Robert Mason
RepublicanQ1 Q1 (Produced Water and Oil and Gas): New Mexico’s oil and gas industry generated 2.7 billion barrels of produced water in 2025. This wastewater can contain salts, chemicals, and radioactive materials, and underground disposal has raised concerns about earthquakes in the Permian Basin. State regulators have also identified gaps in evidence about treatment and environmental safety. What policies, if any, would you support for produced-water treatment, monitoring, disposal, or reuse outside oil and gas operations? What scientific evidence would inform your position?
Produced water can be a good source for the state. The water is of varying quality but can be treated and utilized for some uses even if it cannot be made potable. There are laws and regulations (Water Quality Act, Produced Water Act, etc) but the state must continue to move forward to develop guidelines and standards for that water. I would like to see the state develop guidelines that,
- Allows use of produced water in New Mexico.
- Provides standards for water quality for human and agricultural use. Such standards already exist for potable water, but need to be applied in this unique situation.
- Supports private efforts to treat and distribute produced water. The state only needs to provide sensible guidelines. I am far from an expert in hydrogeology but my understanding from several university and USGS papers is that it would be much better to use the produced water than to inject it back into the ground. It also makes more sense to use the water in New Mexico than to sell it to Texas, which I understand is happening now.
Q2 Q2 (Water Security): New Mexico’s 50-Year Water Action Plan identifies water conservation, improved storage and delivery, groundwater monitoring, and protection of existing water resources as approaches to long-term water challenges affecting communities, agriculture, and economic development. What policies, investments, research, or new technologies would you prioritize to strengthen New Mexico’s long-term water security? How would you measure whether they increase water availability or reduce water loss?
All these approaches are important towards reducing use and water loss, but I want to see us go beyond that. I believe we can increase water availability. As discussed in Q1 above, produced water is a tremendous source. Another important source is what is often referred to as “brackish water.” This water requires desalinization which is possible with current technology. In fact, the largest inland desalinization plant is located in El Paso. I don’t know how much brackish water we have under this state, but I understand it’s enough to take care of the water issue well into the future.
Of course, treating water requires energy but I believe there is a solution for that as well. Small modular reactors (SMR) produce clean energy and could power the energy needs of water processing facilities.
Q3 Q3 (Uranium Mining and Cleanup): The EPA reports 523 abandoned uranium mines on or near the Navajo Nation, including 30 mines in New Mexico within one mile of Navajo Nation lands. Past uranium mining and milling have raised environmental and public-health concerns, while new proposals raise questions about water use and contamination. What policies, if any, would you support regarding existing sites, cleanup costs, and new uranium mining proposals? What role should scientific evidence and the decisions of affected Tribal governments play?
I am not very familiar with this issue. Uranium is an important resource, but extracting and milling it should not create environmental problems. I do support clean-up efforts; but I’m not sure the state should pay for it. I would prefer to see the companies involved shoulder that responsibility.
Q4 Q4 (Commercial Aerospace): New Mexico has invested public funds in Spaceport America and the commercial aerospace sector, prompting questions about environmental impacts and taxpayer investment. What conditions, if any, would you place on future state investment, and how should operating, infrastructure, and environmental costs be divided between public and private entities? How would you evaluate economic benefits alongside safety, wildfire, debris, and community impacts?
This is a difficult question to answer in the macro sense. In general, the state has a responsibility to protect it’s environment and resources; however, I am usually opposed to government carve outs to attract a specific business or industry. I would much rather see the state become a place where business wants to come because it’s a good place to do business.
That requires a much more holistic approach. We need a tax structure that makes us competitive with our neighbor states. We need an education system that isn’t the last in the nation. We need to take our crime problem seriously to create a safe place where people want to live.
Using your example of the Spaceport. Although it hasn’t been a total loss, it certainly hasn’t lived up to expectations and I don’t know what the environmental impact has been. But had the state not subsidized the project it probably would not have happened.
Q5 Q5 (Nuclear Waste): The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad is the nation’s only deep geologic repository for defense-related transuranic waste, storing radioactive waste like plutonium and americium. What position would you take on WIPP’s future mission and proposals to change the types or amount of waste it accepts? What oversight policies, if any, would you support for transportation safety, worker safety, and radiation protection, and how would you evaluate their effectiveness?
I do not have enough knowledge to effectively address this situation. Nuclear waste management is primarily a federal function so I would have to study what the state’s responsibilities are.
Q6 Q6 (Data Centers): Large data-center proposals, including Project Jupiter in Doña Ana County, have raised community questions about jobs and investment, water use, electricity generation and prices, air quality, noise, and light. What standards, if any, should New Mexico apply when reviewing these projects, and what role should residents have in approval decisions? How should added infrastructure and resource costs be allocated, and what evidence would you use to evaluate promised benefits and actual impacts?
All the concerns you mention are valid and need to be addressed. However, data centers have become a very emotional issue and I’m having difficulty finding accurate information. One of the biggest issues is water use, but as I discussed in Qs 1 and 2 we have the ability to address that issue. Another issue is power consumption. Project Jupiter has settled on fuel cells after first planning a traditional power plant. The gigawatt plus requirement will require a sizable plant. The SMRs mentioned in Q1 are an option; however, SMRs produce 500 MW or less and so would require a large footprint to achieve gigawatt level production. What ever power source is used for a data center, there should be no cost to the population, either in dollars or availability.
If we are going to continue to be a technologically advanced country, these data centers are necessary. But, as in all questions of attracting industry, I oppose tax incentives. Instead, we should have policies in place that make the state attractive to any business wishing to locate here.
Q7 Q7 (Rural and Tribal Healthcare): A New Mexico analysis found that rural residents travel three to four times farther, on average, than urban residents for the hospital-based services it examined. What policies would you support to improve healthcare access in rural and Tribal communities? How would you work with Tribal governments on their priorities, and what measures would you use to assess progress?
New Mexico is a large and generally rural state. There is a shortage of necessary healthcare in the rural parts of the state, but we also can’t expect to have a fully staffed hospital in every town. That said, what we can do is make it easier and more attractive for health care providers to practice in New Mexico. The first issue to address in that regard is malpractice reform. Current law that allows unlimited punitive damages in all malpractice cases make the state unattractive; especially when most states limit those cases. Incentives for medical professionals to train and stay in the state is also an approach to improving care availability.
Q8 Q8 (K-12 Science Education): In 2025-26, science proficiency fell from 35% to 33% statewide and from 40% to 32% in Taos Municipal Schools in Northern New Mexico. In Southern New Mexico, Las Cruces Public Schools has described uneven broadband access for students in rural Doña Ana County communities. What policies would you support to strengthen K-12 science instruction across the state, particularly in rural and Tribal communities? How would you improve access to qualified teachers, laboratory learning, and advanced courses, and measure progress?
The first step is to teach our children to read. The high illiteracy rate in this state is embarrassing. Over half our students can’t read at grade level. Math proficiency is even worse. We’ll never get to your STEM concerns until we fix those two issues. Experts say the third grade is a decision point so that’s where we need to decide if a child has the basic skills to be successful in further education. That means we must provide the necessary help in early grades to bring students up to the point where they can be more successful throughout their educational journey.
Not everyone will grow up to be a scientist, but in today’s advanced world every student should be given at least a rudimentary introduction to the basics. Rural schools need to have the facilities to teach science courses. How that should be funded is the question. This state spends an amazing amount of money on school budgets. Although I don’t yet have a complete picture of what all those funds go for, I believe that overhead is eating up a good bit of the total. The priority must be on good facilities for education, not executive overhead.
Q9 Q9 (Federal Research Funding): Federal research supports jobs, scientific innovation, universities, and local businesses across New Mexico, while growth associated with major research facilities can affect housing and infrastructure. Changes to federal budgets and rules governing research grants and oversight can affect how institutions receive and administer funding. What priorities would guide your position on federal research funding in New Mexico, and what changes, if any, would you support? How would you evaluate scientific value, benefits to residents, local infrastructure and environmental costs, and accountability for public funds?
As a prospective state legislator, I don’t anticipate much involvement in federal grant decisions. On a state level, I would be most likely to support efforts to improve education (not necessarily a funding issue), and address water and land use issues. My primary involvement would be in the state’s budget process. In that regard, I want to see an overall reduction in the state budget, eliminating fraud and waste, and intelligent use of available permanent funds. The evaluation you ask about would have to be answered for each proposed project.
There is one common thread throughout these questions – I’m not the expert! I expect to rely on the considered input of those who are experts as well as those who are most impacted by a particular project or action. The bottom line in decision making is what’s right for New Mexicans, the state, and the country.