Letters to the Editor
Look at the whole picture
Editor:
I am a member of the Socorro Electric Cooperative. I have been following what has been going on with the board members of the SEC in both the El Defensor Chieftain and the Mountain Mail. I have also taken it upon myself to do some research.
The propositions voted on by a small portion of the SEC membership will hurt SEC more than help it. Do the members of SEC actually want to leave the decisions of the $65 million corporation in the hands of only five board members instead of 11? I know I don’t.
The proposition for limiting spending is also ridiculous. There are board policies in place limiting the amount of meetings a board member can attend. Ten of the 11 board members have been criticized for their spending of SEC money and for their ability to receive insurance benefits. But Mr. (Charlie) Wagner’s spending has never been questioned. Why?
I am sure if the SEC for Reform Committee were to pull the wool from over their eyes, they would realize that Mr. Wagner receives every penny possible, including insurance benefits from SEC. Why hasn’t he refused these benefits? But the reform committee feels it is OK for him.
As far as redistricting is concerned, there are many ways you can determine district sizes, and the number of members is not the only way. For example, it can be based on revenue or maybe we should only have one district for the whole membership. District 3 is the district with the most revenue, why should we eliminate board members from this district? Sorry, my mistake, because Mr. Wagner said so.
The board members have been accused of bad behavior, but Mr. Wagner’s behavior and the behavior of the reform committee is far worse. You have one member of the reform committee who has been banned (by a District Court judge) from SEC meetings due to bad behavior and another called Trustee (David) Wade inappropriate names at a board meeting (Jan. 12). The latest articles confirm that Mr. Wagner also acts inappropriately during the board meetings.
How necessary is it for members to attend board meetings? The members elect a board member to represent them at these meetings.
There have also been accusations of discrimination (sexual or otherwise) against Mr. Wagner. Our current board should be taking these complaints very seriously. As for Mr. Herb Meyers’ comments (Letters to the editor, Jan. 6) that these allegations are ludicrous, was he present when these comments were made? Probably not.
SEC is also losing a wealth of knowledge and experience with the departure of Juan Gonzales and Harold Baca. Your knowledge and experience will be greatly missed. You have both done a great job.
It is also sad to see that both our local newspapers can only print one side of this controversy. SEC members need to ask the question: Who is Charlie Wagner?
And last, but not least, to the SEC for Reform Committee and Mr. Wager: “You can’t fix, what is not broke.”
An expression of concern
Ediotr:
Those of us who have lived in the area for decades, or moved here to enjoy its natural beauty, have become used to the rhythms of life in the central Rio Grande Valley: the first water in the irrigation ditches, the spring planting and fall harvest, the annual return of the migrating ducks, geese and sandhill cranes to the Bosque del Apache.
For many years, we have been able to take the wonders of this national wildlife refuge almost for granted. We proudly show it off to our guests; its visitors contribute to the economy of Socorro County; it refreshes and inspires us and helps to bring new residents eager to share in the region’s special pleasures.
This year, however, many visitors have been denied the transforming, wondrous spectacle of thousands of wintering birds flying in and out of the refuge at sunset and dawn. Due primarily to the failure of this year’s corn crop at the refuge, the number of birds actually staying there is alarmingly low. They have been forced to wander up and down the valley, feeding where they can, and the refuge has not been able to function as it should, as their sanctuary.
There are real reasons to care about this year’s crisis. Socorro county is one of the poorest in the state, and the Bosque del Apache NWR is certainly one of its chief attractions. A survey cited in a recent Bosque economic impact statement indicates that 74 percent of visitors have come to the area “specifically to visit Bosque del Apache NWR.” More than 43 percent of these visitors “stay more than one day in the area.” The money they spend on food,lodging, and other goods and services is crucial to the region’s economy.
The potentially negative effect of a decline in the refuge’s reputation as a showplace, as one of the jewels of the national wildlife refuge system, cannot be overstated.
The refuge is critical for the welfare of the geese, crane and waterfowl populations, and it has a long history of partnering with local farmers to grow corn for them on its lands. The birds can forage for foodstuffs in the wetlands in November when the weather is mild, but when the marshes freeze in the colder months of December, January and February, birds need a more nutritious supplementary food corn. In fact, the refuge estimates a need for about 1.5 million pounds of corn.
Current practices require a two-year cycle of rotation between alfalfa and corn, with one-quarter of each unit being planted in corn. But the refuge’s farming program is in trouble for a number of reasons:
• Corn is much more labor-intensive to grow and irrigate than alfalfa and is prone to damage from weeds and insects.
• Recent declines in alfalfa prices increase the risk for the prospective farmer.
• Fields upon which the refuge had long ago improved the drainage to reduce salinity may require further remediation.
• Transporting the necessary equipment to and from the refuge is costly and time-consuming.
• The fact that corn is no longer widely grown in the valley means that there are fewer farmers with experience to be successful.
Certain steps are being taken to restart the farming program. According to a recent ad aimed at attracting local farmers, the refuge will help prospective farmers “in the purchase of seed corn, fertilizer and corn-related pesticides.” The Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a two-year approval for the use of genetically modified corn on the refuge for this coming year. Although such corn has its detractors, it is more resistant to insects and may produce a higher yield.
Of even more importance to resolve, however is the issue of trust between the refuge and its farmers.
In the midst of drought conditions in 2001, the regional director of Fish and Wildlife decided that the refuge’s water should be left in the river for the benefit of the endangered silvery minnow.
The resulting hardship to the refuge farmers, who had crops at stake, caused a deterioration in their relationship with the refuge and its government supervisors.
Since then, the rules and regulations that farmers have to contend with, in addition to all the other risks they face, have made it difficult to convince them that farming on the refuge is a worthwhile endeavor. It is not hard to understand, therefore, why the prospective farmers answering the refuge’s recent advertisement have also requested a meeting with the regional director of Fish and Wildlife.
It is important that the refuge’s relative physical isolation not become an unnecessary bureaucratic isolation as well. At present, the refuge needs its farmers, and their partnership should be a fair one, a source of benefit and pride to both parties.
At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Friends of the Bosque del Apache’s board of directors, held on Jan. 16, Refuge Manager Tom Melanson summarized some of the steps the refuge is taking to relieve the crop problem this year and plan for the future.
The refuge has already spread 30,000 pounds of the 300,000 pounds of corn it has brought down from Bernardo for supplemental feeding. The advertised meeting with local farmers offered hope that at least one farmer will sign a contract to farm a portion of the 1,049 acres currently available.
The refuge is also considering modifying its farming program to include a wetland-crop rotation. Other refuges have experimented with this process, which involves flooding a parcel of land for two to four years in a wetland, and then planting it. The crop in the newly replanted soil tends to require fewer pesticides and often offers greater yields.
The refuge is anticipating an initial outlay of $110,000 for an aerial survey of all lands within the historic floodplain and a detailed soil survey of all current agricultural lands in order to determine which portions of the refuge would be optimal for such a program. There would then be annual costs for seed, fertilizer, labor and fuel.
It is good to know that the refuge is taking seriously the issues raised during this disappointing year. As beautiful as it is, the Bosque del Apache does not run itself. Its management and staff are the stewards of our resources and cannot be motivated simply by bureaucratic and procedural impulses, but must feel a real passion for the area and what it has to offer.
It is absolutely important that they design and implement a long-term plan to make sure that the birds are provided for.
Those who are serving in the regional Fish and Wildlife office are also the guardians of our refuge and its goals. We trust that they will do their best to help our refuge deal with all its issues — large and small — now and in the future.
Challenges that are not met become chronic problems that lead to mediocre results, and we cannot afford another year like this one.
For many of us, the refuge is an emotional place, magical in its power to transform us through the experience that it offers. We in the community should remind ourselves that a well-run refuge continues to make this a special place to live and that it deserves our attention and support.