Samantha Barncastle Salopek

Infrastructure and basic services: District 1 includes communities with significant needs involving roads, drainage, wastewater, water systems and other basic infrastructure. What should the county’s highest infrastructure priorities be, and how would you pay for them?

District 1, and really our county as a whole, has communities that have waited too long for basic infrastructure to keep pace with their needs. My priorities would be roads and drainage, reliable water and wastewater systems and the infrastructure necessary to support responsible growth.

The first step is knowing what we actually have, what condition it is in and what it will cost to maintain or replace it. I would support a transparent, long-term capital improvement plan that prioritizes projects based on public safety, existing deficiencies, population growth and economic impact — not simply which project has the loudest advocate. I would also prioritize working with other local, state, and federal governmental entities to maximize resources on the ground.

We should increase use of federal and state grants and infrastructure funding programs, low-interest infrastructure financing, and public-private partnerships before asking local taxpayers to carry the entire burden. But we also need to be honest about the cost of maintaining infrastructure once it is built. A long-term goal would be to allow growth to help pay for the infrastructure it requires rather than shifting those costs onto existing residents; either way, our community is in need, and we must get creative and collaborative to get done what we need done.

As a water and natural resources attorney, I have spent my career dealing with infrastructure, water systems, government financing and the complicated state and federal programs that can help pay for them. I would bring that expertise to making sure the county gets the most infrastructure possible for every taxpayer dollar.

Economic development: What should the county require in return when it provides tax incentives, industrial revenue bonds or other public support for private economic development projects, and howwould you determine whether a proposed project provides enough benefit to county residents to justify that support?

Public support for private economic development should come with a public return. If the county provides tax incentives, industrial revenue bonds or other assistance, the project should have clearly defined and measurable commitments regarding jobs, investment, tax generation, infrastructure, and other promised benefits.

Those commitments should be enforceable, with reporting requirements and consequences if they are not met. I would also require the county to look at the full fiscal picture. A project's headline investment or number of projected jobs is not enough. We need to understand the infrastructure, public safety, water, and service costs associated with the project and be able to compare those costs with the actual long-term benefits to county residents – that means well defined goals and not lofty, empty promises.

I support economic development, but I believe we should be strategic about it. The goal should be to grow the economic pie, not simply subsidize projects that would have happened anyway or leave taxpayers responsible for costs that were never adequately considered. My approach would be straightforward: know the numbers, negotiate from a position of knowledge, put commitments in writing, and hold everyone accountable for delivering what was promised. That is the job I have successfully performed for my clients my entire legal career and am well equipped to do for our county if elected.

Water and growth: Water availability is a growing concern throughout Doña Ana County. How should water availability factor into county decisions about new residential, commercial and industrialdevelopment, and what should the county be doing now to protect the region’s long-term water supply?

Water has to be one of the first questions we ask about growth — not an issue we try to solve after development is approved. Doña Ana County is a desert community, and our water resources are finite. Every major residential, commercial, or industrial proposal should be evaluated against actual water availability, existing water rights, infrastructure capacity, and long-term sustainability, including what happens during drought.

The county should also be looking beyond individual projects. We need a long-term water strategy that protects existing water users, supports agriculture and economic development, and invests in conservation, infrastructure, aquifer recharge, reuse, and other ways to stretch and expand our water supplies. We should be pursuing every responsible tool available rather than pretending there is one, singular solution.

Most importantly, growth policy and water policy cannot be separated. We should not approve development based on optimistic assumptions about future water supplies and then leave existing residents, farmers, or future generations to absorb the consequences. We need to posture our community to lead the conversation on living in a water scarce environment, collaboratively arrive at multi-government and/or public/private solutions, and be willing to be bold about our investment in our future.

This is an area where my professional experience is directly relevant. I have spent my career working on New Mexico water law, water rights, reclamation projects, agricultural water, and state and federal water policy. I spent almost two decades representing the Elephant Butte Irrigation District and other local governments within the County, as well as a number of private individuals, businesses, and projects, and I have unparalleled experience in this particular niche area. I know the difference between having a water plan on paper and having a water supply that is actually reliable. That distinction needs to be at the center of how Doña Ana County plans for its future.

County priorities and spending: If elected, what is one area where you believe Doña Ana County should spend more money and one area where it could spend less or operate more efficiently? What would you change and why?

If elected, I would spend more on basic infrastructure and long-term capital planning, particularly roads, drainage, water and wastewater systems. These are not glamorous expenditures, but they are the foundation of a functioning county and a growing economy. Deferred maintenance almost always becomes more expensive later.

Where I would look to spend less is administrative overhead and programs that cannot demonstrate a clear public benefit. I would not begin by picking an arbitrary percentage to cut. I would begin by asking what the county is responsible for, what each program actually costs, whether it is producing measurable results and whether there is a more efficient way to provide the service.

I also want the county to become better at pursuing outside funding. Every state or federal dollar we can responsibly leverage for a local infrastructure project is a dollar we do not have to raise from local taxpayers. My philosophy is simple: fund the fundamentals, measure the results, and make every taxpayer dollar work as hard as possible.

As an attorney and nonprofit executive who manages budgets, contracts, grants, and complex public policy, I understand that responsible budgeting is not just about how much you spend – It is about whether you are getting value for what you spend. I’m running because Doña Ana County deserves a commissioner who doesn’t just care about these issues but has spent a career mastering them — and is ready to put that expertise to work for our community.

The Bulletin asked each Dona Ana County candidate four questions to allow voters to assess where the candidates stands on important issues heading into the election. The questions vary for each office, but are the same for every candidate running for the same office.