Feds backtrack on mining ban in the Upper Pecos watershed
The U.S. Forest Service has reversed a December recommendation to ban mineral mining in 165,000 acres in the Upper Pecos — a decision that threatens a sensitive watershed, said local advocacy groups.
The move comes several weeks after the agency canceled a Feb. 17 public hearing on the administrative process to remove that area from new mining for 20 years, which the Biden Administration had pursued in the final weeks in office. A temporary pause on mining had been in place since December.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that the Forest Service had cancelled two mineral leasing withdrawals in order to 'help boost production of critical minerals' at the bottom of an April 4 news release announcing an increased domestic logging push.
A USDA spokesperson in an emailed statement identified those cancellations as the proposed Upper Pecos River watershed mining ban, as well as one in Nevada's Ruby Mountains, and that the reversal stemmed from the January executive order titled 'Unleashing American Energy.'
'Under President Trump's leadership, USDA is removing the burdensome Biden-era regulations that have stifled energy and mineral development to revitalize rural communities and reaffirm America's role as a global energy powerhouse,' the spokesperson wrote.
Other federal agencies that previously supported the mining ban under the past administration did not have further comment Monday.
The Bureau of Land Management acknowledged a Source NM request Monday, but did not provide comment before publication. The U.S. Department of the Interior, which oversees BLM, did not respond to emails for comment.
Ralph Vigil, an organizer for the nonprofit New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, told Source NM Monday he was unsurprised by the U.S. Forest Service's decision under the new administration. Vigil said the Stop Terrero Mine Coalition — which includes agriculture, local and tribal governments, conservation and hunting groups opposing further development in the Upper Pecos — will need to consider its next steps.
'We're going to continue our fight to do whatever we need to do to block this administration,' Vigil said.
Vigil, a parciante of the Acequia del Molino and local farmer living in Pecos, said much of the community opposition is rooted in the Terrero Mining disaster from 1991, during which floodwaters breached a defunct mine and sent mining tailing sludge downriver. The spill killed tens of thousands of fish and buried Willow Creek. Cleanup remains ongoing and has cost tens of millions of dollars, including state environment officials' request for $5.7 million from the Legislature this year. An administrative ban can last for decades, but does not create a permanent ban on mining development, which requires full Congressional approval. Members of the New Mexico delegation introduced a bill to permanently ban mining development in the Upper Pecos
U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) called the decision a 'betrayal of trust,' in a written statement Monday, and said he'd move forward with similar legislation to ban mining in the area.
'The Trump administration's decision is a betrayal of trust. Not only does it reverse what the Pecos community has worked toward for years, it's also incredibly out of touch. This kind of top-down decision-making — with zero attempt to discuss or even listen to the communities impacted — is exactly what's wrong with this administration,' Heinrich said. 'New Mexicans deserve clean water free from heavy metals. I will continue to push for permanent protection through my Pecos Watershed Protection Act. The Trump administration won't stand with the people of New Mexico, but I always will.'
New Mexico Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard in March signed an executive order banning mineral mining on approximately 2,500 acres of state trust land in the Upper Pecos Watershed that will remain in place through 2045.
Vigil said any economic benefits logging and mining might bring would not outweigh future spills or destruction in the Pecos headwaters, already hard-hit by the 2022 Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon Fire.
'Putting the headwaters at risk isn't beneficial for anyone downstream,' Vigil said. 'Agriculture, outdoor recreation, these are economies we depend on, these other economies they want to bring in that are extractive, invasive and destructive will not be friendly to the community.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
Trump Has a New Definition of Human Rights
For nearly half a century, the State Department has reported annually on human-rights conditions in countries around the world. The purpose of this exercise is not to cast aspersions, but to collect and disseminate reliable information. Congress mandated the reports back in 1977, and since then, legislators and diplomats have used them to shape decisions about sanctions, foreign aid, immigration, and political asylum. Because the reports were perceived as relatively impartial, because they tried to reflect well-articulated standards—'internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights'—and because they were composed by professionals reporting from the ground, the annual documents became a gold standard, widely used by people around the world, cited in court cases and political campaigns. Year in and year out, one former official told me, they have been the most downloaded items on the State Department website. Quite a few people will also read the 2024 reports, published yesterday. But they will do so for very different reasons. The original drafts were ready in January, before the Biden administration left office, following the usual practice. In past years, the reports were published in March or April. But this year they were delayed for several months while President Donald Trump's political appointees, including Michael Anton, the MAGA intellectual who is now the State Department's director of policy planning, rewrote the drafts. Some of the changes affect the whole collection of documents, as entire categories of interest were removed. The Obama administration had previously put a strong focus on corruption, on the grounds that kleptocracy and autocracy are deeply linked, and it started collecting information on the persecution of sexual minorities. Over the past few weeks, as the new reports were being prepared, I spoke with former officials who had seen early versions, or who had worked on the reports in the past. As many of them expected, the latest reports do not address systemic discrimination against gay or trans people, and they remove observations about rape and violence against women. But the revisions also go much further than expected, dropping references to corruption, restrictions on free and fair elections, rights to a fair trial, and the harassment of human-rights organizations. Threats to freedom of assembly are no longer considered sufficiently important to mention. In a number of instances, criticism of Israel is classified, crudely, as 'antisemitism.' Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's use of the word genocide to describe the war in Gaza, for example, is listed as an act of 'antisemitism and antisemitic incitement,' even though that term, however disputable or controversial, has also been used by Israelis and in any case violates no international human-rights norms at all. Jonathan Chait: The pro-Israel right is shifting the definition of anti-Semitism Along with the category changes, entries for 20 countries were also flagged for special consideration. These were sent for review to Samuel Samson, a political appointee in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Dozens of professionals have been fired or removed from that office, widely known as DRL; Samson—who is, according to NPR, a recent college graduate and an alumnus of a program designed to put conservative activists into government jobs—remains. The end result of his and others' efforts are reports that contain harsh and surprising assessments of democratic U.S. allies, including the U.K., Romania, Germany, and Brazil, and softer depictions of some dictatorships and other countries favored by Trump or his entourage. El Salvador and Israel, I was told, required so much rewriting that these two entries help explain the long delay in the reports' publication. Reading the results, you can see why. The new Israel report is simply far shorter than the original draft, with no significant discussion of the humanitarian crisis or high death toll in Gaza. El Salvador is a blatant whitewash. 'There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses,' the latest report claims. By contrast, the previous report spoke of 'significant human rights issues' and specifically mentioned harsh, even lethal prison conditions. An Amnesty International report also covering 2024 speaks of 'arbitrary detentions and human rights violations' in El Salvador, as well as 'serious failings in the judicial system.' In overcrowded prisons, 'detention conditions were inhumane, with reports of torture and other ill-treatment.'Here, the State Department's motivation is not hard to guess. Because the Trump administration is sending prisoners to El Salvador, the department massaged the report to avoid the glaring truth: The U.S. is endangering people by sending them to Salvadorean prisons. The report on Germany, a highly functional democracy, is equally strange. The State report speaks of 'significant human rights issues,' including 'restrictions on freedom of expression.' One specific example: German law 'required internet companies, including U.S. internet platforms, to take down hate speech within 24 hours or face stiff fines.' Germans, in other words, are being called human-rights abusers because they continue to outlaw Nazi propaganda, as they have done since 1945. The Trump administration's motives are clear here too. The goal is to please U.S. tech companies, notably X, that find it convenient or profitable to spread Nazi propaganda, and perhaps to help the Alternative for Germany, the far-right party publicly praised and courted by J. D. Vance. But the details of the reports are less important than the overall impact. Several former officials pointed out that the U.S. has not only abandoned internationally accepted definitions of what is meant by rights, but also any objectivity or consistency. Original reporting from embassies has been removed, replaced with language clearly—and in a few cases ludicrously—manipulated by political appointees. This is very bad for human-rights defenders in places like Cuba or China, where activists in the past used U.S. language and reporting to make arguments to their own governments or to international institutions. From the May 2025 issue: America's future is Hungary None of them can now claim that the State Department Human Rights Report has any factual standing, or indeed that any U.S.-government document on human rights is an objective measure of anything. 'This essentially says the United States is no longer your ally, that the United States doesn't see clearly beyond the rhetoric of your regime,' one former official who still has relationships with DRL told me. 'And I think that's really, really tragic.' In truth, some of the changes seem designed not so much to shape U.S. foreign policy as to shape U.S. domestic policy. Christopher Le Mon, a former DRL official, told me he thinks that 'the domestic political agenda is really the organizing principle here.' He might be right. The administration is saying, after all, that it no longer finds electoral cheating or manipulation to be a problem; it doesn't think the harassment of civic groups is a bad thing; it doesn't object to discrimination against women or sexual minorities; and it will never demand transparency or accountability from the providers of internet algorithms, no matter what they choose to amplify or promote. The reports' authors, who include some of the most ideological people in the administration, are also telling Americans what they think of the standards that both Republicans and Democrats have held up for years. Now, says Le Mon, 'they're making it that much easier to just erase human rights from what has been a long-standing, relatively bipartisan history in U.S. foreign policy.' Ironically, this shift in American language puts the U.S. directly in alliance with China, whose diplomats have been campaigning for years to change the diplomatic discourse about human rights. Christopher Walker, a co-author of an influential paper on Chinese influence campaigns, which he calls 'sharp power,' told me that the Chinese Communist Party has been seeking to 'neuter or muddy the waters' around international discussions of fundamental human rights. 'From Beijing's point of view, the more such language is emasculated, the greater the CCP's competitive advantage,' he said. Russians, North Koreans, Iranians, Cubans, and others will also find this shift an immense relief. We knew this was coming. In a speech in Riyadh earlier this year, Trump flagged America's new indifference to human rights, promising the Saudis and other Middle Eastern monarchs that America would stop 'giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs.' That made it sound like the administration would be somehow neutral. But as Walker pointed out, in a world of intense ideological competition, there is no such thing as neutrality. Debates about the definition of human rights will continue. The U.S. will simply play a different role in them. Tom Malinowski, a former congressman who once ran the DRL bureau, puts it best. The reports, he told me, show that the 'U.S. still has a values-based foreign policy, but with twisted values.' Americans are giving plenty of lectures to other people on how to live, but to different people and with a different result.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bronin, racking up campaign money, challenges Larson to refuse corporate PAC contributions
After raising more than $800,000 in two weeks, former Hartford mayor Luke Bronin called Wednesday for U.S. Rep. John B. Larson to refuse corporate campaign money as political contributions during the current race. Larson, who has served in Congress since winning a multi-candidate battle in 1998, has relied on money from corporate political action committees for more than half of his campaign funds in the last five elections over the past 10 years, according to public records. That money includes contributions from committees operated by insurance, finance, real estate, health care, and defense interests, among others. As an incumbent with a safe seat in a Democratic-dominated district, Larson's campaign has raised about the same amount of money in each of the past five elections – between $1.37 million to $1.7 million during that time. Of the PAC money, about 85% is from business interests and about 12% from labor groups, according to Open Secrets, which tracks political money for Congressional candidates in all 50 states. 'Today, I'm pledging not to accept a dollar of corporate PAC money, and I'm calling on Congressman Larson to do the same,' Bronin said in a statement. 'The deck is already stacked against working families and the middle class in so many ways, and the scale of corporate PAC money in our national politics makes things worse. Voters deserve leaders who are putting the interests of working families and the middle class first, and I'm calling on John Larson to reject and return corporate PAC contributions for the 2026 cycle.' Bronin says he is accepting money only from individuals and has surprised some insiders with the speed of his fundraising since announcing his campaign in late July. As a graduate of Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire, Yale Law School, a Rhodes Scholar and a former U.S. Navy Reserve intelligence officer in Afghanistan, Bronin has a wide range of contacts and showed his fundraising prowess when he won the Democratic primary for mayor in Hartford by unseating incumbent Pedro Segarra. After growing up in the affluent communities of Rye, N.Y. and Greenwich, Bronin has a web of successful and affluent friends and classmates who have contributed to his campaign. Bronin's campaign so far has declined to release the names of any of his recent contributors, saying those will be revealed in October in the public filings that are required by the Federal Election Commission. The campaign says it has more than 600 individual contributors so far. 'We've already seen a tremendous amount of support, and I'm proud that we're raising that support from individual donors, not corporate PACs,' Bronin said. 'Democrats here in the first district and all over the country want to see our party make some big changes, and we're feeling that hunger for change translate into strong momentum and support.' The maximum contribution is $3,500 for the primary and another $3,500 for the general election. A supporter can contribute $7,000 now, but the remaining $3,500 could not be spent if the candidate does not reach the general election in November 2026, officials said. Larson's campaign could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday morning. Bronin is the highest profile challenger in years for Larson, who was vaulted into Congress by winning a four-way Democratic primary in 1998 over his main opponent, Miles S. Rapoport of West Hartford, and two other candidates. A Republican last won the seat in 1956, swept into office by Dwight D. Eisenhower's presidential landslide. The sprawling, 27-town district covers municipalities in parts of Hartford, Litchfield and Middlesex counties that run as far north as the Massachusetts border. The district includes Hartford and nearby suburbs such as East Hartford, Windsor, South Windsor, and West Hartford. Bronin's supporters believe that he can defeat Larson in a tough race and pass the torch to a new generation of leadership; Bronin is more than 30 years younger than Larson. At the same time, Larson, his family, and his supporters are gearing up for a highly competitive campaign. Larson has made constant appearances recently, including showing up at events where he had not been among the listed speakers. After growing up about 90 miles from the capital city, Bronin eventually moved to Hartford and built a multi-faceted political coalition with supporters from around the city to defeat incumbent mayor Pedro Segarra in a Democratic primary in 2015. Larson's health became an issue in February when he suddenly froze during a televised speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as he suffered a 'complex partial seizure' that raised concerns. Larson underwent tests and said later that the event was related to a heart valve replacement he had years earlier. He suffered a second incident in April during a press conference at the Connecticut Children's Medical Center in Hartford, where he paused again during an answer before recovering and soon after having his picture taken with other attendees. The primary campaign could be historic in Greater Hartford's storied congressional district, which launched Thomas Dodd and Abraham Ribicoff to the national political stage in the late 1940s and 1950s and had been held by nine-term Democrat Barbara Kennelly of Hartford from 1982 to 1999. The 1998 primary turned ugly in its closing days as Larson and Rapoport attacked each other via television ads, and Larson eventually won the contest on primary night. One of eight children, Larson grew up in a federal housing project in a political family. His younger brother, Timothy, later became the mayor of East Hartford. His campaign staff was peppered with large numbers of relatives and old friends back in 1998, and his family has pledged to be behind him in 2026 for potentially his biggest challenge yet. Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@
Epoch Times
2 hours ago
- Epoch Times
More Than 100,000 Americans Apply to Join ICE: DHS
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has received more than 100,000 job applications from Americans, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on Aug. 12. 'Our country is calling you to serve at ICE. In the wake of the Biden administration's failed immigration policies, your country needs dedicated men and women of ICE to get the worst of the worst criminals out of our country,' DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement.
