Corruption in NM

Sean Olson reports on a clear example [ad view req'd] of conflict of interest in New Mexico:

A proposed water rights sale in Socorro County has some people questioning why an attorney who represents the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District is trying to prove water rights in a proposed sale belong to a private party - and not to the MRGCD.

The case involves a planned sale by a Socorro family to a company that would use the water for a Santa Fe subdivision. There is a question about how much of the water is owned by the family and how much by the Conservancy District.

Tanya Scott, who sometimes represents the MRGCD, is an attorney specializing in water law with Law & Resource Planning Associates. She has been hired in this case by the Santa Fe Water Resources Alliance LLC and is contesting an opinion by the Office of the State Engineer that most of the water rights in question belong to the district.

"I would say it is a conflict of interest," board member Bill Turner said Thursday. "Where is her allegiance? Is it to the MRGCD and protecting our assets?"

Scott said Thursday there was no conflict. She said she would not have represented Santa Fe Water Resource Alliance if the district board had voted to protest the water rights sale with the state engineer. She said there was little chance the conservancy district would have done so, considering its traditional stance.

"The district has never tried to oppose or protest any (privately-owned) water rights," Scott said.

Attorney Charles DuMars, also a member of Law & Resource Planning Associates, is the long-time chief attorney for the district. Both Scott and DuMars have other water law clients.

So she is saying that MRGCD -- a long-term client of her firm and her boss -- would NOT contest a water transfer that is disadvantageous to MRGCD? Because MRGCD has not opposed "private transfers" in the past?

That's like saying that I would not oppose you shooting me with your gun NOW because I have not opposed you shooting your gun at a target in the past! This is DIFFERENT!

But wait, it gets better:

Several board members said Thursday they were never notified of the proposed sale or the state engineer's opinion.

Scott said the proposed sale was properly advertised in legal notices in five counties.

The rights in question originate on land in Socorro County owned by Gus Wagner and his wife. Wagner sat on the district board for more than 20 years in a seat currently held by his son, Jimmy Wagner.

Jimmy Wagner, who is seeking re-election to the board, said he has stayed out of his parents' dealings with the water rights sale and said he knows very little about the situation.

“I've got nothing to do with it,” he said.

So a board member who knows about the transfer that is disadvantageous to MRGCD (a district he REPRESENTS) and advantageous to his family thinks that he has nothing to do with it. Are you freaking kidding me?

That's like a mutual friend of mine and the guy with the gun "forgetting" to tell me about the impending bullet -- when that mutual friend will "coincidentally" benefit from my death. Whoops!

Can it get any worse? Sure! How about this?

The application to transfer the water rights, filed in February 2007 with the Office of the State Engineer, originally requested 292 acre feet of water from the land be transferred to Santa Fe County to serve the Rancho Viejo subdivision.

The opinion from the state engineer was that only 28 acre feet of water was used on the property before 1907, the cutoff date for privately owned water rights. The rest would, by state statute, belong to the conservancy district.

So the family of current and past board members is selling water rights they do not have with the assistance of lawyers who supposedly represent the district to businesses that would benefit from an outcome that would simultaneously harm the district? Give me a freaking break!

Note that DuMars -- whose firm receives $700,000 or more per year from MRGCD -- has represented conflicting interests in the past.

Here's the most interesting news: Wagner is due to be re-elected or defeated in the election tomorrow, June 2nd. I sure hope that the folks in his district vote! If he wins, they get him for another four years!

(And don't forget that I have blogged on the MRGCD's CEO/CE "double dipping" -- receiving a salary AND pension at the same time! Who defended that practice? DuMars!)

Bottom Line: Directors of water districts should make decisions, hire outsiders, and approve policies that benefit the citizens of the district. Those who engage in self-dealing, corruption and myopic oversight should not only be removed from office -- they should go to jail for failure of fiduciary duty!