Another Look at Cannabis, a Multi-million Dollar Expense, and A Relationship with EMWT Water
The Torrance County Public Hearing Concerning Cannabis Grow Operations
The September 11, 2024, regular meeting of the Torrance County Commission opened with a lengthy public comment period largely composed of activists requesting that the Torrance County Commission terminate its contract with CoreCivic for the operation of the Torrance County Detention Facility. John Humphreys of Willard spoke on the issue of cannabis grow operations. Humphreys stated his opposition to allowing cannabis grow operations that have sought conditional use permits:
What we can expect that if we continue allowing properties to become cannabis grow operations? All the surrounding properties will only be purchased by other cannabis grow operations, because who's going to want to live next to one of these operations? So I just want to encourage you when it comes both of the permits that were denied [and that] will be on appeal in two more meetings, and I want to encourage you to uphold those denials. Thank you.
Ann Schropp, wife of County Commissioner Sam Schropp, also gave public comment. She stated that she believed that addressing cannabis at the county level would not fix the problem. “The problems we have are royal screw-ups, and they originated at the state level. They have to be fixed at the state level.”
Following public comment, the county commissioners convened a public hearing concerning a petition to place a moratorium on the approval of future cannabis enterprises by the county’s planning and zoning board.
Lisa and Clayton Gardner presented the discussion regarding the moratorium before the county commissioners. The Gardners explained that they were presenting a petition with 357 signatures (approximately 2% of the population of Torrance County) to the county commission requesting that Torrance County put a moratorium on cannabis grow farms. Lisa Gardner stated that the moratorium she sought would, “give time for county review of cannabis regulations, water regulations, our zoning ordinances, and state and local cannabis laws. This would also give Torrance County time to work with the state Cannabis Control [Division] and our state legislature on solutions.”
Ms. Gardner closed her statement by requesting that the names and addresses of those who signed the petition be redacted for security reasons.
Clayton Gardner claimed that the cannabis farms had an agreement with the state in that they would haul water rather than use water from the Estancia Valley Basin.
There’s the issues of water rights. The state engineers calling a commercial - we have no idea what these - the more you research it, the more you have no idea what [the cannabis grow operations] are doing with water. They’re supposed to be water - haulling water. They have an agreement to haul water with the state engineer’s office… That’s just - it’s outrageous. So I - I understand. I know it’s a state problem. I know it’s a state-caused problem, but the moratorium is us standing up to the state saying we’re going to look into this.
Mr. Gardner said that cannabis growers were getting licenses from the Cannabis Control Division to raise 5,000 plants, and then growing more than 100,000 cannabis plants. He suggested that the Torrance County Sheriff’s Office should handle the problem of cannabis grow operations locally. County Commission Chairman Ryan Schwebach requested that County Attorney Mike Garcia provide comment on the matter. “The problem with the mortar - moratorium,” Garcia began, “and there are a multitude of problems with the moratorium, from a land use perspective. The biggest problem is you risk inviting a takings claim from a landowner. And basically, if you know, if you go back to your constitutional law, `=[and] you look at the 5th Amendment, [and the] 14th Amendment, Americans have a fundamental right - [a] constitutional right - to use their property in a lawful manner in this particular context.”
In response to concerns regarding his legal position from County Commissioner Schropp, Garcia said that he did not “want to go too far into legal theories for, like, [to] clue a plaintiff’s attorney in on how to sue us….”
Schropp asked Garcia to clarify whether the county could change zoning ordinances, at which point Schwebach interjected and said that while Schropp would be allowed to be part of the discussion, Schwebach needed to lead it. Schwebach said that he wanted to make sure that every commercial greenhouse operation - not merely those involved in the cannabis industry - would be required to go through the county Planning and Zoning Board. Schwebach asked Sheriff David Frazee to testify as to whether the county could seek criminal penalties against cannabis grow operations that grew more plants than authorized. “I don’t have all the answers that you’re asking,” Frazee said, “I’ll lean on our legal counsel. I will tell you that our governor, or whoever has made it legal to possess marijuana - the amounts - I have not seen any flaw in black and white that I can myself go out and enforce. It’s more like a civil issue where they’ve been issued a permit to grow so much and they violated the permit. It’s more like a civil problem that needs to be hashed out in court, rather than a law enforcement issue.”
Reflecting on the information provided by Garcia and Frazee, Schwebach said he wanted the county to have state and federal contacts in place and clear guidance regarding the law of what the county can do regarding cannabis. “The [Planning and Zoning Board] is merely a stall tactic. At some point, it’s going to go to a court of law.”
The County’s Planned Offices
County Grants Administrator Amanda Lujan introduced to the County Commission Scott Meece (regrettably, the Mountainair Dispatch was unable to verify the spelling of Meece’s name; any corrections are welcome) and Amelia Kloer of Wilson & Company to address the design of the planned county administration building. The proposed design of the new administrative building would be approximately 32,000 square feet. Kloer explained that the building would include a 3,7090 square foot space for commission chambers, including an “executive meeting room with a kitchenette,” a 2,850 square foot administrative suite, a 2,964 square foot space for the County Assessor’s Office, a 3,513 square foot space for the County Clerk’s Office, a 2,383 square foot space for finance and grants administration, and 2,282 square feet for the County Treasurer’s Office. Meece stated that the building is expected to last at least forty years. The overall space represents a 10,000 square foot increase in comparison to the current county offices.
Chairman Schwebach stated that he believed the new building would be funded through a $10 million loan, money from legislative appropriations that have yet to be designated for Torrance County, and $2 million in county investments. Commissioner Schropp stated that the price tag of the building would be comparable to the $14 million price tag for planned renovations to the county fairgrounds. Both building projects are substantially more expensive than the cost of living adjustment for Torrance County employees denied by the county commissioners earlier this year, or the requested pay increase for administrative staff made by Torrance County Fire Chief James Winham and Torrance County Dispatch Director Selena Carroll. Speaking on the administrative offices project, Commissioner Schropp stated he believed that the new building would improve the morale of county employees, and therefore improve employee retention.
County Enters Into Relationship with EMWT
At the August 28, 2024, Torrance County Commission meeting, Commissioner Schropp had stated he would oppose any attempt to have Torrance County act as a fiscal agent for EMWT Water Association, saying he would sue the county and would seek injunctive relief if it attempted to do so. During the September 11, 2024 meeting, four agenda items were brought before the commission that pertained to the county’s relationship with EMWT: EMWT’s request that the county act as fiscal agent (1) for Mid-Region Council of Governments GRO Fund Appropriation to purchase water systems and rights; (2) New Mexico Environmental Department’s Legislative Appropriation to purchase water systems and rights; (3) New Mexico Finance Authority Water Trust Board Funding for Phase I design professional services for the McIntosh Water System Project; and, (4) EMWT’s request that the county submit a request for proposals for an EMWT Project Manager.
Schropp said he had met with Bobby Ortiz, a member of EMWT’s board of directors, over coffee to discuss the requests in which EMWT sought the county to assist as its fiscal agent. Schropp said he supported EMWT, and that the public needed to “quit wasting mental energy on rumors and misinformation.” Chairman Schwebach said that he believed that the agreements between the county and EMWT would eliminate the possibility that EMWT could ship water outside of the Estancia Valley. Thus, the county commissioners approved all of the requests made by EMWT.
Updated September 17, 2024 at 4:53 PM to accurately name the county attorney as Mike Garcia, not Mike Lopez.