State hearings on Southern New Mexico water utility fines postponed
A photo of the drying bed at the Santa Teresa Community Arsenic Treatment Facility included in a recent inspection of the Camino Real Regional Utility Authority. (Courtesy of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency / David Esparza)
Attorneys for state regulators and a Southern New Mexico water utility facing $250,000 in fines for arsenic level violations have agreed to push back hearings about the penalties.
The hearings scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday will now be held sometime in the fall, according to a joint motion filed last week by attorneys for Camino Real Regional Utility Authority and the New Mexico Environment Department.
The utility supplies water for more than 19,000 people in Sunland Park, Santa Teresa and southern Doña Ana County, an area with high levels of naturally-occurring arsenic in the groundwater.
State regulators first issued fines of more than $251,000 in March 2024, after findings that the utility's arsenic treatment plants were 'offline and bypassed' for more than a year, sending drinking water with 'high levels of arsenic' to residents.
Drinking water with high levels of arsenic is associated with diseases such as diabetes, increased risk of cancers, and can contribute to heart and lung diseases and skin problems, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Utility leadership has said in statements that they take the concerns seriously and have worked to lower arsenic levels, achieving compliance with federal standards.
However, after a series of failed tests in May public officials and the state's top environment officials said they've lost confidence in the utility's leadership to address the chronic issues.
In late May, the New Mexico Environment Department filed an amended complaint, claiming that the utility delayed reporting elevated arsenic levels for multiple days and failed to specifically report them to the state.
'The continuing cycle of non-compliance by Respondent which compromises the public's access to safe and reliable drinking water requires the application of a bad faith enhancement for each of the violations which are the subject of this enforcement action,' the amended complaint stated
Regulators raised the total fine to $252,000. Attorneys for the utility objected to the addition of new allegations for the upcoming June hearing, and requested more time to address them.
Both the utility and the environment department agreed to a calendar extending witness and discovery deadlines into August, with a final date for the new hearing to follow.
The utility faces additional court dates beyond the administrative hearing later this year.
A 3rd Judicial District Judge ordered parties to submit a further schedule in the civil lawsuit the state brought earlier this month against the utility, requesting the judge appoint a third party to take over the utility's operations.
A hearing is scheduled for July in the civil lawsuit brought last year, which alleges the utility violated residents' civil rights.
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
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Grieving parents awarded $2.25M after Georgia doctor plastered videos of their decapitated baby on social media
A Georgia couple whose baby was decapacitated during childbirth was awarded a $2.25 million verdict after their pathologist posted graphic autopsy videos on social media without their consent. Dr. Jackson Gates and his Atlanta-based business will have to fork over the large sum to Jessica Ross and Traveon Taylor Sr. after a Fulton County jury found him liable of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and fraud on Wednesday. 'This young couple trusted him with the remains of their precious baby,' attorney's for the grieving parents said, noting that the doctor 'poured salt into the couple's already deep wounds.' 3 Jessica Ross and Treveon Taylor Sr., parents of a baby who was decapitated during childbirth. AP 'Gates, in turn, repaid this trust by posting horrific images of their child for the world to see.' The heartbroken couple hired the twisted doctor to perform an autopsy on their deceased newborn two days after their obstetrician allegedly applied excessive force to the baby's neck when its shoulders became stuck in Ross's pelvic area, causing it to detach during the traumatic July 2023 delivery. 3 The traumatic delivery occurred at Southern Regional Medical Center in July 2023. ERIK S LESSER/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock The baby's head was delivered vaginally, but the rest of the body was removed via C-section. The death was later ruled a homicide. Gates posted numerous videos and photos to his Instagram later that month, showing the grisly postmortem examination of their infants 'decapitated, severed head,' the couple said in their lawsuit. The deranged pathologist initially removed the footage after receiving a letter from the couple's attorney — but later reposted them, according to the lawsuit. 3 The couple was awarded $2.25 million in a lawsuit against their pathologist. AP Gates' attorney, Ira Livant, said his client typically documents his autopsy's on social media to educate fellow pathologists and highlight the importance of independent examinations in cases where families suspect medical misconduct. 'Dr. Gates testified that he is deeply sorry for any harm that he unintentionally caused the plaintiffs,' Livant said Saturday. 'Had he known for one second that they would see that and that they would know it was their child, he would never have done it.' The couple will receive $2 million in compensatory damages and an additional $250,000 in punitive damages from Gates and his company, Medical Diagnostics Choices, per the judgement. The bereaved parents have separate lawsuits pending against the delivering doctor and the Riverdale hospital where the horrific incident took place. With Post wires.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Whooping cough outbreaks declared in Iqaluit, Pond Inlet
There's an outbreak of whooping cough in Iqaluit and Pond Inlet, Nunavut, according to the territory's chief public health officer. The Department of Health announced the outbreaks in a pair of news releases Saturday. It said anyone can get the respiratory disease — also known as pertussis — but that the most severe cases are in children under the age of one. Though it spreads easily from person to person, the department says it's preventable by getting vaccinated. Symptoms of whooping cough include a low fever, a cough that lasts longer than a week or is followed by an unusual "whoop" sound, vomiting after coughing and coughing that is worse at night. Anyone with these symptoms is told to stay home, avoid contact with others, and to contact their local health centre. The department says whooping cough can spread from the time someone catches it — before they start coughing — until three weeks after their symptoms have started, or until they've been taking treatment for five days. The department says whooping cough can be treated with antibiotics. They're urging people to get vaccinated against the disease, but also to curb the spread with frequent hand washing, coughing into tissues or sleeves, and not sharing food, drinks, utensils or toothbrushes. Outbreaks of whooping cough that began in Kugaruuk and Naujaat in the spring were declared over last month.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
A longer ‘winter': Public funding slowdown heightens pressure on biotech startups
This story was originally published on BioPharma Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily BioPharma Dive newsletter. Biotechnology industry watchers were hopeful at the start of 2025. Venture funding appeared to be rebounding after a lengthy slump, and a smattering of new stock offerings and company acquisitions brewed optimism that the public markets might be similarly warming up to young drugmakers. But the positivity quickly dissipated. Trump administration policies gutted scientific research funding and raised questions about U.S. drug prices. Large layoffs and upheaval at public health agencies created regulatory turmoil that added risk to what's already, by its nature, a risky sector to invest in. The results were laid out in a June report from David Windley and Tucker Remmers, two analysts at the investment bank Jefferies. According to that report, funding in public biotech companies — be it from initial public offerings, follow-on stock offerings, or 'PIPE' deals — plummeted in May. The 'political and economic uncertainties' have "cast a cloud over biotech investment,' they wrote. 'Since product development cycles can range 12-15 years in this industry, biotechs (and their boards and investors) want clarity on FDA regulation, drug pricing, and funding before committing to large, [long-term] investments,' Windley and Remmers wrote. Investors and industry insiders interviewed by BioPharma Dive say that the public slowdown is trickling down to startups that have already been under intense pressure during a prolonged pullback. Companies and investors are struggling to align on valuations, making funding rounds more difficult to close than in prior years. The uphill battle in the public markets is further delaying IPO plans, too. "People are waiting to see what happens, and it's extended that winter," said Tim Scott, the president of Biocom California, an industry trade group. To date, only seven biotech companies have priced IPOs in 2025, and no large offerings have occurred since mid-February. No biotechs have publicly disclosed IPO ambitions in several months either, and one of the last to do so, Odyssey Therapeutics, pulled its offering in May. In a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, CEO Gary Glick wrote that it was 'not in the best interests of the company' to go public at that time. One reason IPOs have ground to a halt, experts say, is that the public markets aren't rewarding drug startups as predictably as they once were. Typically, drug companies can expect their value to climb after delivering positive clinical results. But 'even companies with good data aren't seeing a lot of movement in the public markets,' said Jonathan Norris, a managing director at HSBC Innovation Banking. As a result, Norris said, companies are looking at the time and expense it takes in the monthslong process to go public and wondering: 'What's the benefit?' 'If you have any readouts that are even eye squinting, you're going to get crushed,' he said. 'It's a tough, tough endeavor.' The shuttered IPO window is exacerbating problems for young biotechs. "If you don't have a public market opportunity, then the companies that are private have to think about ways to raise capital and stay private for longer," said Maina Bhaman, a partner at Sofinnova Partners. Feeling that burden, venture investors are becoming more conservative. While private funding hasn't plummeted as much as its public counterpart, investors are more selective and slower-moving. Funding has become increasingly consolidated into fewer and larger 'megarounds,' to the extent that more firms are compiling similar portfolios. And they're hard to finalize, even when most of a funding syndicate is already onboard, according to Norris. "People are struggling to figure out where the bottom of the market is and what's the appropriate valuation and expectation for that investment,' he said. "A lot of VCs are pencils down right now on deals they would otherwise be moving forward on,' Scott added. Pullbacks are nothing new in biotech. But what has been unusual, some say, is how long the sector has spent in the doldrums after peaking in early 2021. One reason is the most recent boom flooded the market with more companies than it could support. But another is that the ensuing correction has intensified amid regulatory and political upheaval. A report last week from Roel van den Akker, PwC's U.S. pharma and life science deals leader, predicted that companies will be 'preparing contingency plans' to account for delays in 'trial oversight' and drug applications. Drug companies are used to dealing with a high level of risk, as most experimental medicines never make it to market. But 'now you've got a lot more macro uncertainty that is being layered on top," Bhaman said. On the public side, that uncertainty has resulted in less patient investors, some of whom are pressing company boards to shut down after setbacks rather than change course. But some startups are taking drastic steps, too, such as cutting programs and staff to, some experts believe, depress their value so they can still attract investment. The "lack of surety" is pressuring biotechs to be as efficient as possible with their cash, Scott said, perhaps working on one program instead of a few. There have been multiple high-profile examples of late. Eikon Therapeutics and Insitro, two well-funded startups, both cited a need for 'prudence' in laying off staff. Norris expects more companies to proactively cut staff, or even close, as the longer-than-expected winter drags on. 'Most of those companies are not going to find the investors that they're hoping for,' he said. 'And I think that's just the unfortunate truth.' Recommended Reading Radiopharmaceutical drugmaker RayzeBio signals plans to go public
