The public deserves to be informed – and to have a voice

Anotice of a proposed cloud seeding operation for Northern New Mexico – first published in our legals Oct. 28 – is making waves, but due to that last-minute public notice and an unusually short public comment process, it almost didn’t even make a ripple.

Before we began to report on it, only a very small percentage of the people the project stands to affect knew it was happening at all, or that its start date was imminent, set for Dec. 13. Even if they did read the articles we ran (or the many others that have piggybacked on our coverage) and chose to object, they had only 10 days from the last date of legal publication (Nov. 10) and only two options to do so: Mail a letter or deliver it in person to the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

office in Santa Fe by 5 p.m. Monday (Nov. 22).

That same day, as you’ll read in Rick Romancito’s story this week, representatives from the commission and the Durango, Colorado-based company that would handle the project held a public hearing via webinar. More than 150 people turned out. This being Northern New Mexico – a place where the health of the environment is always top of mind – the result was in many ways predictable. Nearly no one was for it, and one Taos County resident, Mike Davis, is planning a protest for this weekend outside World Cup Café.

While their concerns surround the idea of sending chemicals into clouds to enhance precipitation levels and the impacts that might have on the environment and public health, ours at this moment centers on the public notice and comment process for the project itself, which seems to have done the bare minimum to let the public know about the project and allow their voices to be heard.

In our opinion, 10 days to allow the public to weigh in on a project that stands to affect (positively or negatively) their lands, their water – and if critics of this method of weather manipulation are correct – their health, isn’t sufficient. While ISC Deputy Director Hannah RiseleyWhite responded to a question on Monday surrounding that short time period by stating the commission was following the current rule and couldn’t change it, voters can place pressure on legislators to do so.

Moreover, based upon standards for public comment periods elsewhere, it seems.

According to the Federal Register, a legal newspaper published every federal working day by the National Archives and Records Administration, public comment periods at the federal level allow 30 to 60 days and allow letters to be submitted electronically.

In this day and age, a process that only accepts snail mail communications or letters delivered by hand seems at best outdated, and at worst, a rule meant to obstruct the public’s right to express opposition.

Until the rules change, take this as an example of why reading your local paper – legals and all – remains a critical part of being informed.