Community erupts in frustration after data center town hall turns into job fair - Algernon D’Ammassa, Albuquerque Journal
Frustration boiled over on the dais and in the gallery Tuesday as community members pressed Doña Ana County commissioners for answers about a promise to hold a public meeting addressing concerns about the massive data center under construction in Santa Teresa.
The debate, extended over hours and live-streamed, displayed a raw wound in the bond between residents, elected officials and government professionals.
The community forum had been called for by opponents of Project Jupiter and critics of the quick approval last year of $165 billion in industrial revenue bonds supporting its construction.
Commissioners Susana Chaparro and Susie Kimble backed them up, pressing for a meeting where citizens could raise questions about the process and the data center's environmental costs, to be held in the vicinity of Santa Teresa so affected residents could more easily attend. They also called for subject experts who were not involved with Project Jupiter to give input.
Eventually, a meeting was set for June 18. There was a general expectation it would follow a question-and-answer format where constituents could give input to the commissioners, but Commission Chair Manny Sanchez told the Journal there had not been an explicit commitment to a town hall format.
"The goal was to find a way to best disseminate information regarding the project," he wrote in a text message.
Last week, the date and the agenda of that meeting quietly changed. A flyer circulated online last week invited the community to a “community open house and career fair” on June 17 hosted not by the county government, but by the data center’s builders and developers: Stack Infrastructure; Bloom Energy, which plans to power the facilities with fuel cell technology; and tenants Oracle and OpenAI.
Community members who had spent months pushing for the meeting took it as a slap in the face, objecting Tuesday with signs and over hours of public comment at the dais.
No representatives of those companies were in the room. Instead, the chambers became an arena in which arguments about the costs and benefits of building a hyperscale AI training facility in a low-income desert community devolved into shouts and contempt among county residents.
“I feel like a wedge is being driven into our community,” a retired schoolteacher who did not identify herself said in a public comment, “and it’s being driven because, mostly, of the policies of the commission and how fast they have fast-tracked things.”
An organizer with Youth United For Climate Crisis, identifying herself as Esperanza, said, “Your board has a lot of audacity to reschedule this public meeting so last minute, to allow these companies to reframe it as a job fair and to completely disregard the community’s concerns yet again.”
Opponents of the project have come to the podium at every commission meeting since last September, when commissioners approved public financing for the project in a deal that was still being negotiated and authorized a single commissioner to finalize the terms outside of open session. The lone "no" vote came from Chaparro, who objected to a process she described as rushed and opaque.
Community members have protested the location of the project in a region that has struggled historically with industrial pollution, increasingly arid conditions and insufficient water infrastructure. Some have also protested the county’s decision to welcome a project supporting the expansion of AI infrastructure out of ethical and environmental concerns about the uses of the technology.
The majority of speakers over several hours Tuesday morning opposed the project and faulted County Manager Scott Andrews for signing a non-disclosure agreement with the developers during talks last year. Some called for him to resign.
Several speakers, including representatives from labor unions and economic development organizations, framed the project as a boon to the community, promising jobs, tech career paths and high salaries.
Some praised the commissioners for being “forward-thinking” and demonstrating leadership by supporting the development. Others argued they had been sold a boondoggle and had failed to represent their constituents.
Sanchez repeatedly threatened to clear the chambers as opponents expressed exasperation from their seats and played mocking sound effects on mobile devices.
Andrews defended Project Jupiter, claiming it was already luring other businesses to Santa Teresa and arguing that “the same 50 people in the community” who continually criticized it were not representative of the county populace as a whole.
Andrews did not answer a question from Chaparro about when and why the event was handed over to the developers. When he referred to it as “their event,” a man shouted back from the gallery, “It was supposed to be our event.”
Sanchez defended the “open house” format, which disperses participants among several information stations focusing on particular topics. “It allows people to go and talk to the subject matter experts,” he said. “And, yes, it’s from the company, because they’re the ones that have the details.”
He also said the town hall style was vulnerable to becoming a disorderly free-for-all. "We do want to work to get them information and show how we've placed guardrails on (the project)," Sanchez wrote the Journal. "Some have been unwilling to hear from me or allowed me to explain some of it because they were just mad at me."
Chaparro once again pressed for the town hall-style meeting that she and community members had asked for. “Just saying that we’re going to have one meeting that is a job fair — I don’t think that’s enough for some of the members of our community, and certainly not enough for me,” she said.
Commissioner Christopher Schaljo-Hernandez suggested both types of meetings were worthwhile, while Kimble said, “It does appear to this community that we’re not listening to their questions.”
At Kimble’s suggestion, Andrews agreed to design a web portal where community members could submit questions in advance as a way to manage the event. He said that could be available in a couple of weeks, while the community meeting — originally agreed to three months ago — might have to wait a few more months, suggesting the procuring of subject experts might have to go through a bidding process.
It was not clear what cost estimate was the basis for that concern. The Journal contacted the county manager’s office for clarification as Tuesday’s session continued into the late afternoon.
New Mexico initiates rulemaking on surface water pollution program - Danielle Prokop, Source New Mexico
New Mexico this week started the process of creating new rules for pollution limits for rivers, streams and other surface waters across the state, which advocates say need to be as strong as possible to replace lost federal protections.
The New Mexico Environment Department is petitioning its water quality regulators to adopt a proposal to establish a state-controlled permitting program to limit pollution for construction and other industries.
“The stakes are clear in this rulemaking: Without a comprehensive state surface water permitting program, many of New Mexico’s waterways will be at risk of pollution from dischargers no longer subject to the federal permitting program,” NMED Director of Communications Drew Goretzka said in a statement provided to Source NM. “We believe the rules we’ve put forward will properly protect our streams, lakes, rivers and wetlands for decades to come, and we are confident the Water Quality Control Commission will adopt them in full.”
The nine-day rulemaking that began Monday follows a 2025 law Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed allowing the state to regulate pollution permitting after federal protections evaporated overnight. The 2023 U.S. Supreme Court Sackett v. EPA decision dramatically decreased federal Clean Water Act protections for intermittent waters, which accounts for nearly 95% of New Mexico’s streams and rivers.
New Mexico was uniquely vulnerable as one of only three states that relegated its management of surface-water pollution to federal authorities. Since 2023, the state has spent several million dollars and passed legislation to set up its own program to manage permits for stream and wetland pollution.
A coalition of several nonprofits represented by the Western Environmental Law Center have proposed several measures to strengthen the rule, which they said they support.
Rachel Conn, deputy director of Amigos Bravos, said those additional safeguards include requiring appropriate public notice on the most common permits; ensuring the rules are as protective as the lost federal standards; and ensuring the state makes the effort to reduce pollution. The final element is requiring industries to restore two acres of wetlands for every one acre damaged by pollution.
Tricia Snyder, the rivers and waters program director at NM Wild, a member of the coalition, said further wetland loss could be “catastrophic.”
“We’ve already lost over half of our wetland acreages, so we really need to make sure that what we have left is protected for future generations,” Snyder told Source NM. “These are critical habitat areas, they’re very important areas for water quality.”
The hearing continues through June 18, and the WQCC will decide whether to approve the rules at a later date.
City, AG file motions to dismiss federal lawsuit regarding immigrant detention - Matthew Reisen, Albuquerque Journal
The city of Albuquerque and state attorney general have asked a judge to dismiss the federal government's lawsuit against city and state policies that restrict cooperation with immigration enforcement and bans local jurisdictions from contracting to house detainees.
In a lawsuit filed last month, the U.S. Department of Justice sought to invalidate Albuquerque's Safer Community Places Ordinance and the state's Immigrant Safety Act, saying both are unconstitutional, invalid and superseded by federal law.
On Monday, Mayor Tim Keller's administration and AG Raúl Torrez's office separately filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for New Mexico.
In the motion, Torrez called the Trump administration's suit "meritless" and argued that federal laws do not supersede the Immigrant Safety Act, which became law in May after passing the Legislature in February, and bars municipalities from contracting with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain individuals for federal civil immigration violations.
The motion states that the act does not impede immigration enforcement or regulate the federal government. Additionally, according to the motion, a March 2026 contract to house ICE detainees at Otero County facilities, at the heart of the issue, is void as a result of the act.
In the city of Albuquerque's motion to dismiss, attorneys made similar arguments and said the federal government, under the 10th Amendment, "may not commandeer cities, counties and states" to do its bidding.
The ordinance, which was passed by the City Council in March, bars ICE from using city property and from entering — without a warrant or "imminent threat" — schools, courthouses and other areas. The city's policy also requires businesses to notify staff of immigration agent visits, while new businesses must mark public and private areas with signage discouraging ICE agents without warrants.
When asked for comment, the U.S. Department of Justice in an email said, "No comment beyond the filings and statements in our press release." The DOJ shared a link to a May 8 news release issued after the lawsuit was filed.
“Schools, libraries and hospitals are here to serve the public, not ICE. This ordinance clarifies that the federal government cannot use our City-owned facilities, or private spaces, to search for immigrants," Keller said in a statement Tuesday. "Our job is to keep families safe and make sure that people can access the services they need without fear.”
In a news release, Torrez said the state "gets to decide how New Mexico's resources are used."
"That principle is older than the federal government itself, and no administration gets to simply wave it away," he said. "The federal government can build its own detention facilities. It can hire its own officers. What it cannot do is compel this state to participate in a federal program that New Mexicans, through their elected Legislature, have decided is not in their interest. We will defend that decision in court."
There are three facilities that house ICE detainees in New Mexico, but the only one publicly owned is in Otero County. That facility houses up to 1,096 detainees, employs about 284 people and has been housing ICE detainees since 2008.
Torrez said the Immigrant Safety Act was borne partly out of a concern for detainees' well-being amid "a sustained record of serious problems at the Otero County Processing Center… overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and credible allegations of retaliatory use of solitary confinement against detainees."
Torrez said the New Mexico Legislature "looked at what was happening inside that facility, looked at the role it was asking our public institutions to play, and said no. That is not obstruction. That is self-governance. And it is fully within the Legislature's power to make that call."
Lawmakers who voted against House Bill 9 and county officials have argued that the detention facilities are major employers and the contracts that enable them are crucial to the economies in those counties.
In a statement Tuesday, state Rep. John Block, R-Alamogordo, said the Immigrant Safety Act "threatens Otero County jobs, local revenue, and a lawful partnership with federal authorities."
"Calling this 'self-governance' does not change what is actually happening. Santa Fe is trying to void a county agreement and force its anti-ICE agenda onto Otero County, regardless of the real-world consequences for our community," he said. "If there are concerns at the facility, address them through oversight and accountability. Don’t use them as an excuse to kill jobs, hurt Otero County, and undermine federal immigration enforcement."
Torrez last month filed suits against the other two facilities in Torrance and Curry counties, both owned by Brentwood, Tenn.-based CoreCivic.
In the suits, Torrez alleged the counties are violating the Immigrant Safety Act by maintaining agreements that allow ICE to deputize local law enforcement officers to perform functions of federal immigration agents. Torrez has asked state judges to order the counties to end their agreements with ICE.
The DOJ's lawsuit is similar to several others filed under the Trump administration over the past year against states and cities with "sanctuary" policies.
In late March a federal judge dismissed one such lawsuit against Colorado and Denver that alleged various local policies violated the U.S. Constitution by impeding federal immigration enforcement.
That ruling came after federal courts in Illinois and New York rejected similar DOJ lawsuits attacking so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.”
Highlands regents say they will pay ousted university president under contract - Elizabeth Anne Andrews, Searchlight New Mexico
Three days after firing New Mexico Highlands University President Neil Woolf, the school’s board of regents acknowledged it had ousted him without cause and would comply with the terms of his contract, which includes “separation pay.”
Woolf, who was hired in 2024 at an annual salary of $290,000, was put on paid administrative leave in early May, preceding a series of high-profile departures that took out the Las Vegas, N.M., university’s provost, several vice presidents and the men’s basketball coach.
The board officially fired Woolf on Tuesday after he filed a lawsuit a week earlier accusing the regents of violating his contract and retaliating against him for refusing to redirect the remaining funds in a construction contract to a local firm. He alleged in his complaint a regent had ordered the action to benefit a firm with ties to both the regent and a local politician.
The board didn’t provide a reason for Woolf’s termination in a statement issued Friday, citing “privacy rights of public employees” in New Mexico law. However, the regents said they would “honor all contractual obligations arising from this separation, including applicable separation pay, final compensation and accrued benefits.”
Woolf’s contract was not available for review Friday. A contract for Woolf’s predecessor at Highlands, Sam Minner, says in the event of termination without just cause, he would receive his salary for another six months.
The board of regents named Vice President of Student Affairs Kimberly Blea interim president when it placed Woolf on paid leave.
In its statement Friday, the board noted other interim appointments to positions left vacant by recent high-level terminations: Ian Williamson was named interim provost and vice president of academic affairs, and Joseph Dominguez is the interim vice president of student affairs.
Doajo Hicks is overseeing several departments at the university, according to the statement: “Advancement Department and Foundation Relations, University Relations, Government Affairs, Marketing and University Relations, and the other areas also reporting to him (Human Resources and Payroll, and NMHU Police Department and Security).”
State Auditor Joseph Maestas informed the regents Tuesday he had launched a special audit into the university’s financial management in mid-May.
He cited “substantial concerns indicating systemic failures in procurement, contracting authority, financial management, and governance that collectively create significant risk to public funds and the financial stability of the University.”
He also noted in a letter that the issues “raise the potential for fraud, waste, or abuse of public funds entrusted to the University.”
A day later, Higher Education Secretary Stephanie Rodriguez sent a letter to Blea requiring a corrective action plan to address financial irregularities.
“Given the higher education institution’s recent history of declining solvency, indicators of potential fraud, and significant weaknesses in internal controls, it is essential that current leadership remain fully engaged in addressing these issues,” Rodriguez wrote in the Wednesday letter.
Despite the turmoil, the board of regents said business at the university will continue as usual.
“This institution belongs to its community, and the Board does not take lightly the trust that community has placed in its hands,” the board’s statement said. “We carry that trust with humility, with purpose, and with an abiding commitment to governance that reflects the highest standards of accountability, transparency, and integrity.”
Court upholds policy protecting drug-exposed newborns in NM - Colleen Heild, Albuquerque Journal
The state Supreme Court on Monday declined to halt the nearly year-old gubernatorial policy designed to prevent drug-exposed newborns in New Mexico from being discharged to unsafe home environments.
Without comment, the justices unanimously denied a petition from the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and two state legislators seeking an emergency order on the grounds that the practice is unlawful and causing irreparable harm.
The petition sought to prohibit the state Children, Youth and Families Department from taking custody of such infants at hospitals and immediately filing abuse and neglect petitions against their parents in court.
More than 130 infants have entered foster care or other suitable placements since Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham instituted the directive on July 7.
"The drugs devastating our families today demand a different response from state government," Lujan Grisham said in a statement issued Monday afternoon.
"My executive order is part of that response — and it has already saved lives. The order is designed as a temporary structure to protect our most vulnerable children, not as a punishment of their parents," the Democratic governor added.
The ACLU did not immediately comment on the Supreme Court's decision Monday afternoon when contacted by the Journal.
The Governor's Office maintains the policy has improved the lives of children who are "recovering today because CYFD was able to investigate substance-exposure reports promptly and uncover the serious risks that lay beneath the surface," according to court documents filed by Lujan Grisham's office.
The ACLU contends that parents whose newborns were taken into state custody were denied due process and argues the practice is unconstitutional.
Before July 2025, CYFD did not automatically take custody of and investigate newborns identified by hospital workers as drug-exposed. Instead, infants could go home under safety plans, and CYFD would investigate only if it received a separate report of abuse or neglect.
One reason: Unlike at least 24 other states, New Mexico does not consider infants abused or neglected solely because of prenatal drug exposure, the ACLU stated in its petition seeking an emergency stay.
"Under this zero-tolerance policy," the ACLU argued, "newborns are removed from their parents at birth, deprived of developmentally crucial bonding time, and ushered into a system with a proven lack of capacity to provide adequate care."
In court filings, the state argued the governor acted in response to past tragedies, including the death of a 1-month-old boy born exposed to amphetamines, fentanyl and marijuana. The infant was found dead, face down on a heating pad in his crib, in January 2025. Months earlier, another substance-exposed infant suffered a fractured leg at just 3 months old.
The Governor's Office also argued that the ACLU, state Rep. Micaela Cadena, D-Mesilla, and state Sen. Linda Lopez, D-Albuquerque, lacked standing to bring the case. It further argued that parents can challenge removals through Children's Court proceedings.
"The Directive makes the substance-exposed newborn's health and safety the 'paramount concern' by utilizing existing authority to give CYFD the time to investigate and ensure that an infant can safely remain in the care of the parent who exposed them to a dangerous drug, multiple drugs or large amounts of alcohol — as opposed to simply letting the baby go and 'hoping for the best,'" Lujan Grisham and CYFD stated in their response.
Maralyn Beck, founder and executive director of the nonprofit New Mexico Child First Network, told the Journal: "We are relieved, if not overjoyed, to see the Supreme Court deny this petition. The governor's directive is working ... lives have been saved."
The ACLU argued: "Under this zero-tolerance policy, newborns are removed from their parents at birth, deprived of developmentally crucial bonding time, and ushered into a system with a proven lack of capacity to provide adequate care."