New Mexico State Senator Dede Feldman's Blog

One Government We Can Do Without: Mid Rio Grande Conservancy District

A Guest Blog by State Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino
 
Two separate events this year have convinced me that we should do away with the Mid Rio Grande Conservancy District.  Not reform it; not elect better people to its board of governors; not seek to improve it in any way.  Just wipe it off the face of the planet.
 
It is definitely one level of government that that has long-since outlived its usefulness.  Rather than prolonging the agony, allowing the problems engendered by this dysfunctional entity to grow even a tiny bit beyond the disaster it already has created, we should simply screw up the intestinal gumption and put an end to it. Finito.  Ya basta!
 
I know, I'm a registered Democrat, and for someone of this political persuasion to call for eliminating a form of government, any form of government, is practically heresy.  So be it.  The Conservancy District and its multifarious follies have converted me. When it comes to this entity, just call me Newt Ortiz y Pino from here on out; the poor man's avenging angel for less government.
 
Now many of you I'm sure are greeting this topic with blank stares.  If you live more than a mile or so from the Rio Grande, are living anywhere in the "Heights" or on the West Side, then you will not know of what I am speaking. 

But if you live in the river's floodplain, are a landowner in the north or south valleys, live Downtown or in any of the "historic neighborhoods", then you are likely to have been a victim of the MRGCD and should at least finish reading this column.  It is taxing you and it is not serving your interests.  We must stop it. Here are a few of the many reasons why it is important to do so.
 
First, all property owners living within the District (it stretches from Bernalillo to Socorro on both sides of the river for a distance of from one to three miles depending on the topography) are assessed taxes for the work of the MRGCD.  In some cases this part of your property tax bill may be adding several hundred dollars to the total hit, a hit that the rest of the citizenry living outside the District boundaries escape.
 
Now I'm not against taxes.  But I am against taxes for which nothing is received in return. And I am especially against taxes that are used to produce results that are diametrically opposed to my best interests. That is practically a definition of what the MRGCD does with the enormous wads of cash it collects annually from non-farmers in the District; i.e., 95% of the people who pay those taxes.
 
Unless you are using the irrigation water that flows through the complex of ditches and laterals that MRGCD maintains, you are not getting any benefit from your tax dollars.  Try to walk or hike on the ditch banks.  You are not welcome. 

The District treated a recent effort to foster the use of ditch banks as trails (or even pedestrian shortcuts for kids to get to school) as if it were a raw usurpation of its "sovereign authority".  No, you are not to use that network of ditches…even though it is your tax dollars that pay for it.

MRGCD originally said it would cooperate in the ditches-as-trails effort, provided the Legislature changed the law to give it immunity from legal liability for accidents occurring when pedestrians hiked the ditch banks.  The Legislature did exactly that…and the MRGCD reneged from its prior agreement.  Now they have immunity-and still won't allow ditches to be used as trails.

Well, irrigators must get the benefit, you might figure, and at least if traditional irrigation for small farms helps preserve that valuable piece of New Mexico's heritage, that might justify the continued existence of the Conservancy District, even if it is only a small number who actually use it.

But in fact the District benefits more financially when an alfalfa field (taxed as agricultural land, at a very low rate) is converted to twelve or fifteen single family residences, each of whose owners will be taxed considerable higher rates for residential property.

It is this rapid transformation of agricultural to residential property, presided over by the Conservancy District, which has filled its coffers to overflowing-even though it supposedly exists to preserve the agricultural way of life.

If it actually did preserve small farms, it wouldn't have anywhere near the revenue flow that it currently enjoys from tapping the burgeoning number of non-farmers who live in the valley.  As it is, the Conservancy District is reaping rich rewards from urbanization, giving it a patent incentive to work against its original purposes. "Overflowing coffers" may sound exaggerated, but I've been told that the MRGCD accounts currently contain somewhat more than $16 million and possibly as much as $20 million in excess of its budget for this year.

If it were to be eliminated, the small farmers in the North and South Valleys would still be able to irrigate; the acequia associations are fully capable of regulating the use of water genuinely needed for agricultural purposes; that's precisely how it's done elsewhere in the state. 

Irrigation all over northern New Mexico went on for centuries without the existence of a "Conservancy District".  Especially one that has grown fat and arrogant feeding on tax revenues generated from non-farmers.  It's time to call this fiasco off and pull the plug on the Mid Rio Grande Conservancy District.
 

 

Session's Uncovered Stories: Attacks on Non-Profits, Rail Runner and the Human Services Department

The Special Session presented lame duck Senators who would not be returning with a great opportunity to get in their last licks.  Sen. Grubesic once again called into question the Guv.'s character, comparing him at one point to Hannibal Lecter.   Sens. James Taylor, Shannon Robinson, Rep. Dan Silva, aided by Sen. Bernadette Sanchez and others, were at war with all things non-profit, as they view themselves as victims of unjust attacks from a particular non-profit which they feel should have registered as a PAC. They tied amendments on to many of the social services appropriations-including LIHEAP-- to prevent the state from contracting with non-profits to deliver services.   This kind of broad brush, "grudge" legislation is really unfortunate.   In New Mexico we depend on non-profits for so much, and in many cases they are more efficient than state government.  Non-profits run the gamut from the American Cancer Society and Youth Development to small groups like Los Poblanos Organics.  To crucify them all on one cross is shortsighted.
 
The Senate debate on the Governor's scaled-down plan to expand health coverage to all children and institute some insurance reforms was derailed by an attack on the Human Services Department, fired up by Legislative Finance Committee director David Abbey, who appeared on the floor of the Senate during a Committee of the Whole to produce a letter that charged the Human Services Department with withholding information   on the Medicaid Managed Care contract s in defiance of law.  He indicated that he was going to request an AG's opinion on it.  This, and a scathing analysis of the health care proposal from his agency, was enough to make Senators table the bill, and with it, limits on the ability of insurance companies to turn down people with pre-existing conditions and raise the rates on those who are sick.  Another lost opportunity to make meaningful health care reform.  Meanwhile the cost of health care rise at 8% per year and the ranks of the uninsured increase.

Las Cruces Senator Leonard Lee Rawson couldn't help but get his last licks in too, with an amendment to the GRIP bill that would have forbid the use of any road funds, evermore, from paying for Rail Runner.   Never mind that the bill itself explicitly prohibited this.  I guess Rawson wanted to tell all us effete urban snobs, one more time, that roads are more important than something that would actually make a dent in pollution and move people in something other than cars. Fortunately, the amendment failed.  For me, as the price of gas goes up, that Rail Runner, and public transportation in general, looks more and more attractive.  And I suspect that, as more folks feel the same way, these attacks will get louder.

Special Session Brings Relief to New Mexico Families

If you've been following the news, you've no doubt heard that the Special Session has ended with the Legislature giving the Governor most of what he proposed amidst a lot of hand wringing about the state's future financial picture.   At the start of the session, we had several important  "nay sayers" in the Senate who didn't want to do anything because they believed the financial projections were way overblown and the Governor was just out for political gain at the upcoming Democratic convention.   When the consensus forecast we were working with didn't seem dire enough, they even brought in their own independent economist.  By the end of the session however, they were persuaded to come around to a more limited spending level.   Good bargaining strategy,  no? Who knows, though, maybe we'll thank them in the future.

Anyway, the items I favored to bring relief to working families were funded-not fully, but meaningfully.  They are:
 
In the health care area:
* Additional health care coverage for children to the tune of $20 million (which will leverage approximately  $97 million in federal funds) When implemented, t his will allow an additional 18,000 kids up to 19 years old to obtain coverage through the Medicaid and SCHIP program
* $10 million worth of services to approximately 430 individuals with developmental disabilities who have been on a waiting list for years
* $2.5 million for mental health services to children under 19 years old

To help the family budget:
* $7.2 million in child care assistance, which will allow approximately 550 additional children to obtain subsidized childcare at  day-care and home-care centers around the state
* An increase in the working families tax credit from 8% to 10%, which will help low income working families.  This will cost the state approximately $7.6 million per year.
* $56 million in tax rebates that will benefit the lower end of the income scale with relatively small checks.
* About $2 million was added to the Low Income Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP) which helps low-income families and the elderly pay their heating bills.

We also appropriated funds to help school districts cover the increased cost of diesel for school buses, made emergency allocati ons to address flooding in Ruidoso, and allow the Secretary of State to train more precinct judges for the upcoming election.

And, of course, we put a ton of money into unfinished road rural projects.
I was not too crazy about the rebates, since the amount is so low.  Families over $70,000 will get no rebate-but at least the low income folks will get something to buy a tank of gas or a load of groceries.  With the economy worsening, I guess every little bit helps.

Conservancy District Dumps Trail Improvements along Griegos Drain

As some of you may have read in the media, a few weeks ago, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District has decided to quit the Ditches with Trails project, a joint endeavor of the city, county, state, national parks service, and almost a score of neighborhood organizations in the North and South Valley.  MRGCD had been a member of that endeavor in the past, and was cooperating, I thought, in a very constructive way-until now. Fearing some kind of "take over" of the MRGCD's authority over the ditches, and reacting to a well organized group who used misleading tactics to stir up fear of a paved, urbanized trail effort that would benefit recreationalists from outside their area, the Board stopped the project without even considering the feasibility report.  
 
It further criticized Bernalillo County for cost overruns on a footbridge over the Griegos lateral in the North Valley built with funds I appropriated. The bridge, which had been licensed by the District, was built in response to concern over safety of the small, rickety crossing there-which may have been a factor in the accidental death of a young Los Ranchos doctor.   The bridge incorporated public art, and required the relocation of some large PNM telephone lines. The widow of the doctor (who had earlier decided not to sue the district) was at the board meeting, and was told callously by one board member that she shouldn't expect any special treatment just because her husband had died.

This was the first time I'd been to a MRGCD Board meeting in years-and I won't forget it for a long time. Sure there was disagreement over this project, and the bridge was controversial, but the process reinforced the long-held perception that the district cannot cooperate with other jurisdictions, is willing to go back on its agreements, undermine its own staff and insult members of the public. To access my statement the night of the meeting, click here  Can you provide link?.
Both before and after this meeting, I've gotten quite a few questions about what we ratepayers here in the Valley get for our taxes, particularly if we do not irrigate using ditch water.  I've responded with what the Conservancy has told me publicly: We get access to the natural, green ditch system for hiking, biking and other recreational activities.   Now I'm not so sure that they really want recreational access to the ditches.

Maybe, as some of the columnists and critics have long suggested, the Conservancy should be abolished, or financed only with the revenue from those farmers who use the water.  Presently, the bulk of the revenue comes from Bernalillo County, where most ratepayers do not irrigate and agriculture is shrinking.
Here's what one of my constituents, Lora Lucero, wrote in a letter to the Albuquerque Journal. 

"Albuquerque Journal, West Side Edition

Dear Editor,
I am a taxpayer who owns property within the boundaries of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) in Bernalillo County. According to my property tax bill, last year I paid about $110 to the MRGCD, about $25 to the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority (AMAFCA), and about $285 to Albuquerque Public Schools (APS), not to mention the other slices of the tax pie.

A few observations -

(1) Since I don't irrigate any lands, I'm told my taxes to MRGCD are paying for flood protection. I'm also paying AMAFCA for flood protection. I shouldn't have to pay two different agencies to protect my property from flood damage in a desert.

(2) My contribution to APS is a mere 2 1/2 times my contribution to MRGCD. That's absurd considering the future of our children and our workforce depends on having a strong public school system. The property tax pie needs to be reprioritized.

(3) Recently, the MRGCD Board decided to shelve the Ditches-to-Trails plans, reinforcing MRGCD's irrelevancy to me as a non-irrigator, and it's inability to work constructively with others.

Based on these observations, and much more, I believe the time has come for the public and State Lawmakers to ask whether or not MRGCD should continue to exist. Perhaps AMAFCA should be delegated responsibility for all flood control work in this area; the Mid-Region Council of Governments should be delegated reponsibility for the trails and open spaces; and the responsibility for water delivery to our Valley's farmers might be delegated to an agency that can focus solely on water delivery at a much more reasonable cost.

Time to put the MRGCD under a microscope.

Sincerely,
Lora A. Lucero, AICP"

 

Special Session Approaches, but Revenue Forecast May Shorten Guv's Wish List

We're headed back to Santa Fe on Friday, much to the dismay of many lawmakers who are either knee deep in campaigning, getting kids back to school or, now, frustrated by the difficulty in getting a room in Santa Fe as Indian Market and the popular Antiquities Show get underway.
 
The Governor said he was planning to call a Special Session back in February after the legislature failed to move toward universal health coverage, even after the House watered down his bill.   And when the price of oil and gas skyrocketed in mid-summer, he added an enticement-tax cuts, rebates and holidays for consumers strapped by the high prices at the pump and at the grocery store, and $200 million in highway projects in rural New Mexico.  The fly in the ointment, however, started buzzing when the price of oil and gas went down-good for us as consumers, but bad for the state's permanent funds. Hence, there's a big debate going on between the administration and the legislature's economists on what the size of the bonanza will be. The Governor's forces estimate it at about $400 million and the Legislature is calling it at about $66 million.  This week, the economists are supposed to get together to make a joint forecast, to see just how much extra money we have. We'll go from there.

I have a few favorites among the Governor's proposals, and, as you might have guessed, health care is at the top of my list.  One of the proposals is to cover all kids with health insurance, starting with those who are eligible for Medicaid  (approximately 50,000).  It's estimated to cost $58 million in state funds, with the Feds matching the expenditure to the tune of $130 million.  A good investment, if you ask me. Combine that with the proposed expansion of the Low Income Home Energy and Assistance Program (LIHEAP), a tax credit for working families, and an expansion of the state child care assistance program, and you have gotten real relief to working families at the lower end of the ladder.  

Healthcare Still a Focus: Covering Kids A Possibility

The Governor has scaled back his proposal for universal health coverage and broken it down into three bills.
 
The first is one includes insurance reforms that forbid insurance companies from turning down people with pre-existing conditions, raising the rates dramatically when they get sick, and requiring that at least 85% of the money collected in premiums be spent on direct medical care  (as opposed to administration and profit). It also includes a mandate that all children through age 19 be covered by health care (although there is no mechanism for enforcement), and appropriates $58 million to cover the first few years of the cost.

The second creates a health care benefits administration, which would consolidate the administration of several existing public healthcare programs-including state employees, and local public bodies, public school teachers, APS and, in the next year, Retiree Health, and the Health Insurance Alliance. The consolidation applies only to the administration-- not to the funding streams and/ or the actuarial pools. A Health Care Board, jointly appointed by the Governor and the Legislature, would be set up to see whether the pools should be further consolidated, whether Medicaid should be included, how costs could be controlled, whether uninsured people could buy into the pool, and what would actually constitute " affordable" coverage.
(If you eyes have not glazed over at this point, you are a true health policy wonk, thus earning gold stars, and the special veggie snacks.)
  
The third bill simply sets up a framework for electronic medical records that protects privacy, should such records ever come into use.  There is nothing in the bill that mandates or funds the implementation of electronic records systems.
 
We'll see how far any of these proposals get.  Let me know which you favor or oppose. At this point, I'm not sure to what degree legislators want to tackle them… but I'll be pushing for the Medicaid piece as well as the insurance reforms. 
 
I'll try and keep you updated during the Special Session. We have no clue how long it will last and what the schedule is, but you can always get a message to me through dedefeld@comcast.net.    Who knows?  We may all find that we have no revenue to work with, and go home right away.  If we're going to stay to do health care, however, and you agree with my priorities, please call members of the Senate Finance Committee, especially to urge them to fund health care for all children in New Mexico.
 
(Go to http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/ to find those legislators and their contact information)