing?

>> Perry: Well, the one thing I think we could do is probably become more efficient with the right of ways and this -- all of the permitting processes that are needed and required on State Land are taking a bit of time and a toll on production.

So I'm told right now it's anywhere from six months on a right of way for an approval.

And back when I was Assistant Commissioner at the State Land Office -- it was it was around 45 days.

You really needed to to get it done.

So when you look at that business and they're waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting on a right of way, it costs them a lot of money.

So, at -- >> Gwyneth: You just want to cut some red tape.

>> Perry: I want to cut some red tape, basically, yeah.

>> Gwyneth: You've talked about conservation over preservation.

Can you give me an example of a piece of State Land that you believe is currently being preserved, when it ought to be put to productive use?

>> Perry: There's probably a lot of that are -- in that kind of a preservation mindset.

They're all under a use, don't get me wrong.

But when I talk about preservation, I'm talking about mainly the timber management industry.

I think we need to provide more timber management opportunities.

We need to create opportunities, business opportunities for timber management.

We need to have sawyers in the field.

We need to have woodcutting.

We need we need to be doing those things.

So, you look at that like maybe in the White Peak area -- Whites Peaks area in northern New Mexico.

There could probably be some timber management harvest there.

It's kind of -- it's under a preservation mindset, in the timber industry because it's not -- it's more of a conservation mindset when you're talking about grazing and cattle and and hunting and those kind of things.

So it's being used.

But I think it could be used smarter, wiser and probably -- provide an economic benefit to the state.

>> Gwyneth: I'm going to cut back to oil and gas.

You have criticized Garcia Richard's one mile restriction on new oil and gas leasing around schools as an activist approach.

What would you do instead?

>> Perry: Well, I would say follow the science -- first, prove that it's dangerous.

And if you haven't proved that it's dangerous, what did you correct?

I think that's a definition of what an advocate does, is for no reason other than to say, we're not going to do it.

They just say we're not going to do it because it feels good.

But the reality of it is, does the science say that?

Are children dying near Hobbs because of oil and gas extraction, and if they are, when do they start?

And I don't think they are.

So, in my -- >> Gwyneth: Does oil and gas extraction cause pollution?

>> Perry: It can if you're not doing it right.

Absolutely.

But that's the job of the State Land Office to make sure that your producers are doing it correctly.

You've got to be a wise steward of the land.

>> Gwyneth: The legislature has authorized royalty rates as high as 25% on premium oil and gas leases.

Is 25% the right number or should it be higher?

>> Perry: I don't think it should be higher.

I think the market should probably -- be a driver in that.

But again, if you say it's 25% now, which it is in some of those markets, and I just told you based on the number from the -- petroleum producers, 20% of the production is down on State Land.

Maybe it's suggesting that it's getting a little high and they're taking their toys and going elsewhere.

>> Gwyneth: MmHmm >> Perry: Because it's 12% on BLM.

>> Gwyneth: Well, you've said that you're worried that federal lands could become more attractive to producers, but the commissioner's duty is to make money for the State Land Trust.

So, why shouldn't we charge as much as we can?

>> Perry: Well, I think you need to be a good steward of the land, for one.

But there's also that fine point, where if you overcharge, people aren't going to buy anymore.

And I think that's being shown in the 20% reduction.

So I think we're there at that 25.

I don't think it needs to go any higher, and I'm not an advocate for it being reduced by any means.

It is where it is.

And the legislators decide that.

And that's a legislative right.

So I think the rules of engagement say that's what we have to accept and go out with it and try to make a living from that >> Gwyneth: MmHmm I want to talk about Project Jupiter for one minute here.

Garcia Richard said, “the project's benefits didn't outweigh its impacts on water emissions, and other natural resources.” Would you have approved that right of way?

>> Perry: Yes.

>> Gwyneth: Okay, why?

>> Perry: But you got to hear me out.

Why?

Well, because you're supposed to do two things at the State Land Commissioners.

One, you're supposed to make money for the children, the beneficiaries, which are the children, the school children and the schools.

And the other is to make sure that you take care of the land so future generations can do the same.

I think that's an advocate move.

I think what she's saying is, “I'm going to be an advocate, because that's not the kind of energy -- they're not doing what I want them to do.” So disallowing that right away is actually disallowing you to make money for the school children, which is your fiduciary responsibility.

So I think she's going against her office and against her oath by saying, I'm not going to do it because there's no good reason.

And if you really look at the right of way itself, I mean, we're looking at it from a business form, a business perspective.

They're going to have more of a footprint or an impact on our environment, because now they're going to go around the State Land.

They might go a mile up two miles up a mile over and a mile down, to go around that State Land, and it's going to cause more of an impact.

So I don't think you did anything because it's -- the right of way is still going to get there.

>> Gwyneth: Well, let me ask you this, because this is an elected position, right?

We just saw some polling numbers from the Albuquerque Journal last week showing that New Mexicans overwhelmingly oppose data centers.

We saw some national polling come out just this month showing the same thing.

They're super unpopular.

So would you be sensitive to that as Land Commissioner, knowing that the people who are voting in this election across the political spectrum are pissed off about data centers?

>> Perry: I would, because -- again, I'm not in this to be an advocate.

I'm in it to do the right thing for the land.

I want to take care of the land for future generations.

But you also got to listen to your constituents.

And right now that's a hot button topic.

And I don't think data centers are a good idea on State Land.

I just don't.

But we have to think of in the future when you talk about reducing the carbon emissions and reducing oil and gas production, somehow we're going to have to make up that economic loss from oil and gas and some other means.

So I think -- I think just given an automatic, “no” is probably not the right answer if you're really going to replace one economic value with another.

So we need to be pragmatic and find out how we can do it if we can.

>> Gwyneth: I want to talk about uranium for a minute.

Garcia Richard has banned new uranium mining on State Trust lands.

Your opponent says he would keep that ban, would you?

>> Perry: I would have to look at the area, look at the region.

I think we've evolved -- environmentally.

And -- our industrial components are getting a little more advanced.

So I know that we've had some bad things that have happened in the 50s, 60s and 70s, and we're still living the repercussions of those.

But I say if it's in -- an area or region where it's going to be environmentally sound, we set those safeguards ahead of time then -- and the people in that community like it.

I think we should look at it.

I'm not saying I'm for it, but a one-size-fits all approach of “no from the top down,” to me, is not the way you're going to replace that oil and gas revenue in the end.

So you're going to have to have an open mind and look at it and say, “can we have multiple layers of leases on state land?

Can we make money for the school children?” And if we can, and we can do that reasonably and responsibly and have some environmental sideboards that protects us as a state?

I think we can look at doing it.

So I'm not saying that we should.

I'm not saying that at all.

I'm just saying -- >> Gwyneth: But aren█t there trust issues here?

I mean, I feel like people were told in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

“Oh, no, we're going to be careful.

And if we make a little mess, we're going to clean it up.” And it's still not done and we're still seeing the effects of this.

>> Perry: So that's a -- I would say that's a shame on the Land Use Agency for not holding their feet to the fire and demanding those things up front.

So you got to have the advancements and the contractual obligations.

You've got to have bonding requirements.

You've got to have a remediation project.

Those all have to be lined up and agreed on.

And if we're still looking at that hole in the ground from 50 years ago, somebody didn't do their job right.

>> Gwyneth: All right.

Let's talk about fire and water a little bit.

You've made Wildfire and Watershed management major parts of your campaign, but the Land Commissioner controls -- only State Trust land, as we've talked about, not the enormous federal and tribal holdings across the state.

What specifically could you do as Commissioner that isn't being done right now?

>> Perry: Well, I think, you know, the -- State Land Commissioner has a great responsibility.

And that's, of course, to make money for the school children.

I want to take it a step further on the taking care of the land for future generations by taking down some of the wooded areas that need to be thinned like they were.

And I want to bring timber management, like I told you.

We are Catastrophic Wildfire, that definition wasn't even a term when I was in college, in 1995, getting my bachelor's degree in Wildlife Science, which is specific to run in Land Management.

That wasn't even a term then, but it is now.

And it's a term because we haven't taken care of our forests.

So, while yes, there are a lot of forests that are not on State Land, I think what we need to do is collaboratively engage with the federal government, whether it's BLM or the -- the Forest Service, and see if we can get some Watershed Management projects that are going to be good for their communities, maybe in a whole canyon, not just one section, but let's look at it on a multi-jurisdictional view and talk to the federal government and see what we can.

And I've already been in some communications with them and said, “hey, would you entertain this?” And they said, “absolutely we would.” >> Gwyneth: Okay -- oil and gas companies have a huge financial stake in decisions made by the State Land Office.

Some people and businesses in that industry have contributed generously to your campaign.

Your Democratic opponent has also now reported substantial contributions from oil and gas companies -- >> Perry: Actually, he has more than I do.

>> Gwyneth: What standard will you use to assure voters that a campaign contributor gets no more consideration from the State Land Office than anyone else?

>> Perry: Well, I would look -- I would tell the voters and the constituents that I was a Law Enforcement Officer for 22 years.

I have great integrity and a high moral compass.

And that was one time when I got a call that -- a gentleman had poached a deer, and when I went out there and found that gentleman, it was actually the Director of the Game and Fish Department who was appointed by the Governor.

And I did my job.

I wrote him a ticket.

We ended up taking the deer from him.

I did it all the way to the Revocation Process.

So if I can do that with -- a Governor Appointee and someone who was my boss, I'll damn sure do it to the oil and gas companies.

>> Gwyneth: All right.

About Public Access and Grazing; you want more recreational access to State Trust Lands, and you also want to protect ranchers who lease those lands.

What happens when those interests come into conflict?

>> Perry: Well, most of the time they come into conflict because the communication is low.

And, the State Land has their lease and agreement with the Department of Game and Fish, which I worked on probably over six terms and six easements.

And then you have the landowner component on the other side that's leasing the grass.

I think we got to get better in communication and we got to provide more access that is reasonable, unrestricted, the way it is, and then visit with the landowners and say, “Hey, this is going to happen.

This is in your lease, you're a lessee but so are they.

And we're going to have to get along.” And when I was at the State Land Office and Game and Fish Department, I opened up over 100 sections of land that were inaccessible to -- now they are accessible because of that pragmatic approach, and I'm going to continue to do the same.

So they will have more access.

And another thing is we will have more land, State Land.

When I leave the State Land Office.

In 1912, there was 13 million acres surface and 13 million subsurface, and now was 13,000,009 million.

So I think people have to remember that 4 million acres of State Land has been sold off, and it hasn't been sold off by the party that I represent.

It's been sold off by the other party.

So I want to make sure that we have more State Land when we leave -- when I leave office, and than we did when I came in.

>> Gwyneth: Let me ask you about the Trump administration, because Trump is pushing increased energy and mineral development on federal lands.

Can you give me an example of a Trump administration land or energy policy that you would oppose as a Land Commissioner?

>> Perry: He said he wants to rescind the roadless rule.

I think that needs to have restrictions.

I do think that we need to have more access to our roadless areas, but I think it needs to be restricted at times.

I disagree with that a little bit, but I haven't read the intentions of him.

But I've said before, whether it's -- whether it's Donald Trump or Michelle Lujan Grisham, if they're against the environment and they█re against State Land, that I'm against them.

>> Gwyneth: What is one decision that Stephanie Garcia Richard has made as Land Commissioner that you think was dead on and you would have done the same thing?

>> Perry: I can't think of one.

[Gwyneth laughs] >> Gwyneth: Honestly?

Not a single one?

>> Perry: I do like the way that she is -- honestly I'm being honest, I'll give her her due on this one.

She's done a good job at making some of the oil and gas companies stand up and pay attention.

I think they were a little lax.

Are there bad actors?

Sure.

Did some bad actors get away with stuff?

Sure.

So I think they're paying a little more attention.

The funny thing is, big oil and gas is donating like gangbusters to my opponent and not me.

So, that says something too.

>> Gwyneth: Michael Perry, thank you so much for being with us.

>> Perry: Thank you for having me.

>> Nash: Thanks to GOP nominee Michael Perry for answering our questions about the state Land Office, and his plans to run it.

Next up, Gwyneth is back at the table with Perry's Democratic opponent Juan De Jesus Sanchez.

He is well known in the Democratic Party, serving as vice chair of the state party in the mid 2010s and as political director for U.S.

Senator Martin Heinrich, who was among the first to endorse Sanchez's run for land commissioner.

Along the way, he also spent time as a natural resources specialist and ranger at Cochiti Lake for the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers.

Here again is Gwyneth Doland.

>> Gwyneth: Juan De Jesus Sanchez, thank you so much for being with us today.

>> Sanchez: Thanks so much, glad to be here.

>> Gwyneth: Stephanie Garcia Richard has endorsed you to succeed her.

Voters who supported her decisions over the last eight years might see you as a continuation.

And voters who didn't support her may want change.

Tell me what would be different about a Sanchez land office?

>> Sanchez: Yeah, I think Stephanie has done an amazing job as the Land Commissioner.

She's done a great job with expanding renewable energy, holding and gas accountable, all these different things.

Those are the things that I want to continue to make sure that we're doing, while ensuring that we have revenue coming into our state, paying for education.

Some of the things that I think I want to do a little different are focusing on some of the outdoor opportunities, outdoor recreation, stewardship.

We have 9 million acres of state trust land, 13 million acres of subsurface mineral rights.

Those acres, especially at a time like this are opportunities for us to be able to go out -- and be outside, go out and enjoy the outdoors.

Right now, the federal government is really trying to find ways to sell off lands or limit access.

I think this is an opportunity for New Mexicans to be able to open up more of their land, to be able to go out and enjoy.

That's what we can do with this state trust land.

That's one of the things I want to do.

Another thing I want to do as well is making sure that we are doing a lot of stewardship on our land and making sure that we are restoring the land in ways that we need to, so that our grasslands are in a good place -- talking about things like doing carbon credits to make sure our grasslands are in a good place, good soil absorbs more carbons.

And the last thing that I think that I really want to do is try to find a way to decentralize our state trust land, our state trust land -- our state trust office, excuse me.

Right now, the vast majority of the employees live or work out of Santa Fe.

Our 9 million acres are all across the state.

I think it's really important that we have more folks that are hired from different parts of the state that have those lands in their area, and can be able to be able to kind of understand the land a little bit better than from a desk in Santa Fe.

>> Gwyneth: Well, let me ask you about one specific thing, Garcia Richard signed an executive order that banned all new oil and gas leases on state lands within a mile of schools and preschools and things like that.

Would you push the legislature to make that law?

>> Sanchez: I think -- what I would focus is making sure that moratorium stays in place.

So my intention is to keep that executive order, because whenever someone comes in a new executive, there's an opportunity to remove these executive orders and new things can be done.

My focus is going to be to continue to make sure that we control what we can.

And that's -- >> Gwyneth: But without putting it into state law, the next the next State Land Commissioner could get rid of it.

>> Sanchez: That's right, and that's why I'm going to make sure I keep that in place.

And what we could also do, is try to do some rulemaking around that as well, too.

>> Gwyneth: So, critics, including your opponents, say there's not enough evidence that this one mile rule protects kids.

What persuades you that it does?

>> Sanchez: I think a lot of the -- there's plenty of research that has shown higher amounts of asthma, higher amounts of possibilities of -- disruption, loud noises, all these different things, all this industry within a mile of school district is something that I think our kids don█t need to be exposed to, and the air quality is absolutely one of those issues.

The possibility for water quality.

But there are -- there is research that has been done on this, and there's a reason that this is put in place.

>> Gwyneth: All right.

You've talked about diversifying the Land Office's revenue through renewable energy.

But and gas pays for most of what goes to the schools and the other beneficiaries.

How much of that could renewables realistically replace and how soon?

>> Sanchez: So, I'm not talking about replacing, I'm talking about diversification.

Right now, about 97% of the funds that come in from the State Land Office come from oil and gas.

Whenever a barrel of oil is over $100 like it is right now, we're going to be bringing in a ton of money.

Whenever the industry is busting, then we're going to be bringing in less money.

So having a stable amount -- a stable -- a stable revenue coming in through renewable engery is hugely important.

So, I'm not talking about replacing.

I'm not talking about -- I'm talking about diversification.

That way we have stability for we can survive the boom -- We can survive the bus and make sure we're taking advantage whenever there is the boom as well.

>> Gwyneth: So, if 97% isn't the number, what's the number?

>> Sanchez: Well, 97%, that's all based on things outside of the control of the Land Commissioner, the price of oil is decided by - there's wars in Ukraine.

There's what's going on in Iran that is bumping up the cost right there.

So, the Land Commissioner doesn't have a say on that.

We want as much money as we can to come in responsibly -- >> Gywneth: But you can incentivize other sectors.

>> Sanchez: Absolutely.

And that's one of the things that we're trying to do.

And I plan to do with renewable energy, because right now the Trump administration has been denying all these projects that have already been approved for wind, solar transmission, that carries renewable.

It creates an opportunity for us here in New Mexico to be able to take advantage of -- the fact that renewable energy is still a booming business.

It's still one of those places where they're looking for opportunities to be able to go and put out renewable energy.

And being that the federal government is not doing this, it's an opportunity for the state government to come in abd bring it and do that and be able to create a stable revenue coming in.

>> Gwyneth: I want to talk about Project Jupiter.

Garcia Richard turned down a pipeline right of way for Project Jupiter, the data center located down in southern New Mexico, as we've been talking about, the land office█s job is to make money for schools.

Was that decision about the trust or was it about politics and public opinion?

>> Sanchez: You'd have to ask the current Commissioner.

I know that me personally, I've been tracking this very closely and seeing what the next steps are going to be.

Right now, my understanding is that they are exploring a -- a line outside of state trust land that would increase the amount of mileage that the pipeline would have to go through.

I'm going to continue to be tracking what this is going on, but I would be willing to sit down at the table and have a conversation and maybe being able to sit there and say, “what can we do to negotiate early on?” Because these companies like Oracle and Project Jupiter, they've been -- first of all, they've been doing a really horrible job.

I think they have not shown that they can be trusted, but we need to be able to sit down with them and talk about what are the issues that we can try to address with Project Jupiter, what are the things that we need to be working on to make sure that New Mexicans are taken care of?

And if they're not willing to come to the table, then that will continue to be denied.

>> Gwyneth: Let's talk about uranium.

You have said you would keep Garcia Richard█s ban on new uranium mining on trust land.

Is that permanent, or can you imagine circumstances in which you would allow new uranium mining?

>> Sanchez: I can't, personally, no.

I█m planning on continuing to keep this moratorium in place throughout my entire eight years.

I think that we need to be focusing on the cleanup.

Right now, I think there's dozens of state trust -- There are dozens of state trust -- leases, former leases of uranium mining that still need to be cleaned up.

There are hundreds across the entire state.

Before we even consider trying to go out and do more uranium mining, we need to make sure that those are taken care of and cleaned up.

We have people in communities that are still dealing with the consequences of these mines, people who worked in the mines, people who had their water -- their water messed with.

There are so many people that have -- that have really passed away because of this and are dealing with the health issues right now.

We don't need to be exploring more uranium mining.

We should be working on cleanup and taking care of those communities that have been affected.

>> Gwyneth: So, you know, this money is for schools, our educational results are among the worst in the nation, proponents of uranium mining today say the technology is better, it's cleaner and safer than other -- than ever.

What would you say to a voter who says, “We need all the money we can get for schools, why would you leave a resource in the ground that could generate money, that could help turn our schools around?” >> Sanchez: Because the job is not only bringing in money, the job is making sure that we're taking care of our land and we're taking care of our people.

We don't need to be making money trying to look at short-term gain.

We don't need to be looking at how much money we can raise in the next five, ten years.

We need to be making sure that we█re taking care our land so that in 100 years, long after we're gone, our children and their children have an opportunity to still use that land.

And you can't do that with land that -- with people that are being sick.

And you can't do that with people that with land that is being decimated.

>> Gwyneth: You█ve emphasized your background in water resources and your experience working with the Army Corps of Engineers.

But the Land Office's mandate, again, is to generate revenue for schools, hospitals, things like that.

How would you pay for additional watershed and wildfire work on trust land?

Would you have to reduce spending on other things?

>> Sanchez: No.

So, there█s actually really great opportunities to develop new leases.

This is the Stewardship Leases that we talked earlier about, Outdoor Rec and Stewardship.

This is something I'm really passionate about working on.

But there are opportunities for things like carbon credit.

Carbon credit leases where you have outside industry comes in and does restoration projects, and they are working on bringing in -- and they do the grasslands revival, they do tree revival, they do watershed revival.

And essentially they will get paid a percentage and the State Land will get paid a percentage of the carbon credits.

That is offsetting the amount of carbon that's coming through.

There are places like Colorado that are doing some project -- Colorado State Trust Land that are doing pilot projects like this.

There are places across the country that are doing different type of projects like this, and we need to be looking more into the Stewardship aspect of it.

>> Gwyneth: You've said you want to increase access to state Trust Land for recreation.

People want to hike, camp, fish, and your family's ranch has relied on a state grazing lease.

Many ranchers don't like the idea of strangers roaming across the land that they're leasing.

Often it's directly attached to land that they own, and it feels like a privacy issue.

How will you increase access for recreation while still respecting ranchers rights?

>> Sanchez: Yeah, that's hugely important.

And one thing that we do need to realize, though, with our State Trust Land, with our BLM land, those are leased lands.

Those lands belong and trust to the state of New Mexico.

And they are there for beneficial use in every way.

So, one of the ways that we can do that -- I mean, I had a hunt earlier this year and I was hunting on State Trust Land, and I was able to have access because that's something that we've taken care of.

One of the things that we need to do is work on communication with these ranchers, communication with the folks that are out there as well, and talk with them about how we can make sure that it's beneficial for everyone, how we can make sure that our grasslands are taken care of, how we can make sure that our businesses -- our small businesses that are our ranchers are taken care of, and making sure that we still have that kind of access to our State Trust lands.

So, it needs to be one of those things where we sit down and we talk about what the issues are above -- are having to do with our State Trust land.

That's one of the things that I think we need to be doing a lot more.

I hope that my background in grazing cattle on State Trust land, while hunting and also hunting on State Trust land can be able to bring both those -- both those backgrounds to the table so that there█s an understanding whenever we are going into community and talking to people about creating more access.

>> Gwyneth: During the primary, a pack funded in part by Chevron and other energy companies spent more than $400,000 on ads supporting you over Matthew McQueen, who refused oil and gas money.

What did the industry see in you that it didn't see in him?

>> Sanchez: You know, I'm not sure.

As you know, legally, we are not allowed to communicate with those independent expenditures in any way.

I don't know why they ended up deciding to do this, but I know that they did.

But legally, I cannot have communication with them during that process, and we did not.

>> Gwyneth: McQueen said the Land Office is a de facto regulator of the and gas industry, and that's why he wouldn't take its money.

You have gotten direct donations from oil and gas since then.

Why is it okay for you to take that money, and do you see a conflict of interest there, real or perceived?

>> Sanchez: No.

The Land office is also a de facto regulator of our ranching industry on the leases.

It's a de facto regulator of the folks who are going out and hunting.

It's a de facto regulator of all the folks who are going to be using the outdoor rec.

We are in charge of all this.

If we were not able to raise money from folks that use State Trust land, I think we would run -- I'm not sure that there would be any money out there.

The process is awful.

I could tell you I hate raising money.

I hate the process.

We should really do something about this.

This should not be a -- these campaigns should not be decided -- a lot on how much time you spend raising money.

But the Land Office is one of those that -- with every person that I meet with, whether it be from oil and gas, whether it be from ranching, outdoor rec, I sit down and have a conversation with them and tell them where I stand.

That way, there's not going to be any surprises moving forward.

And if they want to support me, that's fine.

I got money from oil and gas.

After telling them my support for a bonding rule that many of them are not very happy about, and have threatened suing the State Land Office.

But I'm going to be standing up to making sure that our lands are taken care of and everything's getting cleaned up after that.

>> Gwyneth: You've said New Mexico needs a Land Commissioner willing to stand up to the Trump administration, but the Land Office manages State Trust land.

Federal public lands are outside its control.

Can you name a Trump administration policy you could do something about from the Land Office and what you would do?

>> Sanchez: Yeah, absolutely.

A great example of this would be Chaco Canyon.

Right now, the Trump administration is exploring removing the protections around the ten mile radius around Chaco Canyon.

Essentially, what they're trying to do is open it up for - for exploratory for oil and gas development.

There are, I believe, 70,000 acres of State Trust land within that entire boundary.

If they do decide to open this up, even if they move it from a ten mile to a five mile buffer, or even more, while going through and developing for oil and gas out there, they're going to have to drive through State Trust land.

They're going to have to be -- they're going to have to have -- infrastructure to be able to build out the operations they're doing.

But if they don't have a lease, they don't have a right of way.

They don't have a business lease from the State Land Commissioner.

That's going to slow down the entire process.

So that's one of the ways that you can really be pushing back against it.

The same thing, up in the Pecos, where they're trying to do exploratory mining in that area.

We can use the State Trust land if you need -- you need a right of way, you need approval, you need a business lease to be able to cross through State Trust land.

And the beauty of the State Land Office is there are parcels every which way.

So you can slow down these process and push back against bad policy like that.

>> Gwyneth: Well, thank you for coming in and talking to us today.

>> Sanchez: Awesome, thank you so much.

>> Nash: Thanks to Juan De Jesus Sanchez, for laying out his argument to lead the State Land Office and to our longtime politics correspondent, Gwyneth Doland for taking the time to explore the nuances of that important job that Sanchez and his opponent, Michael Perry, want you to give them.

You have met a mess of candidates here on InFocus these last couple of weeks, and you're going to hear from a whole bunch more in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

So tonight, we're giving you a little break from the office seekers to dig into another question you'll see on your ballots this fall, a debate over whether to pay New Mexico lawmakers a salary for their work in Santa Fe has been around since long before I started covering politics.

This year, it's back in the form of constitutional amendment four.

The prompt asks you to say yay or nay to limiting paychecks for state reps and senators to New Mexico's median household income.

That's a little shy of $70,000 a year as things stand today.

But while the word limit is on the ballot, it would actually be a significant pay boost, since New Mexico is the only state in the country that doesn't pay its lawmakers a salary at all.

Executive producer Jeff Proctor is at the table tonight to moderate the case for and the case against changing that.

Joining Jeff are Oriana Sandoval, CEO of the center for Civic Policy, who supports the amendment, and Republican former state senator Mark Boitano, who does not.

>>Jeff: Oriana, Welcome to New Mexico in Focus, and Mark welcome back.

It's been a long time.

You've both received the assignment.

This is kind of a lightning round.

Nash has teetered up.

So let's get to it.

Oriana, I'll begin with you.

Why should a chunk of our tax dollars go toward paying lawmakers a salary, and in particular, one pegged to the median household income?

>>Oriana: Yes.

Thanks for having here, Jeff.

Excited to be here to talk about constitutional amendment four.

Amendment four is really about making sure serving in the legislature isn't dependent on someone's ability to go without a paycheck.

This is a chance for New Mexico voters to transform our system of government, a piece of our system of government that fundamentally prohibits and blocks out a wide, vast of our everyday New Mexican families from even being able to consider public service in this way.

And this is a very New Mexico specific proposal.

Like you mentioned, it's tied to the New Mexico median income household.

So that means that legislators economic well-being is directly tied to the well-being of everyday New Mexican families.

If New Mexico families are thriving, that's reflected in the salary scale.

If New Mexico families are struggling, they get a pay cut as they should.

So it's also important to note this doesn't go into effect until 2029, so all currently elected legislators would not benefit from this proposal.

They would have to run for reelection first.

But I'm excited about what this could mean for the future of our legislature.

Our system was established over 100 years ago.

The-- it was a completely different system.

We're living in a 21st century society now, dealing with multi-billion dollar budgets, complex, nuanced challenges that our families are facing, and we're leaving out folks that are dealing with the brunt of the issues.

Our firefighters teachers our local business owners, parents.

They should have a seat at the table when we're tackling these really important, complex issues.

>>Jeff: Mark, you served 16 years in the New Mexico Senate, obviously during a time when there were not salaries for lawmakers.

What is your primary beef with this proposal?

And in particular, what do you see as the harms if this passes?

>>Mark: So, you know, I get a legislators work very hard.

They make many sacrifices.

Of course, there are rewards, and it's an honor and a privilege to serve your constituents.

But compensation comes in many forms.

And presently, when compared to similar states, legislators already enjoy a trifecta of Rolls Royce competition funding.

A full time salary of $60,000 is way, way over the top.

>>Jeff: 68 In fact.

>>Mark: $68,000.

Yeah.

I'm sorry.

Constitutional amendment four speaks of allowing legislative compensation, but the definition of compensation is this monetary rewards, pensions and other benefits in exchange for service.

So let's take a look at the current legislator compensation.

We often hear comparisons based on national averages.

So for instance Fred Nathan's group at think has a scale of all the salaries paid.

Legislate-- legislators.

However these are it's New York, it's California's Michigan, it's Illinois, it's Pennsylvania.

Alaska and Hawaii are on that list.

But because of their isolated geographic locations, they're really not comparable to New Mexico.

I mean, puddle jumping is needed and why?

And Alaska's five times the size of the fourth largest state in New Mexico.

So I wanted to do an apple to apple comparison.

So I compared New Mexico to 13 states with under 2.75 million population in five areas bill introduction, session length, pay per diem, staff and pensions.

So bill introduction.

Last year, New Mexico, we had 182 bills, which is around the average of 1200 sessions plus or -30 to 60 days were right in the middle there of 13 other comparable states.

If we want to extend the session 30, 60 days, that's fine.

But either way, we still fit into the definition of a citizen legislature.

According to the National Council of State Legislators, citizen legislators spend less than 50% of their time doing legislative work.

They don't have staff.

The pay is low and you need to have a secondary income.

So we're not the only citizen legislature in America.

If we look at legislative pay, the average is 16,000.

Highest is Delaware, which is 50, 51,000.

But there's no per diem.

And then the next two closest states are 25,000.

And they have less than half of what we have in New Mexico in terms of per diem.

Here's the trifecta number one per diem.

So legislators here get $247 a day.

It's the highest of the states.

Next is 213.

Average is 122 a day.

Now I get it.

Per diem is gas and lodging and and food.

But they're work arounds for legislators.

Sometimes when they travel to committees, they stay with friends, family, maybe colleagues.

They double up on lodging.

Lobbyists pay for a lot of the food.

That's the fact.

And then you can use your campaign money also to pay for these things.

So that's trifecta number one.

Number two is paid staff.

Do you know how many of the 13 states that are comparable have paid staff?

>>Jeff: I don't how many?

>>Mark: None.

We have full time paid staff.

If I had a full time paid staff when I was in the legislature to help me with committee work, advocacy, capacity building, bill introduction, constituent service, I would have felt like I was living a dream.

That's a big deal.

The final thing is pension and this is the big one.

So six of 13 states have no retirement.

I did a survey of what happens after 12 years in the other states.

After 12 years, the average is 6500.

Among those that provide pensions in New Mexico.

You know what it is.

Well, let's back up a little bit.

Pensions are obsolete unless you're a public employee.

Private sector.

There are no pensions.

You have 4 in 1 case.

So you look for an employer that's going to give you a dollar for every dollar you contribute.

Sometimes they'll give you a $2 match or a $3 match for every dollar you contribute.

You know what it is for our pension 35 times for every dollar legislator contributes to the pension plan, there's a $35 contribution from the state.

So you spend 12 years in the legislature.

In New Mexico, your pension is $34,932.

So we have this trifecta of benefits and compensation given the legislatures, legislatures, you know, it's over the top.

>>Jeff: Let's get back to Oriana real quick Mark.

The case that I'm hearing against is that we already pay lawmakers.

Your response?

>>Oriana: Yes.

Thanks, Jeff.

You know, I appreciate you bringing up the the wide variety of the system that currently exists.

However, just to be clear, constitutional Amendment four only deals with yes or no.

Should we have legislative salary currently, our constitution bars that.

So we talk about per diem.

It's around, I believe, $250 a day per legislature.

So the average cost for lodging in Santa Fe is around $280 a night.

That doesn't cover food or other expenses mileage.

I haven't done the comparison, but I mean, gas prices are skyrocketing.

I'm not sure if federal mileage rates are keeping up in real time with what those costs actually cost.

So basically, our legislators are going to the roundhouse, paying out of pocket to serve us and to serve our communities in our interest.

And that's just fundamentally unfair.

These that we need serious people who are deeply committed to their communities, wanting to take tackle on huge issues and not have to also be paying out of pocket.

And again, what does that mean?

Who isn't at the table?

Who doesn't have the opportunity to be taking on this public service?

Most of us, most of us can't be affording to subsidize being a legislature.

Also, when we talk about pensions, you know, I paid off my student loans for ten years before I got before they were forgiven.

That was that was hard.

Right.

And so pension that vest in 10 to 12 years from now doesn't help me pay my mortgage or my rent, doesn't put groceries on the table, doesn't support my children and my family for the needs that they have.

So it's still a block.

And again, pensions are not being addressed in constitutional amendment, for that is a separate issue that if we wanted to reform it would have to would be another area.

>>Jeff: How do we know that this is going to do-- I've been around this conversation a very long time.

One of the arguments is this.

And you made it earlier.

This is going to diversify the legislature, allow people to serve who aren't lawyers or CPAs or otherwise independently rich.

How do we know that this is going to accomplish this?

How do we know that this is going to incentivize folks to run for office who aren't doing so now?

>>Oriana: Well, it removes a huge barrier.

Being able to pay your bills and have a paycheck is a fundamental requirement for most folks to be able to engage in the system.

So, you know, we could be we know what the status quo does that keeps most of us out.

So I think New Mexicans want better than the status quo.

We want 21st century government that works by enforced.

So let's remove the barrier of folks, everyday folks from all walks of life, even being able to consider putting their hats in the ring.

>>Jeff: Gotcha.

Mark, I want to get back to one question that I asked earlier that I'm not sure you fully addressed.

What are the potential harms?

What are the things that paying lawmakers a salary in addition to the trifecta you mentioned a moment ago, what might that incentivize that you see as a potential negative in the legislature?

>>Mark: Well, I think the bigger thing is we're asking voters what they think.

So this is a constitutional amendment and it's amending the Constitution.

And there's one word in this measure that really concerns me, because I think voters are going to go to the polls and they're going to see, oh, we're limiting legislator compensation to $68,000, and they're going to think it's a pay cut, when in fact it's opening the door wide to a salary.

And that same strategy was used decades ago when Representative George Buffett introduced, I think it was a seventh or eighth effort to increase per diem for legislators.

And, you know, the voters always turned it down, but they came up with a strategy to say, well, we're going to limit it to only what's allowed by the federal government.

And voters thought it was a limit, and they said yes to it.

So I think the misleading language in the measure for me is of great, great concern.

You know, as far as diversity in the legislature, my goodness, you know, the legislature has always been a microcosm of New Mexico.

We've had people who had no jobs get elected.

We have millionaires here.

We have the urban and urban and rural, you know, diversity.

We have racial, ethnic, cultural diversity.

You know, the majority of House members are women now, which, you know, I think is a great idea.

So we have a lot of diversity.

And, you know, legislators aren't paying out of pocket for a lot of these things.

They use their campaign money to do this and that and the other.

So I think that's a little bit misleading that legislators are, you know, shelling out cash for all these services.

But that limit language to me is very misleading.

And I'm really worried about it because I don't think voters are getting what they want.

>>Jeff: I would really love to have you both back in.

I think this conversation doesn't end with the vote in November.

Mark Boitano, Oriana Sandoval, thank you both so much.

>>Oriana: Thank you.

>> Nash: Thanks to Oriana Sandoval of the center for Civic Policy and former state senator Mark Boitano for laying out their arguments for whether New Mexico legislators should get a salary.

Folks on both sides of this debate Expect the vote to be real close, and we will be watching come Election Day.

With that, let's get out of the studio in away from politics for a bit, shall we?

Back in the early to mid 2000s, officials in Utah and Texas began a biocontrol experiment meant to slow the spread of a non-native and particularly thirsty plant species called tamarisk.

You're probably familiar with the wispy small trees and shrubs, also known as salt cedars, that line many rivers in the southwest.

So the idea was to introduce tamarisk beetles in hopes that they would gobble up the salt cedar and make room for species indigenous to the region.

Plants that suck up way less of our dwindling water supply.

And by 2010, the beetles had made their way to New Mexico because, well, beetles spread quickly.

Tonight, freelance environmental journalist and NMiF correspondent, Elizabeth Miller takes us to La Jolla, about an hour south of Albuquerque, to check in on the beetles success in munching through that invasive species.

This story comes courtesy in part of reporting Elizabeth did for bioGraphic, an independent magazine that focuses on biodiversity and conservation around the world.

>> Elizabeth: Several centuries ago colonists began planting Tamarisk or salt cedar, a plant native to Eurasia, for landscaping as windbreaks and to stabilize streams.

But these imported trees have done a little too well here in the arid southwest, and they've been taking over waterways, often at the expense of native plants and wildlife.

25 years ago, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture released Tamarisk leaf beetles from Asia to serve as a natural predator that might prune back the trees.

The beetles can turn the trees from green to the brown that you see behind me.

The agency has used the so-called bio controls for a number of different pests and problems, often on crops, but also for conservation.

But the beetles haven't quite delivered on all that was promised, and in some cases they may be creating even more problems than they solve.

Kim Eichhorst and Matt Lister came out with me to the Bosque to talk about how the Bosque ecosystem monitoring program has been tracking the beetles and what they're finding.

>> Eichhorst: We're looking for the adult beetles.

We're looking for the egg masses and the early instar larvae and the late instar larvae.

And so far, only adults today.

But these trees, this population has already kind of peaked.

And you can see that these trees are really hammered and already starting to refoliate.

>> Leister: The beetles are attracted to the Tamarisk.

They'll go in, they'll start chewing on the leaves.

They'll start eating it.

And as a response, the tree will stop diverting resources to the leaves so they'll brown out.

So they'll intentionally divert those resources.

They'll brown out.

And once they brown out, the beetles no longer have food.

So they'll move on to another tree, another standard trees, where they'll start eating it.

And then that tree, once some time has passed, it'll start doing a refilling effort.

So it'll start bringing out new leaves just so it can get a last chance at photosynthesis.

Currently what we do.

Yeah.

So we we will collect them into the bag.

We'll identify the beetles at the different life stages.

The leafhopper and the weevils.

And then when we're finished, will release them.

>> Eichhorst: Because the population is so fast, like it goes through its complete lifecycle so quickly that if you're not out just by happenstance, when they're at their peak, you kind of miss that.

And so we're able to really track the impact by looking at percent defoliation, percent dead branches.

>> Elizabeth: The Tamarisk leaf beetle was brought from Asia just like the Tamarisk tree had been.

What was it supposed to do when it got here?

>> Eichhorst: So it was.

And it depends on who you talk to you.

But it was supposed to at least create enough of a stress specifically targeted to the salt cedar to allow a competitive advantage to other trees to kind of take over that ecosystem.

There were some early thoughts that that would create more mortality in the salt cedar populations.

However, there is a USDA report that says, just based on their greenhouse experiments, that they could no longer expect to have mortality, but that they should release the beetle in trials the next year anyway because it would create, again, that kind of competitive advantage for other native species.

But we have different constraints here or a lack of constraints.

And so the beetles rapidly migrated to this area.

And so in 2013, we were starting to notice some of the beetles and realized that even though we didn't have specific funding, that we needed to use some of our monies to start tracking the beetle now so we could capture their arrival in some of our southern sites.

>> Elizabeth: And what what have you seen as you've been monitoring for them for 13 years now?

>> Eichhorst: Salt cedar typically drop their leaves in November, and we would see a nice spike of the leaf drop as we hit that late fall.

But with the arrival of the beetle, because and I don't know if we can see some of this, but the leaf beetle comes in and they do a lot of damage, and the salt cedar leaves turn brown and they drop those leaves.

And so we're seeing an early leaf drop kind of in that June timeframe.

And then they refoliate.

And initially, especially those first couple of years, the refoliation levels meant that we were getting a leaf drop that was just as big as their historical leaf drop again in November.

And so we've tracked that kind of dual leaf drop when we have those high populations of beetles in an area.

We've also seen a really slow decline of salt cedar because they do refoliate it's not been like a huge competitive advantage for any of the native species.

We've been able to show kind of a 2% decline in productivity with every 1% increase in the beetle abundance.

So it does scale up, but not as not as fast as what people were hoping for.

And we have seen some branch mortality.

But at our sites, the only place where we've seen complete mortality of salt cedar, we've had mortality of other species as well.

And so we're linking that more towards declines in groundwater and increase in temperature.

I took some of my questions about how the tamarisk leaf beetles have been interacting with ecosystems.

To Matthew Johnson with Northern Arizona University.

>> Johnson: Yeah, the biggest problem was when they sold this biocontrol program.

They didn't put money in toward monitoring, you know, long term monitoring.

And they didn't put in any funding into restoration.

And there was they didn't have any idea how they were going to, you know, once they were thought that they were going to take all this Tamarisk out.

There was no ideas or no thought about, well, what are they going to replace it with?

And luckily, a lot of these areas that were affected by the beetle, they naturally came back, such as in the upper basins with Coyote Willow.

Even in some areas there was a little bit of an increase in cottonwood, but in the lower sections, the lower basins, we saw nothing come back and also non-natives came in.

>> Eichhorst: It is definitely a story we've seen multiple times now, but bringing in something to try to fix your problem is not a great solution.

And in this case, the unintended consequences had tremendous impacts on the bird that we were trying to protect.

Right.

This the southwestern willow flycatcher.

So when the salt cedar dropped their leaves it's during nesting season.

So all of a sudden the nest, the nest sites were chosen when the leaves were out and full, and then the leaves drop and the eggs and the hatchlings are kind of exposed to sun and predators.

And then, as those hatchlings may or may not survive, right then the trees refoliate anyway.

So I think, yeah, in part there isn't a quick fix.

It's kind of buckling down and paying attention to each site and kind of what the needs of the site are and what you want to have happen there.

So if you look out and you're like, oh, this is a really dense stand of salt cedar kind of going in and doing some of the mechanical removal and the planting and kind of trying to tie that with the available water sources.

So if you're planting for cottonwoods, knowing that the groundwater is already three meters down, you're not going to get success.

And being able to balance, do you dig down to reach groundwater to support cottonwoods, willows or a wetland, or do you allow areas to transition to dry land species?

Being able to do a clean sweep wipe out of any species is not realistic.

>> Johnson: Now, on the Virgin River, on the Saint George, that has been where they have had success because they had water and they took out the big the bigger Tamarisk, they left the smaller Tamarisk in those areas and the the birds came back and they planted a lot of willow.

While that willow was growing, that birds were still using the Tamarisk.

And once the willow got to certain size, then the birds shifted into the willow and they eliminated the big Tamarisk that were larger, and they limited about 70% of it, but they left 30%.

And that's kind of what they've got to learn.

What we've learned a lot is Tamers is going to be part of the system no matter what, and that we need to realize that we got to leave part of that.

We got to leave a percent of that if we're going to do restoration.

>> Eichhorst: I think one of the things that we have to start getting away from is this idea that we can kind of find our way back to a more native ecosystem, and it's going to be pockets and having an area that is already kind of has the underlying conditions to allow for a wetland or cottonwood, willow bosque being able to support that in areas where it's easy to support.

And in other areas, like I said, kind of letting go of the notion that we need a cottonwood forest all along the river and recognizing that in order to have water in the river, which is getting harder and, you know, going to come back to us, you're going to have to have those dry land plants along the river and not just kind of the wetland plants and the cottonwood forests that we're used to seeing.

>> Elizabeth: If there's a key message from all of this research and monitoring, it's that there are no quick fixes and no easy solutions without collaboration, adaptation, and of course, water.

For New Mexico in Focus I'm Elizabeth Miller reporting.

>> Nash: Thanks to Elizabeth Miller, producer Antonio Sanchez and our crew for getting us into the field for that story.

You can read more of Elizabeth's reporting on the tamarisk beetle gambit at bioGraphic.com.

Thanks also to everyone else who contributed to the show.

We will return to the campaign trail next week with a detailed look at the two candidates in one of the nation's most closely watched congressional races, New Mexico's District two.

For New Mexico PBS.

I'm Nash Jones.

Until then, stay focused.

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