What Did Last Week's Election Teach Us?

What did we learn from the thunderous rejection of Doña Ana Soil & Water Conservation District's (“S&W's”) try for a tax hike and $350,000 a year?

S&W, a sort of state agency, set a special election for April 8, anticipating maybe 400-500 voters. (Not S&W's fault that this was a special election, there's a state statute we should amend) Many questioned whether the group, which spends most of its time passing fatuous resolutions concerning things irrelevant to its mission (such as immigration and U.N. Agenda 21), would actually use the money properly; and we wondered how a group so insistent on antagonizing other government agencies would manage the necessary cooperation with those agencies to get anything done.

To some extent, the vote became a mini-referendum on the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument proposal, which S&W vigorously opposes. The 85% vote confirmed again that the Monument proposal is extremely popular. People cared enough to turn out for a one-question vote. Some, including my wife and me, waited an hour and a half to vote. One friend suggested I write a column about “white voters getting to experience what black voters do in elections, humongous lines at polling places.”

The wait wasn't as bad as it might have been. People maintained a sense of humor and made new friends. (We waited with Susan Reidel, Republican candidate for A.G., and her son, a DASO Deputy, and had a pleasant chat, mostly staying off politics.) But the wait was long. We saw several people approach Good Sam's, notice the long line, and beat a hasty retreat. (Kudos to Deputy County Clerk Mario Jimenez for sending some folks with water bottles to keep us alive to vote.)

The entire controversy left me with a bunch of questions and ideas. One question was who paid the tab for the cost of a special election. (S&W) Also, S&W's penny-pinching gave us just five polling places, and resulting long lines.

A weightier question concerns the S&W argument that the enhanced budget was necessary to deal with the urgent problem of outmoded dams, some built decades ago to protect farmland and now standing above communities.

The question is simple: everyone's politics aside, how much truth was there in that argument? Which dams most urgently need fixing or replacing? In some cases, is there a more ecologically-friendly alternative that would be as effective as (or more so than) rebuilt dams? Are there practical, lower-cost solutions to some of these problems? And where there's a real need for a new dam, where do we get the funds?

I'd like to learn the answers to some of these questions, since I regularly comment on the local scene. I'm not having second thoughts about advocating a “No” vote April 8; but I do feel as if folks of good will ought to communicate clearly concerning the situation and try to find common ground.

One thing some of us learned, and others already knew from their experience elsewhere in New Mexico or other states, is that there many S&W's make real and beneficial contributions to their communities.

Could a recharged S&W, with some new blood and representing more points of view, be useful here? I'd like to look into that. Water is the key issue for folks like us who live in a desert. The present drought will only make it more so.

I'd like to spend some time with the S&W and EBID folks. Sure, I think they sometimes talk a lot of rot, as they undoubtedly think I do; but some, at least at EBID, have some real knowledge, and some of the S&W people represent ranchers. Ranching is important not only to our economy (though less so than some ranchers claim), but also to our culture, history, and identity. I've met many ranchers who are good stewards of the land. In an increasingly plastic world, folks who do what they do are a precious and endangered resource. I know ranching practices and environmental concerns sometimes get in each other's way; but I suspect that a significant amount of the animus between ranchers and environmentalists could and should be avoided. (That's one reason Joe Delk's raging at “the environmental cartels” he sees as trying to push his “powerful and graceful God” out of our culture is so unhelpful.)

It'd be sweet if everyone's ideologies and prejudices took a back seat to a community effort to get some things right.

Maybe we could have a functional S&W. Even without much money, it could do some good, if it brought people together and solved problems creatively. (Brad Lancaster's talk on water harvesting, two nights after the vote, was like a punctuation mark emphasizing “by the way, there might be some solutions here we've overlooked.”)

Such a group might someday ask for more funding, but only after showing it deserved that funding and would make good use of the public's money – and trust.
                                                                -30-
[The foregoing column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, April 20th.  Coincidentally, Opinion Page Editor Walt Rubel had decided to write his own Sunday column the same subject.   Some will recall that the Sun-News editorialized in favor of the ballot measure, and I strongly opposed it.  Yet another column in this morning's paper is County Clerk Lynn Ellins's guest column on the election from the point of view of the folks who had to help run it with the financial and other constraints the Soil & Water Conservation District had.  County Clerk's office deserves a lot of credit for making the best of a bad situation -- not the opprobrium heaped on it by frustrated voters who didn't understand the relative roles of the S&W folks and the Clerk. ]
["What's Walt thinking?" a friend emailed me this morning.  I think Walt and I agree more than we disagree, in the sense that we each think decision-makers should understand the situation, identify any urgent flood-protection needs, and try desperately to deal with those -- although we're also each aware that it's a common view among local officials that it could take $500 million to fix all the problems, and no one has any idea where to procure anything close to that amount.
Where we differ is that in Walt's desperate concern to avoid flooding, he imagines that Mr. Delk, who misspent the District's time and small budget on fatuous resolutions, sharing in on a study to find some ground to criticize the BLM, and whatever else, would suddenly make wiser and more effective use of $350,000.  Why would we assume that?  I'd like to share your faith, Walt; but the evidence suggests otherwise. 
I also have concerns that the folks who'd be advising Mr. Delk and his Board might be too committed to their own strategy and constituency, at the expense of better solutions.  I hope to learn that's not true.  But it's a reasonable concern.
Finally, as the column suggests, I want to make it a priority to learn more about this subject.  I want to take a fair and objective look at it -- and (if I learn anything useful) voice further views to readers and local officials.] 

Vote "No" on April 8

Mark April 8^th on your calendar.

That day you can vote on whether you want to pay $10 or $20 extra in taxes to provide $350,000 annually to fund a group of extremists who write useless letters and resolutions.

Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District (“S&W”), has set a special election on a proposal that S&W receive about $9.2 cents per thousand dollars net assessed value on each home. If your house's assessed value is $150,000, you'd pay $13.84.

You probably have no idea what S&W does.

Despite its name S&W opposes most every conservation proposal they hear about, including the Organ Mountains – Desert Peaks National Monument proposal.

Remember the crazy idea to create a pipeline to divert water from the Gila River to Deming? Even the legislator who suggested this admitted that he just wanted to scare people into thinking seriously about water. No one intended to build the pipeline; but S&W voted unanimously to support it – although it would cost a boatload of money, destroy the Gila River, and accomplish very little.
S&W even passed a resolution opposing U.N. Agenda 21.

I first heard of Agenda 21 when someone wrote asking how soon the City would herd people into high-rise residences and confiscate their four-wheel-drive vehicles because of Agenda 21. Wondering what the fuss was about, I read Agenda 21. It's a well-intentioned paper favoring a healthier world and less poverty. Nothing it recommends is mandatory, but some folks fear that local governments are cutting secret deals with the U.N. to steal our freedoms.

Tuesday evening fewer than 25 citizens attended S&W's “open house.” Attendees asked for a budget or coherent plan for how the money would be used. S&W had neither.

Citizens also questioned the group's extremist politics. S&W Chairman Joe Delk was repeatedly asked to explain some of his positions, or at least assure the audience that S&W would concentrate on productive work, not spend public money on political posturing. He gave no such assurance.

Boardmember Jennifer Shoup, said Agenda 21 was being “imposed on us.” Reminded that Agenda 21 is voluntary, she replied that local groups were adopting some of its goals, such as “smart growth and sustainability.”

Delk spoke vaguely about what S&W would do with the money. He's written far more eloquently about how conservation districts can be a vital force in the battle between solid Christians and the “environmental cartels.”

Delk writes he is “a child of a living and all-powerful and graceful God,” while “environmental cartels” seek “to elevate a secular spiritualism while suppressing and diminishing the presence and importance of Christian men and women,” and conservation districts “are a bastion of conservative leaders . . . and may also be the key to our future.”

Tuesday evening's presentation featured a representative of the Upper Hondo Conservation District. Her knowledge and professionalism highlighted the failings of the local group. She discussed cooperating with other agencies on real projects. Mr. Delk seems more interested in an epic battle between his version of Christianity and our secular society.

One example: in his haste to oppose the BLM last year, Delk may have broken New Mexico's open-meetings law. BLM was considering a Tri-County Plan. Public comment period was to end September 16. On July 13, over one objection, Delk declared “an emergency” to hold a meeting on shortened notice to approve contributing $2,000 for an expert to determine how to attack the Plan. The “emergency” allowed him to escape certain requirements of the law. 
 
Delk did this not because of any specific objection, but because “there's no telling what's hidden in the nooks and crannies of the words therein.” Was this legally an emergency? Subsection F of the Open Meetings Law states “an 'emergency' refers to unforeseen circumstances that, if not addressed immediately by the public body, will likely result in injury or damage to persons or property or substantial financial loss to the public body.”
[NOTE: after deadline for this column, I believe this matter was reported to the Third Judicial District Attoney.]

The City and County already have mil levies for flood control. A local leader said later that since S&W apparently has the right to work on private property, which the City and County can't, “They don't need a bunch of money. All they have to do is stop their political ranting and be cooperative with entities that already exist. It's a shame they isolate themselves that way.”

I was heartened to hear Delk mention “rainwater harvesting.” 

But I don't want to be taxed an extra $15 next year to fund this group, unless and until they show more true interest in conservation and less of an obsession with ideology. 

S&W's charge is to help us better manage our natural resources. 

Speaking of practical ways to do that, a leading expert on rainwater harvesting, Brad Lancaster, will speak Thursday, April 10, at 7 pm. at the Rio Grande Theater. Admission is free. We hope anyone within driving distance attends, including Delk and his fellow board-members. Politics aside, we all need practical information on preserving our most precious resource.
                                                             -30-

[The column above appeared in this morning's Las Cruces Sun-News.  There's lot's more to say on this matter -- including why writing this column saddened me.
A part of the real story is the fact that our modern society threatens to marginalize and eventually destroy ranching.   No one feels that more than the ranchers.   It also matters to me.   Part of the conflict between environmentalists and ranchers is probably inevitable; but part of it isn't, and I think that to some degree ranchers who reflexively resist conservation and preservation measures are focusing on the wrong enemy.   I also feel troubled when environmentalists fail to give fair weight to the human and societal values of ranching.  I'd rather see these groups communicate better, compromise, and even work together on possible common concerns.] 

Having said that, I want to add additional material here, partly because the April 8th vote is imminent and partly to offer readers of the column access to some of the basic documents and materials I reviewed in writing it.
Thus I want to add not only URL's but a further analysis of the open-meetings -- and procurement law -- concerns raised by Mr. Delk's conduct of a meeting last July.  

Some URL's

Here is the actual link to the 7/31/13 Minutes in which Mr. Delk concedes that the only way to hold the meeting on such short notice is to call it an “emergency:”

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGFzd2NkLm9yZ3x3d3d8Z3g6NDg3ZjhmNjI5YmI0NDZjZA

Here's the link to Mr. Delk's extended comment on “environmental cartels” from which we quote in the column:http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2012/10/joe-delk-presentation.html 

Here's Dona Ana Soil & Water District's website, for it's point of view on these matters.



The July 13, 2013 Meeting

This affair warrants a more formal investigation than mine for two reasons: (a) Mr. Delk appears to have willfully misused  the "emergency" exception to evade clear Open Meetings Act requirements; and (b) since the meeting resulted in a decision to spend $2,000 of public funds, query whether proper procurement procedures were followed.

First of all, was the whole thing completely unnecessary?   BLM was involved in a complex process of creating, taking public comment on, and reworking a Tri-County Plan.   The S&W board-members had the opportunity to review it and comment, as did we all.  They apparently had no specific faults to find with it, but suspected that if they looked deeper they might find some. 
Public comment was to end in mid-September.  Two months in advance, Mr. Delk (and, apparently, some other organizations, reportedly including EBID) wanted to fund an expert to review the plan and draft comments for S&C and the others to voice.)
Mr. Delk called an Emergency Meeting to approve contributing $2,000 to paying the expert.  The minutes to this meeting leave no doubt that he knew his action was legally questionable:
1. Another person present stated her disagreement with him that this was an "emergency" under applicable law, and Mr. Delk responded that he would take the hit for it if anyone asked;
2. Mr. Delk stated that "Time was of the essence in this matter, so the only way to call a meeting on this short of notice was to make it an emergency meeting," according to the minutes, which continue, "NMDA SWCD Specialist Tiffany Rivera did not agree, but Joe said he was willing to take the hits should this be questioned."
3. The "emergency" nature of the meeting meant that only a few board-members were present.  Several, such as Steve Wilmeth, were absent, and thus not involved in the possible violation.
4. As noted in the column, the law defines "emergency" quite clearly as: "unforeseen circumstances that, if not addressed immediately by the public body, will likely result in injury or damage to persons or property or substantial financial loss to the public body.”
   * Since the BLM procedures were well-publicized, one wonders what the "unforeseen circumstances" could have been;
   * What was the "likely  injury or damage" that would have resulted from the slight delay needed to comply with law?  
   * Why did Mr. Delk not articulate the "likely injury or damage" and why those would occur if this problem were "not addressed immediately" by S&W?
I'm not a prosecutor.  I do think an appropriate authority should ask Mr. Delk those questions, because if he hasn't got satisfactory answers, he may well be guilty of a crime.  I hope District Attorney Mark D'Antonio will pursue this.  

Whether or not the foregoing establishes a violation of law, it show pretty clearly Mr. Delk's priorities and his lack of regard for the law.  He wanted $2,000 in public funds to go to creating some opposing comments to the BLM, and they $2,000 went to that purpose.



The Bottom Line
Soil and Water Conservation Districts in other states, and even elsewhere in New Mexico, can be functioning entities that actually help conserve water and soil.   The representative of Upper Hondo's SWCD at Tuesday's meeting was not only knowledgeable and eloquent, she was clearly a deep believer in the mission of SWCD's.
Ranchers definitely should be a significant voice on an SWCD, though not the only one.
So why wouldn't we vote for this mil levy and hope that the Dona Ana SWCD would turn to its actual mission and perform that mission appropriately?
City residents likely wouldn't do so, because they already pay for flood control and the SWCD's work would be wholly or mostly outside Las Cruces.   The Dona Ana folks presumably could have exempted the city from the levy, as Upper Hondo's SWCD did with municipalities there.  City residents may not wish to be double-taxed.
County residents also pay something for flood control.  They may wonder why our SWCD can't just work with the county.
Above all, though, the evidence just seems to point against optimism regarding the SWCD.   What do their meeting minutes and resolutions show about their priorities?  So far, that they are preoccupied with extremist, anti-governmental politics and have had little to say on immediate issues.  (Spending a significant part of their small budget on creating some opposition to the BLM Plan might have been indicative.)  They're up in arms about Agenda 21 and grey wolves; they show more interest in attacking other governmental groups than in finding ways to cooperate to conserve; and while they have plenty of resolutions regarding their political views, we see few resolutions encouraging rain harvesting, keeping the soil clean from contaminants, or other conservation measures.