Featured

Doña Ana County seeks to reform flood commission

Culvert I-10
A culvert running under Interstate 10 and a state frontage road in Vado were heavily damaged by a July storm and subsequent flooding. State road crews worked to repair it on July 23.
Vado flood - Vado drive
Horses stand in floodwaters at a residence near Vado Drive in Vado on July 23, after monsoon rains led to flash flooding in the community.
Vado flood - McCrimon
A home on McCrimon Street in Vado is seen flooded on July 23 after a torrential monsoon rain swelled the Rio Grande.
Published Modified

LAS CRUCES — Doña Ana County is seeking to renegotiate a long-standing joint powers agreement with the county’s flood commission in a process that has raised questions among employees.

For four decades, the Office of the Flood Commission has addressed the impacts of flooding from summer monsoons on roads and private property. The latest reminder of the importance of flood preparation and response was last summer’s flooding in Vado and adjacent communities, which temporarily disabled a frontage road and affected hundreds of homes.

The flood commission addresses construction, maintenance and repair of flood control structures, such as culverts or stormwater pits and related projects. It also identifies flood-hazard areas, studies damage and flooding following heavy rains, works with property owners near flood zones, makes sure the county’s development code complies with National Flood Insurance Program requirements, researches infrastructure to reduce flood losses and coordinates with local and federal entities on a flood warning system.

The 1990 joint powers agreement (JPA) established the flood commissioner as a position appointed by the governor. The first commissioner was Donald Wiese, appointed by Gov. Garrey Carruthers. The post is essentially voluntary, with a salary set at $1 annually with the commissioner defined as an independent contractor, not a county employee. Robert Armijo was appointed commissioner on May 9, 2023.

Under the JPA, the county provides personnel and office space as well as certain services. The personnel reporting to the commissioner, currently about a dozen, according to the county, are county employees formally under the commissioner’s supervision and led by Flood Director John Gwynne, who was not made available for an interview.

The document also states that the commissioner will reimburse the county for the salaries out of the county flood fund, a taxpayer-funded resource.

County Manager Scott Andrews provided a written notice to Commissioner Armijo on Sept. 12 seeking to renegotiate the agreement and triggering a 30-day termination clause, giving the commissioner two weeks to begin negotiations, emphasizing that absent a new agreement, the JPA would expire on Oct. 13.

On that same day, a written notice, obtained by the Journal, was provided to employees informing them that the county was seeking a new agreement and, effectively, suggesting they update their resumes.

“While our desire is to successfully work with the Flood Commissioner to develop a new, modern JPA that meets the needs of both the County and the Commissioner, should negotiations fail, all County provided support under the JPA, including the positions under the Office of the Flood Commissioner, will also conclude at that time,” the letter stated.

“Given the possibility of the agreement’s termination,” the document continued, “you are encouraged to explore options, to include applying for other open positions within the County should you wish to continue your employment with us beyond October 13, 2025.”

The termination was subsequently postponed.

The county declined interview requests. Armijo said he was traveling and not available for an interview.

County attorney Cari Neill confirmed in an email that initial negotiations had begun and that the county had put off terminating the agreement, “partly to give employees in the Flood Commission assurances that their jobs are not going to disappear while we are in the process of negotiations.”

She declined to discuss any new terms the county was seeking.

“The current JPA has not been renegotiated in nearly 30 years,” she wrote. “There has been a lot of change in the County since then and the renegotiated agreement needs to reflect the growth and change since that JPA was signed. We hope to come out with a stronger, more clear relationship that works to the absolute benefit of the County residents.”

“So long as we are having regular, meaningful discussions and negotiations, we will continue to extend the deadline,” she added.

Powered by Labrador CMS