Your Op-ed on SB 111 published on 26 January, 2024 begs for clarification.

SB 111 specified money and purpose. The purpose is to fund the following as specified in the bill:

"(1) protect water in the state through additional monitoring and enforcement of existing regulations;
and
(2) conduct additional mapping to better understand how changes to the federal Clean Water Act of 1977 affect water in the state."

How is this to be viewed as "the most extreme water restrictions and regulations on miners, farmers, ranchers and private property owners" as you claim? The laws are already on the books. This is merely additional modest funding to insure the laws are being followed.

Yes, mining and agriculture play a very important role for many citizens in the local economy. How does insuring the good quality of water adversely affect health and well-being of those citizens? What happens to these people when an aquifer is poisoned by industrial runoff or a farmer's well becomes unsafe due to excessive nitrate infiltration? Many pollutants adverse to human health are natural in our state, such as arsenic, manganese and sulfates. Should we just not check for these because of some misplaced notion of "government overreach"? I think not.

And who are the mysterious "outside influences" that Ramos says are negatively influencing the livelihood and well-being of local citizens? If he was alluding to GRIP, then he should know this LOCAL organization has been active since 1998. GRIP is LOCAL influences.

Sincerely,
Dennis Nendza
Silver City, NM