2018 election interviews — Helen Milenski (L), county council

Photo: Greg Belyeu, courtesy Milenski campaign.

Photo: Greg Belyeu, courtesy Milenski campaign.

This post is part of our 2018 general election interview series.

PCA: What do you believe makes Los Alamos County special?

Milenski: We were a manufactured community to begin with. Our history goes back to a specific point more recent than a lot of towns that you might find of the same size or the same feel.

If you go to the Midwest or the East Coast, they have roots that go way back. Ours go back to about the ’40s. You can trickle a little bit back into the boys’ ranch, and then the Native American history here on the plateau. As a founded community, we’re manufactured. That makes everything that comes out of our community, even up to the present time, fairly unique.

PCA: How should we grow while keeping Los Alamos County special?

Milenski: When I videoed myself — right before I went in and I signed up as a candidate — one of the statements that I made is that we are a small town, and we need to value the fact that we are a small town. We need to value what’s unique about us, instead of trying to promote us into a hybrid small town metropolis, we need to really accentuate what is good about us for the community.

PCA: How should we balance making Los Alamos County appeal to tourists versus serving the outdoor recreation interest of local citizens?

Milenski: I think they’re totally tied. The answer is intertwined. What we have already in Los Alamos has great appeal for tourism.

We have one of the greatest trail systems of a small town our size in the state, in my opinion. I hike and I love our trail system. I’m going on our trail system constantly. Not just our trails, but our open spaces are very crucially important to the appeal that we have, but one of the things that we’ve sometimes failed to concentrate on, is that those things are there and they’re a draw, but they’re there because of us and for us. They’re not primarily for tourism. They’re primarily there for the citizenry.

PCA: What is the appropriate level of public spending on restoration and conservation of county natural areas and open space?

Milenski: As a Libertarian, you can probably assume that I do favor a lot more public interest in the spending that would go towards these things. However, my background does lend itself in an opposing direction.

I am the child of two park rangers. I grew up in my childhood in national parks, both Death Valley in California as well as Lehman Caves in Nevada.

I have a high appreciation for the natural space, natural habitat. Quite frankly, I think that we have done a poor, poor disservice in this community by trying to expand a variety of new and exciting engagements for a tourist population rather than updating and maintaining what we already have.

We have an amazing trail system. We have amazing parks and recreational facilities as-is, and that, in my opinion, is where we need to be spending FTEs [full-time equivalent labor]. We’ve expanded several other departments, in my opinion unnecessarily. Our parks and recreation should have had expansion in their FTEs, whereas some of the other areas shouldn’t have.

PCA: Are you familiar with the Open Space Plan that was approved in 2015?

Milenski: Yes, I am. I’m familiar with it in a general sense.

PCA: There were conservation parts in it. There’s been little to no progress on implementing those. I wonder if you could comment on that situation. What do you plan to do?

Milenski: If I could ask, what is the primary function that has been overlooked in your opinion?

PCA: There’s lots of pieces in the Open Space Plan, and conservation scattered throughout. There hasn’t been too much attention to any of the conservation parts.

Milenski: That goes back to my previous answer. We have under FTE’d. We have underutilized our FTEs to maintain what we already have. I think that is crucial to what you’re talking about as far as conservation.

If I am elected, one of my — I guess you would call it pet projects, all councilors seem to have those — one of my primary concerns is the fact that we’ve expanded for new things. We have not conserved and appropriately taken care of what we have.

It’s like a child going to the toy store and wanting new toys. Yet, they’re not taking care of what they have at home. If they’re not taking care of what they already have, they don’t deserve to have the new things until they can keep what they have from breaking. I think that we have been poor children, and we have been poor parents and poor stewards, in that regard. I’m a part of several social media groups, and I read constantly what’s going on.

We have an element here in the community that likes to be very destructive to our resources and our trails. We have, thankfully, dedicated people that are going and fixing those. Kudos to the concerned citizens that are going and doing that, but that is a resource that the county needs to steward as well. We have funding for that. That should be something that we utilize more frequently.

PCA: In addition to the open space, we also have various urban greenery within the townsite. This is Ashley Pond, this space right here [east of Fuller Lodge], trees planted along Central Avenue, and private yards. How should we promote and manage those resources?

Milenski: That is one place where they have put parks & rec FTEs to good use. The FTEs have been, I would say, very well used in these kinds of settings. These are attractions.

In the general space, I know that notices of violation have been issued against the county frequently in a variety of different areas in what would be considered easement areas that the county actually is responsible for. Because the FTEs are not maintaining those areas, they’re maintaining these.

Once again, it comes back to good fiscal stewardship and guidance. The way the county council works is they give guidance to the county manager, and I think that more guidance would definitely be appropriate in making sure that we have the resources to help make sure those areas are kept clean, clear, and useful.

As far as private yards go, that’s a private property issue. People are entitled to enjoy their private property to their fullest. Perhaps, there can be encouraging carrot rather than stick measures. There can be promotions. There can be garden promotions, yard promotions. There is a lot of that.

I know that [former county councilor] James Chrobocinski, whenever he was working, he spoke frequently of his work down in Corpus Christi, in the Keep America Beautiful Initiative and the garden groups down there.

They would even lend out their help for people who didn’t know how to do certain things with their yards. Didn’t know how to plant rose bushes, for example, and how to best do those things. There was a lot of cooperative initiative that could be encouraged through the county.

PCA: The county sometimes does construction projects that involve damaging or removing trees. What do you think the county should do when that happens?

Milenski: Sometimes, it’s inevitable. Sometimes, there is certain piping and plumbing that has to be cut out and structured.

However, I think that far too often we get very egotistical in construction. We want a clear space, a clean palette to work from. The problem becomes, we already have a resource, and we’re not recognizing it as a resource. A perfect example of that is that whole beautiful space down at White Rock, where they’re building those homes.

Some of that natural beauty could have been restored, established, maintained, and worked within their architectural and landscaping designs, rather than razing — and I mean that totally — they razed the entire area, down to a foot below the dirt, and took out the root structures and everything.

It was quite alarming to a lot of citizens, myself included, whenever we drove by. One day, we had this beautiful pinyon natural habitat there, and the next day we had nothing but dirt and trucks. Now, once the homes go in, that’s going to require money to go in.

Trees actually have an economic value, and established trees are worth far more, economically. We’re talking not just a few dollars. We’re talking several hundred dollars for established trees. If they could’ve even kept five to ten percent of the natural pinyon trees, and kept it incorporated into their scope, it would’ve benefited them economically if they had thought that way.

That’s my personal approach. Oftentimes, we don’t think that way, though, in construction.

PCA: How should we manage wildfire danger while maximizing access to local outdoor recreation opportunities?

Milenski: Whenever I was working on my degree at UNM-LA, my first year, I had a major term paper. I did a lot of research on the industrial complex of the firefighting scene, as well as the boundary area of urban development.

They call it the WUI, the Wildlife-Urban Interface. That is where our firefighting initiatives, and also with bears coming into the community, that’s the interface between where you and I want to live, and where nature intersects.

The thing about fire hazard here in Los Alamos is, we are very, very touchy about it. We see clouds just hanging over the mountain, it brings back PTSD moments for everyone, and having to evacuate. To this day, if there’s a fire anywhere within a 50-mile radius, everybody’s heart sinks.

We are especially concerned here with that WUI habitat that intersects, as well as coming into the community. Downtown area is fairly well-structured to be safe in the event of a wildfire approaching town — or we think so — but we’ve seen that fail in places like California. There’s a lot that we can do in support of what’s already being done.

A key component of that is communication. It comes down to communicating with the citizens, as to what is really important and why it’s important. Clearing out garbage, clearing out brush, clearing out dry scrub, these are things that are important.

I don’t necessarily think that they should be criminal charges to have, but I do think that the fire department should be pushing a lot more towards educating the public, about what is considered a fire hazard, especially on our perimeter areas.

PCA: How should we balance the water needs of local citizens with the water needs of wildlife and ecosystems?

Milenski: That touches on a subject that I’ve just recently been doing a lot of research on, which is our piping in Los Alamos. Our plumbing system, piping, a lot of people would be horrified to know the age and the condition of a lot of the pipes that are bringing our freshwater to our tap. A lot of these were put in way, way back in the day.

The freshwater system, we think of as just turning a tap and it’s there, but it doesn’t quite work that easily. We do compete for the water within the community. I’m not an expert in this, but I would definitely want to communicate with the experts.

We have brilliant minds in this community, scientific. A lot of them are geared for environmental conservancy. I would definitely want to be able to reach out to them. As a county councilor, if there was an issue that had that concern, I would want them to come, speak, and present so that I could learn.

That is a key element that, sometimes from the county council’s perspective, they feel that they already know and then they’re not trying to learn. That’s a failure on that part. I think that as a county councilor, you have to be willing to hear and learn from the people in your community, because you don’t always know best. You can always learn what’s best if you’re open to it.

PCA: The next one is a yes or no question. Then I’ll have some follow-ups. Do you believe the climate change is real?

Milenski: Yes.

PCA: What is the cause of climate change?

Milenski: I’ve done a lot of reading on this because of my concern. Yes, I believe climate change is real. Three factors, they unfortunately create a perfect storm. That’s what we’re seeing. Mankind is certainly a contributor. You cannot look at history and read just, circumstances of the Industrial Revolution, and not realize that man has contributed to environmental change.

Here, in Los Alamos, we have this beautiful weather. We’re sitting outside on this beautiful day. It’s the first day of fall. Everything is gorgeous and beautiful, but there are thousands of acres a day being destroyed in Brazil, in the rainforest. Our environmental circumstances, our weather patterns, everything, are determined in great deal by other areas around the globe.

We’re not a bubble unto ourselves. We are part of everything else, so mankind has affected it. There is also natural upswings and downswings that span eons of time. We are coupled with mankind in the very brief history that we’ve been involved in and contributing to any kind of environmental change.

We’re also in a swing that amplifies that. Then you also can consider the fact that we have put the brakes in some cases and pulled back some of the environmental hazards that we have created.

If you look at the air quality in New York City in the late ’70s compared to today, we’ve made a dramatic change for the better because of certain structures of legislation. I would say, beyond just legislation, it’s been education and communication. People, average citizens having a greater understanding of what impacts their environment and their world, and wanting to keep it clean.

Nobody wants to live in a cesspool. Nobody wants to live in a dramatically harsh environment. We all want to live in best circumstances for our families and for ourselves. Whenever that becomes apparent, people will be acting. I just hope it’s not too late.

PCA: How should we respond at the local level?

Milenski: One of the knee-jerk reactions is to ban bags and do short-term measures as such. Unfortunately, recycling is one of those measures that everybody wants to do because we feel good when we do it, but if you actually study the process of recycling, there’s a lot of chemical waste that is produced.

Only certain products are truly recyclable. One of the things that concerns me greatly right now is the fact that we, in Los Alamos, are so concerned about plastics and not glass. Glass is an easy and clean recyclable that is beneficial all the way around. It does not contribute to toxic chemicals being released into the atmosphere, or being plunged into the ground soil and into the groundwater. Plastics can.

I think that shifting some of our feel-good initiatives to what’s actually going to be good initiatives with an intelligent approach, that is going to make a big difference in the long term.

Also, there’s a lot of things that we can do at a county level, like the waste treatment project and the drilling for the wells. Those things, they seem like they’re not ecologically impacting, but they have huge ramifications for the ecology, especially at a local level.

PCA: What distinguishes you from the other candidates on conservation issues and natural resource management?

Milenski: I’m not taking a knee-jerk approach to things. I want to think things through. I want to think things through in a way and a method that we look at the entire picture. We’re not looking at a tiny piece.

I have a feeling that we’ve lost the elevated, the global, the big view. We have a tendency to get caught up in the weeds on issues. I have the ability a lot to step back and say, “OK. How does this fit with everything else?” That’s my gift personally, my past as well. I’m from here. I graduated from high school here. I moved here when I was a teenager. I’ve lived elsewhere and then moved back. I’ve raised family here. I want to see what’s going to be best for this community, not just now but in the long run.

Things like the chromium plume, things like the fire hazards that we’ve faced. These things impact me not as a county councilor. I would put that in italics. Not as a “county councilor” [air quotes], but they impact me as a citizen. They impact me crucially as a person that loves this town.

Everything from the trail system to the conservation issues, that has ramifications for me, for my children, for my grandchildren. That I think makes a distinguishing mark for me.

The fact that I’m willing to challenge the status quo. I’m willing to stand up and say no whenever it’s appropriate, and I’m willing to say yes. It doesn’t matter if I have four or five people standing behind me. I will stand on my own if I feel that it warrants standing up. I think that, above all else, distinguishes me as a good candidate, especially if I’m going to be speaking on anything regarding the environment.

2018 election interviews — Introduction

Reid Priedhorsky, PCA Secretary, interviewing candidate Sara Scott. Photo by Wendy Caldwell, PCA President

Reid Priedhorsky, PCA Secretary, interviewing candidate Sara Scott. Photo by Wendy Caldwell, PCA President

The Pajarito Conservation Alliance is proud to announce its candidate interview series for the 2018 general election.

We interviewed candidates for County Council and State House District 43 on a variety of topics related to conservation and natural resource issues. We held these conversations outdoors on the east lawn of Fuller Lodge. We will publish the results over the coming days in the order we did the interviews; they were also published in the Los Alamos Daily Post.

We asked each candidate the same eleven questions and audio-recorded the conversation. The transcripts we present are lightly edited. This means, for example, that we removed “um” and “ah”, along with clarification exchanges not useful for voters; if candidates restated something, we picked the more clearly stated version. The result is an informative, conversational expression of the candidate’s personality and views without needing to attend a lengthy in-person event or watch it on video afterward.

CastingWords, a local small business, transcribed the interviews.

Six of the eight county council candidates spoke with us, as did one of the two candidates for District 43. John Bliss (R) did not respond to our requests for an interview. David Izraelevitz (D) declined an interview. He told us that he would do interviews with the media, but not community non-profits. Lisa Shin (R) also declined an interview; she did not respond to an inquiry as to which, if any, organizations she was willing to speak with.

We have not fact checked any of the claims made by candidates.

Los Alamos County Council

State House District 43

2018 election interviews — James Robinson (D), county council

Photo courtesy Robinson campaign.

Photo courtesy Robinson campaign.

This post is part of our 2018 general election interview series.

PCA: What do you believe makes Los Alamos County special?

Robinson: It’s our mix of nature and science, education, and just a small town feel. Even though we are bigger than what some might call a small town, we still are a very community-centered area, where we have a huge amount of people willing to go out and spend their days helping out others in the community. That gets us to be really special.

PCA: How should we grow while keeping Los Alamos County special?

Robinson: The key to growth is to bring new housing opportunities. That’s a hard challenge right now for this community since we are geographically challenged in that area. For someone like Albuquerque or Rio Rancho, they can just subdivide another area and build houses.

We could utilize what’s here. A couple buildings, like the one behind us [Central Park Square], have a second floor that’s not utilized. Maybe, we could work with the property owner to turn that into apartments. So now we have apartments that overlook Fuller Lodge. That could be something that they’d probably charge a little bit more.

There’s other areas in town where the property owners might be able to rezone it from commercial to residential, like they did on Oppenheimer. They’re going to add on a third story onto their building, and revamp the second and third to be apartments, as opposed to it’s all now just commercial.

That’s one way we could go about it. The other is, as land becomes available, look at housing options that could help bring in more people.

PCA: How do you think we should balance making Los Alamos County appeal to tourists versus serving the outdoor recreation interests of local citizens?

Robinson: The outdoor recreation use of our citizens comes first, because it will be their stories that they will tell the tourists about our wonderful trails, our open space, and our climate.

We need to ensure that they’re having a good time and have primary use of all of our facilities. That way, when someone comes into town visiting our historical museum or Fuller Lodge or Ashley Pond, they get told our trails are the best in the region. Our open space is well-maintained. Our pool is awesome for if you want to do Olympic-style-type swims at one of the highest-located Olympic pools. Or even just our parks. Our parks are amazing. They’re great for kids young and old.

That would be a primary focus is, we got to keep it for the citizens. That way, they can tell the people who visit here what’s so special about them.

PCA: There’s the Open Space Plan approved in 2015. There’s been little to no progress on implementing the conservation parts of it. Can you comment on that situation, and what do you plan to do?

Robinson: I’m very disappointed in that.

One of my good friends helped Craig Martin, who was managing open space at the time, work on that plan. It’s a very well-defined plan, and I think its execution is paramount, especially its conservation efforts. What we’re seeing is to fill budgetary holes in other areas. They keep cutting open space, and parks & rec as a whole, back a little more, back a little more, back a little more.

Now, we have Eric Peterson who is solely responsible for all of our trails and open space. I don’t even know if he has a part-time help anymore, but he’s also in the office writing grants and stuff.

What I would like to do is make sure that the open space, and parks & rec are funded to the point where we could start implementing those ideas. It really is, at this point, that the plan’s there, but we’re not allocating the resources necessary.

As a councilor, I would love to make sure that that area gets fully funded in the resources it needs, because that will be a draw for people to come visit our town, is our trails and our open space and our parks.

To not have resources available to maintain it or even do more than just basic maintenance is not acceptable in my opinion.

PCA: What is the appropriate level of public spending on restoration and conservation of county natural areas and open space?

Robinson: I can’t put an exact figure onto it. I don’t know at what point does something become overfunded to where they have way too much more money to spend than they can ever utilize. Then that opens up areas for frivolous spending, not that I would imagine our county employees would.

Behind infrastructure upgrades to our community, conservation is a key. Our county suffered two massive wildfires. We’re really starting to see the full force of the effects of the drought that’s hitting the Southwest. We got to be better at learning how to conserve our resources here and not allowing them to be used, abused, or just thrown out.

With the yard-trimming roll-cart program, now we’re taking all that yard material that we would just pack up and send down to Rio Rancho to sit in the landfill for the next few hundred years. Now we’re picking it up, taking it to our old sewage treatment plant to be ground up and given back to community in compost. That’ll divert up to 14 percent of our waste stream from going off the hill.

Food conservation is another big thing. The average American wastes about a quarter of the food they buy from the store. Reinforcing to buy only what you need is a hard one, because I like to buy the extra Oreo here and there.

Also, teaching those habits, that maybe you can conserve more food or if the county has the ability to, let’s invest in food diversion tactics as well. That’s down the line. That requires EPA and probably another waste truck.

I’m not quite sure of where to put a number on the funding. I would rely on those who are in that position to educate me on what the appropriate funding would be, and then it becomes my job to find in the budget, as councilor, the ability to make sure that they can achieve their goals. I don’t want to force them to not be able to achieve their goals because I can’t find the money.

I would rely on those experts or in-town experts who’ve been involved with the county for a long time, like Craig Martin, to educate me on what would be the appropriate amount of funding we need to give this to achieve those goals.

PCA: In addition to our open space, Los Alamos County also has various urban greenery within the townsite. We got Ashley Pond, trees planted along Central Avenue, private yards. How should we promote and manage these resources?

Robinson: I’m a firm believer that, especially for Ashley Pond and the more visible areas of our county, we need to make sure that we can keep the grasses green, or if it means that water resources aren’t available, xeriscape where we need to so that way we can conserve water.

There’s some really nice ways of xeriscaping now that are quite artwork more than yard. That’s one part to it.

The other one is, we use a lot of gray water recycling for the watering of our parks and our golf course. Making sure those irrigation systems are up-to-date and repaired would ensure that the water that’s being recycled is being used effectively. I don’t know how many times I drive by, and 9 times out of 10 one of these sprinklers over here at Ashley Pond is watering Central Avenue more than it’s watering the pond area. Going and making sure we’ve maintained that sprinkler system would help keep those areas beautiful.

Now, for private yards, that one gets difficult, because it is someone else’s yard. It is their property. There has to be a way to teach them that we do live in a high desert, so it is hard to maintain an East Coast-type lawn here.

There are water retention methods via rain barrels, or drought-resistant grasses that utilize much less water. One big thing I see coming down the road is a lot of these beautiful trees that have been here for generations are going to start hitting their age. We’re starting to see that with the effect of the drought, beetle kill, and age, a lot of our more sturdy trees are starting to get back. We need to start looking at what we can do with those trees to either replace them or make it more open fields.

Luckily, Central Avenue has young trees planted. I don’t know if they’re drought-resistant trees or not, so we’ll see, but the older trees are going to start becoming an issue, We’re going to have to address them, because we are prone to forest fires.

PCA: Related to that, sometimes the county damages or removes trees during construction projects. What should the county do when that happens?

Robinson: If possible, I’d love for them to plant a new tree in the place of the old one, especially if it was an old juniper that’s been here forever or an old pine. I’d love to see a new tree planted to take its place in an area that’s available for it.

Unfortunately, sometimes you can’t avoid, in a new construction project, bringing down a tree. It’s a hard decision to make for those people, because most people don’t want to just rip down trees just for a building. Sometimes, in order to get the building you need or want, you have to.

I’d love to see another tree be planted in its place, or to make it so that building has as little impact on the environment as possible. Have it have passive solar like our Eco Station, that doesn’t utilize heating and cooling systems as a traditional house does. It has a system installed to where the heat from the solar panels heats concrete, and that keeps it relatively around 65 degrees, year-round.

If we have to sacrifice a tree, I’d love the building to be as environmentally sustainable as it possibly can, to almost honor the stuff we had to destroy to build it.

PCA: How should we manage wildfire danger while maximizing access to local outdoor recreation opportunities?

Robinson: That one’s a hard one. This last summer, almost all forests were closed because of the fire danger. I think that was a wise move on everyone, because at any one point, the Jemez Ranger District up in the mountains has to put out upwards of one to two hundred abandoned campfires a weekend, from the people coming into town.

That was hard when the county closed our open space. That was still a wise move, because some of our most vulnerable areas left from the Cerro Grande and Las Conchas, are particularly close to population areas. I think Chief Troy and Eric Peterson of the county made a wise decision to close open space.

Going forward, what we’re going to need to do, and I think the fire department’s already working on this, is a comprehensive thinning project. Because our areas in town, some of them are overgrown with trees, and that presents a very dangerous fire hazard. In fact, Chief Troy once admitted to me, that if a fire got in certain places in Los Alamos Canyon, his first priority would be to get everyone out near the Oppenheimer area — this is where he was talking — get everyone out, and then just hold the line at Trinity, because it’d be far too dangerous for him and his firefighters to get in there, to fight those fires, because it’s so condensed with housing and with flora, that the BTUs would just be too high.

A comprehensive thinning area, with environmental science backed by LANL, the EPA, local experts, would provide us the ability to reduce the fire danger. The part where, maybe, we don’t have to go about a full closure, if it looks like it’s going to be another dry year.

PCA: How should we balance the water needs of local citizens, with the water needs of wildlife and ecosystems?

Robinson: We’re seeing a lot of wildlife come into town now. I’m guilty of it as well. We love our fountains, our ponds. I love the photos that we get of the bears just lowering themselves into ponds on Barranca Mesa, or the foxes, and all of them utilizing the PEEC pond.

Water’s a hard, hard area for everyone up on this plateau. That’s why I’d truly like to see that water retention-type systems, that you see in areas out in Australia or even out in Arizona, start being utilized to where we don’t have to keep drawing off of local resources, such as the river or the aquifer, when we can get to it in a [cistern].

We can water our plants, our trees, our flowers, using water that flows off our roof that would’ve either just evaporated on our streets, or condensed in a puddle and just evaporated out. This is going to be hard.

I always encourage people, don’t feed wildlife, but give wildlife a place to get a drink of water. A bear won’t look at a body of water or something it will defend territorial-wise. It will look at food like that, but it won’t look at water like that.

So, if you have the ability to throw a pond out there, because that helps the insects. That helps the birds. That helps the bears. That, to me, is a way we could help wildlife with the water that we’re using, since it would be coming off of our house water, anyway.

PCA: Next is a yes or no question, and then I’ll have some follow-ups. Do you believe that climate change is real?

Robinson: Yes.

PCA: What is the cause of climate change?

Robinson: I definitely know that human development and building our economy has contributed to climate change. Our planet itself has cycles of climate change, and the fact that we feel that this area and climate of the last 10,000 years is ideal for this planet, is a little arrogant. The planet has been hotter. It’s been cooler. It’s been everything in between.

That being said, I do think humans have had an impact on how this planet’s ecosystems are functioning. We’ve ripped down forests. We’ve stopped bodies of water for flood control. We’ve put carbon into the air that would not necessarily have been there because it was in the ground, in coal. I do believe that humans on this planet have drastically changed the planet’s climate.

I’m not quite sure what the outcome of that might be. I’m a firm believer that Mother Nature is the ultimate reset button. Sooner or later, we’re going to start seeing either massive shifts in weather, more than we are now, or could be more of volcanic activity might help us cool off.

I do believe climate change is a thing. It’s now up to us to protect the environment we have left, and to adapt to what the new environment might be.

PCA: How should we respond at the local level?

Robinson: At the local level, the best response we can do to climate change is to become as sustainable as possible. I think Los Alamos is on a path to being that way. I still wonder about the lush green grasses in the high desert environment. Los Alamos, at one point, was known for its green fields, when they would raise sheep up here.

We need to start looking back at what Los Alamos was prior to the Manhattan Project and the city, and see what we can do to return our environment back to that.

Thinning projects to bring the Jemez Mountains back to what it was before what it is now, or prior to Cerro Grande, where it was really overgrown. Returning it to, maybe, a hundred ponderosas in an acre, as opposed to fifty, sixty thousand ponderosas in an acre.

Water conservation and reuse, the zero-waste efforts of the Los Alamos Environmental Sustainability Board, which I’m on, are good methods to start changing our culture mind, at how we use the resources and how much we kinda just throw away.

That all starts at a local level and really starts with educating the next generation, because it will be my generation that will be having these effects. It will really be the next generations that will feel the full force of climate change. To me, our mission here in Los Alamos should be to protect what we got and teach those methods to maintain it.

I think Los Alamos is primed for that since we have the science to back it up, we have the ingenuity of the town, and we have the passion to keep our community beautiful.

PCA: What distinguishes you from the other candidates on conservation issues and natural resource management?

Robinson: I’m one of the only candidates, if not the only candidate, that’s had a direct line in the human effect on, at least, wildlife. In my free time, when I’m not working or running for office, I help Dr. Kathleen Ramsay down in Espanola with her wildlife rehab.

What we’re seeing now is just scaring me because it’s not the emaciated bear because his forest was destroyed by a fire. It’s not the cougar that got hit while trying to cross one of our busiest highways. We’re seeing starving birds because there’s no water for rodents or insects.

That, to me, is the precursor. We’re starting to see food chain breaking down. That’s going to have a tremendous effect on everything. My experience with that, with wildlife rehab and getting introduced in that, separates me from other candidates, because I’ve seen what the effects of climate change are on something that you can hold in your hand or watch eat and know it’s the first drink of water it’s probably had in days. That separates me. I’ve also been really a big proponent of the Pajarito Environmental Education Center. We’ve actually partnered with them for the local Bear Festival and Earth Day events.

I’ve been on the Environmental Sustainability Board, where we brought the yard-trimming roll-carts to Los Alamos in an effort to divert more of that material to stay in Los Alamos. It’s been a passion of mine to learn more about the upcoming technologies that can make Los Alamos truly a smart town with photovoltaic and batteries.

There’s a really cool tree in France I’d love to bring to Los Alamos because it’s a giant wind turbine, but its leaves are just little wind turbines. It generates power on less than four-mile-an-hour winds. We have our solar tree; that wind tree would be a great addition to our town.

I think in that respect, I’m bringing a different generation’s thinking of how to approach conservationism, because I am the youngest candidate for the council. Despite that some people might have more years here, I’m the only candidate that was born here. Los Alamos has been my town forever and has been with my family since my mom was born here in ’63.

I have a unique interest in keeping Los Alamos green, and keeping it beautiful, and making it a truly 21st century community, to where we use only what we need and we impact as little as possible.

Pajarito Mountain land transfer concerns are easy to resolve

Aaron Zhu / CC-BY-SA 3.0

Aaron Zhu / CC-BY-SA 3.0

As many citizens are aware, the complete ownership of Pajarito Mountain is planned for transfer to a private company, Pajarito Recreation, LLC (PRLLC). This has been controversial due to concerns about public access for non-skiing activities and natural resource conservation, which we have previously expressed ourselves.

We emphasize that PCA strongly supports all the uses of the mountain, including specifically downhill skiing and mountain biking as well as hiking, running, cross-country skiing, etc. We are not opposed to a public-private arrangement, we agree that PRLLC seems like a reasonable partner, and we acknowledge the good faith of the ski club and everyone else involved.

Accordingly, we believe that the transfer should move ahead, but the County Council should insist on two simple conditions before approving public funding for the water pipeline upon which this transfer depends.

1. Strong legal protections for preserving public access.

While we’d prefer an independently managed conservation easement, we believe that deed covenants, as preferred by PRLLC, would be sufficient, provided they are strong. Our concern here is that the draft language published in the ski club memo has several big loopholes.

We encourage the ski club, PRLLC, and the county council to collect public comment on this language before finalizing it.

2. Standing for the entire community on zoning changes.

Another key protection for the mountain is the current W-2 “Recreation Wilderness District” zoning. A public process is required to change this zoning.

However, only people who live within 300 feet of a proposed zoning change have standing to testify about that change. Only the Forest Service and the county government own land within that distance of the Pajarito Mountain property. Citizens of the county would not have standing to testify for or against the change.

For a flagship resource like Pajarito Mountain, this implication is concerning to us, and we hope it can be mitigated.

We believe these conditions will not slow the transfer significantly, will have no effect on the viability of skiing on the mountain, and will go a long way to allay the concerns regarding non-skiing recreation and natural resources, thus preserving the mountain as a resource for all citizens.

Pajarito Mountain land privatization

nsub1@flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

nsub1@flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

There’s a new arrangement in the works that would completely privatize the mountain, contrary to citizens’ prior understanding. We are concerned about this. In addition to letters in the Post and Monitor written by PCA members, we sent the following letter to the County Council on October 2 (PDF version also available).

We will keep you updated on this issue. If you’re interested in helping out, please let us know.

Dear Dr. Izraelevitz and Councilors:

I write on behalf of the Pajarito Conservation Alliance, a non-profit community organization that supports the ecosystems and outdoor experience of the Pajarito Plateau.

We are concerned about the new arrangement for Pajarito Mountain that the Los Alamos Ski Club is pursuing with help from the county.

As you know, the original proposal was to transfer ownership of the ski area to the public, and a private company would operate it. This never happened, and now the club has voted to transfer ownership directly to this private company. The deal also includes public funding from the county for a water pipeline, which must be approved by you.

We believe this poses an unacceptable risk that the public will lose access to the mountain. We write to urge you not to approve this funding, because the contract does not adequately protect the public interest and has not received appropriate public input.

The community is assured that the ski area will be “Open and Available to the Public” (quotes are from the ski club’s memo to its membership), except under six exceptions, including “for health and safety reasons, as determined to be appropriate by [the private company] in its sole discretion”, “as may be required by [the company’s] liability insurance carrier”, and “to otherwise facilitate Ski Area business”. These are massive loopholes. Private companies routinely hire smart people full-time to defeat such protections; the above would not be much of a challenge.

Also, we are assured that the company’s “record” is “currently” aligned with the public interest. But companies get sold and leadership turns over; these changes are not a “sale of the property” that would give the county “first right of refusal to acquire the Ski Area”. Private companies are always under pressure to increase profits; will this pressure reliably align with the public interest? We find it very unlikely. Public/private partnership contracts must be written assuming that the company is unfriendly, even if that is not currently the case.

Bottom line: We believe the mountain will be closed to public access as soon as the company decides to do so.

We remind the Council what happened with the old Smith’s. At the time, councilors assured us repeatedly that Kroger’s incentives were aligned with ours and the space would definitely be occupied promptly. We were told Kroger was friendly and they didn’t want it empty either. But these guarantees did not make it into the contract, so now we have an empty building rotting away with no end in sight. As you see in the recent editorial pages, citizens are not happy.

We realize that there are no easy answers here, and we acknowledge and appreciate the hard work of the ski club and others. We worry about the future of local skiing too. However, the right answer is not to transfer ownership of Pajarito Mountain to a private, for-profit entity. This isn’t the only way to keep skiing in Los Alamos. We need a deal with strong, perpetual public access protections, whether or not skiing is a going concern. The current proposal is a bad deal and must be renegotiated.

The Ski Club can do what it likes with its land, but the county doesn’t have to go along with it. We have two requests for you.

First, please vote no when the public money comes to the council.

Second, most citizens are under the impression that Pajarito Mountain will be or already has been transferred to the public. The new, very different proposal deserves a serious effort to gather the public input and feedback that is appropriate for a decision of this magnitude and public interest.

Sincerely,

/s/ Reid Priedhorsky

Reid Priedhorsky
Secretary, Pajarito Conservation Alliance

Carrie Walker, newest Utilities Board member

Dr. Carrie Walker, appointed to the Board of Public Utilities in July 2017.Photo credit: Henrik Sandin

Dr. Carrie Walker, appointed to the Board of Public Utilities in July 2017.

Photo credit: Henrik Sandin

This blog post also ran in the Daily Post on July 30 and the Monitor on August 4.

From time to time, we publish opinion columns on conservation issues of interest to the citizens of Los Alamos, White Rock, and surrounding communities. This column is an interview with Dr. Carrie Walker, who joined the Board of Public Utilities on July 1. Because the BPU controls county policy on issues such as water & energy conservation and climate change, and it manages infrastructure throughout our open space, we are excited to see a young, ambitious progressive like Dr. Walker joining the board.

This interview was conducted by e-mail. It reflects Dr. Walker’s opinions, not necessarily those of the board.

Can you give us a brief biography?

I’m originally from Oxford, Mississippi, a small college town. I have a Ph.D. in physics from North Carolina State University. I started coming out to Los Alamos regularly as a graduate student to do experiments at the accelerator facility. I finally moved out here for good about six years ago, and I now live here with my husband, Bryan, and our son, Ethan.

Why did you apply for the Board of Public Utilities?

I got interested in the work of the board when I first read that the county had adopted the goal of being a carbon neutral electricity provider by 2040. I thought to myself that it would be great to be a part of making that happen. I believe we are really fortunate to have county-owned utilities, and we have a responsibility to manage those resources wisely. 

What do you think makes Los Alamos special?

People here are passionate: passionate about science, the outdoors, history, and especially their community. I spent several years constantly moving around from place to place, and I can say that no other town I’ve lived in has had such a great sense of community. The natural beauty of the outdoors here is also pretty fantastic!

What do you think the BPU and DPU are doing well?

I think the DPU has made great progress over the last several years in making their services much more reliable. I remember what power outages in the summer used to be like even just five years ago. I am also impressed that the board and the DPU have been aggressive in starting their strategic planning for the carbon neutral 2040 goal. It’s a very exciting time for the utilities.

What opportunities for more clean energy do you see for Los Alamos?

We have a number of options available to us that the DPU has started exploring. Each option comes with its own advantages and challenges. We already get hydro power from both Abiquiu and El Vado, and we can continue to try and maximize on those sources in the future. Building more solar capacity along with storage is one very attractive option, though it will require us to find suitable land for it, which isn’t trivial. And the county has also shown interest in a small modular nuclear reactor project, in which the plant would be located elsewhere, and we would own a share of it.  

What do you hope the BPU will be like once your five years of service are complete?

I hope that the utilities will have a clearer vision of what a carbon neutral portfolio looks like for Los Alamos County. I’d also really like to see White Rock have a new wastewater treatment plant. 

Is there anything else you’d like citizens of Los Alamos and White Rock to know about you or your plans as you begin your term?

The county’s carbon neutrality goal is an ambitious one, and it will require that the board and the DPU communicate well with the public and get feedback at every step of the process. So I hope to hear a lot more from residents about what kind of energy future they want to see for Los Alamos.

The Utilities Board needs you!

The Los Alamos County Board of Public Utilities (BPU) is looking for a new board member; applications are due April 10.

Who is selected is important because the BPU controls county policy for energy, water, and wastewater, which impacts many conservation issues, most notably climate change. Further, the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) manages infrastructure throughout county open space and reports to the BPU, so this board has an outsize impact on open space as well.