Lawmakers look to protect the Pecos Watershed from new mining operations
'We need to remember the headwaters of the Pecos provides life-giving water all the way through the Pecos, down through the village of Villanueva where my family is from, all the way to Texas. These are pristine waters,' said Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-Santa Fe, Congressional Dist. 3).
The latest fight from New Mexico's congressional delegation aims to protect the Pecos as they reintroduce the Pecos Watershed Protection Act. The federal legislation looks to stop mining around the northern New Mexico river.
Middle schoolers invited to hands-on outdoor adventure exploring Bosque wildlife
'They would prevent any destructive activity and not just in the area but also the flow downstream from any damage,' said Rep. Anita Gonzales (D-San Miguel, Torrance Counties).
The legislation comes after the Trump Administration's recent decision to reverse the Bureau of Land Management's and the U.S. Forest Service's protections of the Upper Pecos Watershed from new mining operations. The reversal reopens mining opportunities on federal lands.
Opponents on Monday said rural communities want to protect the river because farmers, recreationists, and others rely on it. 'The water is important because it is both the source of their drinking water and it is the source of the water that floods their fields in the springtime,' said Rep. Leger Fernandez.
Travel + Leisure rates New Mexico spot as most beautiful
Lawmakers have been trying to get the act passed since 2020 in each Congress, recalling the 1991 toxic waste spill from a closed mine, which caused a massive fish kill. 'We do not want that contamination again. We have lived through what mining can do to the waters of the Pecos, and we want to prevent that,' added Rep. Leger Fernandez.
The Trump Administration hasn't said yet if the feds are working on any new mining agreements near the Pecos. However, a company has shown interest in years past for an exploratory mining project in the area.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
The House is looking into the Epstein investigation. Here's what could happen next
WASHINGTON — A key House committee is looking into the investigation of the late Jeffrey Epstein for sex trafficking crimes, working to subpoena President Donald Trump's Department of Justice for files in the case as well as hold a deposition of Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell . The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee acted just before House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sent lawmakers home early for a monthlong break from Washington. The committee's moves are evidence of the mounting pressure for disclosure in a case that Trump has unsuccessfully urged his supporters to move past. But they were also just the start of what can be a drawn out process. Here's what could happen next in the House inquiry as lawmakers seek answers in a case that has sparked rampant speculation since Epstein's death in 2019 and more recently caused many in the Trump administration to renege on promises for a complete accounting. Democrats, joined by three Republicans, were able to successfully initiate the subpoena from a subcommittee just as the House was leaving Washington for its August recess. But it was just the start of negotiations over the subpoena. The subcommittee agreed to redact the names and personal information of any victims, but besides that, their demand for information is quite broad, encompassing 'un-redacted Epstein files.' As the parameters of the subpoena are drafted, Democrats are demanding that it be fulfilled within 30 days from when it is served to Attorney General Pam Bondi . They have also proposed a list of document demands, including the prosecutorial decisions surrounding Epstein, documents related to his death, and communication from any president or executive official regarding the matter. Ultimately, Republicans who control the committee will have more power over the scope of the subpoena, but the fact that it was approved with a strong bipartisan vote gives it some heft. The committee chairman, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said he told the speaker that 'Republicans on the Oversight Committee were going to move to be more aggressive in trying to get transparency with the Epstein files. So, we did that, and I think that's what the American people want.' Comer has said that he is hoping that staff from the committee can interview Maxwell under oath on Aug. 11 at or near the federal prison in Florida where she is serving a lengthy sentence for child sex trafficking. In a congressional deposition, the subject typically has an attorney present to help them answer — or not answer — questions while maintaining their civil rights. Subjects also have the ability to decline to answer questions if it could be used against them in a criminal case, though in this instance that might not matter because Maxwell has already been convicted of many of the things she will likely be asked about. Maxwell has the ability to negotiate some of the terms of the deposition, and she already conducted 1 1/2 days of interviews with Justice Department officials this past week. Democrats, however, warn that Maxwell is not to be trusted. 'We should understand that this is a very complex witness and someone that has caused great harm and not a good person to a lot of people,' Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the oversight committee, told reporters this week. Committee Republicans also initiated a motion to subpoena a host of other people, including former President Bill Clinton, former Sen. Hillary Clinton as well as the former attorneys general dating back to Alberto Gonzales, who served under George W. Bush. It's not clear how this sweeping list of proposed subpoenas will actually play out, but Comer has said, 'We're going to move quickly on that.' Trump is no stranger to fighting against congressional investigations and subpoenas. And as with most subpoenas, the Justice Department can negotiate the terms of how it fulfills the subpoena. It can also make legal arguments against handing over certain information. Joshua A. Levy, who teaches on congressional investigations at Georgetown Law School and is a partner at Levy Firestone Muse, said that the results of the subpoena 'depend on whether the administration wants to work through the traditional accommodation process with the House and reach a resolution or if one or both sides becomes entrenched in its position.' If Congress is not satisfied with Bondi's response — or if she were to refuse to hand over any information — there are several ways lawmakers can try to enforce the subpoena. However, that would require a vote to hold Bondi in contempt of Congress. It's practically unheard of for one political party to vote to hold one of its own members in contempt of Congress, but the Epstein saga has also cut across political lines and driven a wedge in the GOP. Ultimately, the bipartisan vote to subpoena the files showed how political pressure is mounting on the Trump administration to disclose the files. Politics, policy and the law are all bound up together in this case, and many in Congress want to see a full accounting of the sex trafficking investigation. 'We can't allow individuals, especially those at the highest level of our government, to protect child sex traffickers,' said Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., a committee member. The Trump administration is already facing the potential for even more political tension. When Congress comes back to Washington in September, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to advance to a full House vote a bill that aims to force the public release of the Epstein files. ___
Time Magazine
2 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow
Donald Trump has been dealt a significant setback in his ongoing battle over sanctuary cities, after a U.S. federal judge threw out the Administration's lawsuit which looked to block legislation in Illinois that limits local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The Trump Administration argued that existing so-called 'sanctuary laws' in the state run counter to federal laws because they restrict local officials from sharing information with federal agents, stopping immigration officials from identifying people who 'may be subject to removal.' But those concerns were dismissed by Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, who said finding sanctuary policies as 'impermissible regulation'would run counter to the Tenth Amendment. 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment,' said the judge. Jenkins, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, added: 'Because the Tenth Amendment protects defendants' sanctuary policies, those policies cannot be found to discriminate against or regulate the federal government.' Trump's war with sanctuary cities began on day one in office, with an Executive Order, titled 'Protecting the American People Against Invasion.' In the Executive Order, Trump argues that sanctuary jurisdictions 'seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations,' and calls on the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to withhold federal funding from these cities. In April, Trump then signed an Executive Order asking Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identify cities and states that don't sufficiently comply with Trump's federal immigration laws within a month. It is a continuation of Trump's first term, during which he also signed an Executive Order that looked to ensure sanctuary jurisdictions did not receive federal funding. At the time, though, multiple cities sued Trump, and the courts subsequently upheld the legality of such provisions. Read More: What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why Is Trump Targeting Them? Though Trump's battle might be lost in Illinois, his Administration continues to fight across the country. The day before the lawsuit in Illinois failed, Thursday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced new legal action against New York City for its sanctuary laws. Earlier this week, Louisville, Kentucky chose to acquiesce to the administration's immigration policies and cease its designation as a sanctuary city. As human rights organizations argue for the importance of sanctuary and some cities push back against what they view as federal government overreach, the question remains which cities are fighting back against the crackdown. Chicago's and Illinois leadership was very clear in its desire to challenge Trump's immigration policies. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker celebrated the ruling on X, saying that, 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.' 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety,' Chicago's Mayor Brandon Johnson said in a statement responding to the ruling, saying he was 'pleased' with the decision. 'Chicago cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda.' Chicago's status as a sanctuary city is just one iteration of the term—though the long-time Democratic city has been designated as such cities that limit information shared with federal immigration officers. Though there is no specific definition for a sanctuary city, the term refers to jurisdictions with a wide range of laws in place to limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. For Chicago in particular, their 'Welcoming City Ordinance,' argues that 'partnering with [Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] would go against our mission to make Chicago the most immigrant friendly city in the country and turn ours into a community of fear for immigrants.' The Trump Administration, though, also has ongoing suits against not just New York City but also Los Angeles, Denver, Rochester, and four cities in New Jersey. Tom Homan, President Trump's 'border czar,' also has laid out the administration's plans to continue combat sanctuary cities. Read More: Sanctuary Cities Are Not New 'Sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals—hard stop,' Homan said. 'And President Trump made a commitment a couple weeks ago that we're going to prioritize sanctuary cities.' Simultaneously, certain cities designated 'sanctuary cities' have been less strong in their pushback against the federal Government. Louisville's Department of Corrections will now notify the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at least 48 hours before an inmate with an immigration detainer is scheduled to be released from custody. The city's mayor, Craig Greenberg cited 'a terrifying increase in raids by ICE, including mass raids' on cities designated as sanctuary cities—claiming that by taking Louisville off the designated sanctuary city list, he prevents risking ' the safety of our broader immigrant community.' While New York City has remained the country's largest sanctuary city, its status as such and Mayor Eric Adams' desire to push back against the federal government has come into question. Even before the latest lawsuit issued by the Trump government, Adams' Administration had been embroiled in a battle with the New York City Council and court system to allow ICE agents into Rikers Island. Though he has said he will 'without a doubt' keep the city's sanctuary status. Adams has called for changes to the city's sanctuary laws after the Justice Department suit, saying that they 'go too far' in some places. 'I think we need to tweak the current laws to allow us to coordinate with the federal government when it comes down to removing those dangerous people from our streets," Adams told CBS New York. Back in February, Adams' cooperation with the federal government came under questioning after the Justice Department ordered federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against the Mayor, stating that the case was interfering with the Democratic mayor's ability to follow through with the President's agenda to crack down on illegal immigration. The move pushed Gov. Kathy Hochul to consider removing Adams from office.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Smithsonian exhibit monkeys around with the scientific evidence on human origins
The Trump Administration recently called out the Smithsonian Institution for pushing 'one-sided, divisive political narratives,' leading GOP Sen. Jim Banks last week to introduce a bill prohibiting the Smithsonian from promoting woke ideology, as The Post exclusively reported. But American history isn't the only domain in which the Smithsonian, with an ideological ax to grind, advances misinformation. The National Museum of Natural History's Hall of Human Origins vastly distorts the scientific evidence on human evolution, seeking to convince visitors that there's nothing special about us as human beings. 'There is only about a 1.2% genetic difference between modern humans and chimpanzees,' the exhibit starts, with large photos of a human and apes. 'You and chimpanzees [are] 98.8% genetically similar.' 6 The Trump Administration recently called out the Smithsonian Institution for pushing 'one-sided, divisive political narratives.' Shutterstock / Paulm1993 No doubt you've heard this statistic before because many science popularizers say the same thing. Yet it's been known for years that these numbers are inaccurate. Thanks to a groundbreaking April paper in the journal Nature, we know just how wrong they are. For the first time, the paper reports 'complete' sequences of the genomes of chimpanzees and other apes done from scratch. When we compare them to humans, we find our genomes are more like 15% genetically different from chimpanzees'. That means the true genetic differences between humans and chimps are more than 10 times greater than what the Smithsonian tells us. The museum distorts human origins in other areas, too. Again, the purpose is to diminish the exceptional place of humans in nature. 6 The David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins exhibit is seen at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. AP The museum's Human Origins fossil hall claims the ancient species Sahelanthropus tchadensis was an 'early human' that walked 'on two legs.' But leading paleoanthropologists sharply dispute this claim. A Nature article found that 'Sahelanthropus was an ape,' and many features 'link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids.' A 2020 Journal of Human Evolution paper showed that Sahelanthropus' femur was like that of a chimp-like quadruped — in other words, it didn't walk upright, and it wasn't a human ancestor. 6 The Smithsonian exhibit presents ape-like australopithecines as 'early humans' who walked upright 'on the ground' much like us, but many scientists don't agree with this characterization, according to reports. Courtesy of Casey Luskin Similarly, the Human Origins exhibit presents the ape-like australopithecines as 'early humans' who walked upright 'on the ground' much like us. Some paleoanthropologists agree. But other scientists strongly disagree, pointing out that some australopithecines showed evidence of ape-like knuckle-walking and only limited capacity for running. Their upright-walking ability was likely best suited for walking along tree limbs, not 'on the ground' exactly like we do. Large questions remain about how they walked, and the Smithsonian gives no hint of the scientific controversy. 6 The museum had a display of *Australopithecus africanus* bust in 2010. Courtesy of Casey Luskin The museum's hominid reconstructions also humanize apes while ape-ifying humans. Australopithecus afarensis (the iconic 'Lucy') is portrayed thoughtfully gazing up at the sky, while Australopithecus africanus is presented smiling, perhaps at a friend's wry remark. Yet australopithecines had brains about the size of a chimp's, and there's no fossil evidence they were capable of abstract thought — or humor. We should remember the famed Harvard anthropologist Earnest Hooton's declaration that 'alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public.' 6 The exhibit asserts that humans and chimpanzees are '98.8% genetically similar,' but recently published research found our genomes are more like 15% different from chimpanzees. Courtesy of Casey Luskin The Smithsonian's exhibit also gives scientifically misleading support to the idea humans evolved slowly — saying 'we became human gradually,' much as Darwin imagined, from 'earlier primates.' Again, the result is to blur distinctions between us and other creatures. Yet the great Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr acknowledged there is a 'large, unbridged gap' in the fossil record between the australopithecines and the first humanlike members of our genus, Homo. In his words, we're in a position of 'not having any fossils that can serve as missing links.' One scientific commentator even said this evidence calls for a 'big bang theory of human evolution.' Why doesn't the Smithsonian disclose any of this information? 6 July marks the 100th anniversary of the Scopes 'monkey' trial. AP This month is the centennial of the Scopes 'monkey' trial, remembered as a warning against hiding scientific information about human evolution. How ironic that 100 years later, the nation's premier science museum obscures scientifically objective data on the very same subject. To fail to correct this exhibit is to use taxpayer money to miseducate the public about a question of profound scientific, sociological, and philosophical importance. Casey Luskin is the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture's associate director and co-author of the book 'Science and Human Origins.' He holds a geology Ph.D. from the University of Johannesburg.
