nuclear-news

Rio Rancho residents sound alarm over hypersonic missile plant

by Kevin Hendricks, Sandoval Signpost, 17 Nov 25

Rio Rancho residents packed a Nov. 13 city council meeting to voice sharp divisions over a resolution that would provide water services to a controversial hypersonic missile manufacturing facility, with speakers citing both national security imperatives and environmental risks.

The resolution, which authorizes the city manager to negotiate water and potentially wastewater services for Castelion’s Project Ranger facility, represents an exception to Rio Rancho’s longstanding policy against providing utilities outside city limits.

Four days after the meeting, on Nov. 17, California-based Castelion officially announced it had selected Sandoval County for the 1,000-acre manufacturing campus, which will be located about 3 miles west of Rio Rancho city limits on unincorporated county land.

The facility is projected to generate more than $650 million in economic output over the next decade and create more than 300 jobs with average salaries of $100,000, according to the New Mexico Economic Development Department.

Safety and environmental concerns

Several residents raised an alarm about potential risks to public health and the environment. Steven Van Horn noted that KRQE had announced just hours before the meeting that a toxic chromium plume from Los Alamos National Laboratory had spread to Pueblo land, with contamination levels exceeding state groundwater standards.

“This plant is going to be near three of our wells, transporting stuff that has no limitation on transport,” Van Horn said, warning of flood risks and water contamination.

Michael Farrell submitted a detailed written comment opposing the resolutions, arguing that Sandoval County advanced the project on county land while asking the city to fund access roads and deliver water without a guaranteed tax base or annexation. He said the move would break Rio Rancho’s policy since 2009 of limiting water and wastewater service to inside city boundaries.

Farrell expressed concern about water usage, citing a presentation from an Oct. 21 public meeting that indicated the facility would use water equivalent to approximately 50 households, or nearly 8 million gallons of water annually.

He also noted that the city dissolved its Utilities Commission in 2017, removing what he called “the public’s most technically qualified watchdog over major water and infrastructure decisions.”

Elaine Cimino filed a 10-page written objection citing procedural defects in the approval process and concerns about ammonium perchlorate, a toxic oxidizer used in rocket motors that can contaminate groundwater. She said no baseline groundwater, air or soil testing had been conducted before approval.

Cimino also raised concerns about impacts on mortgage insurance, noting that roughly 24 percent of Rio Rancho homeowners hold FHA-insured mortgages and could face rate increases of 20 to 100 percent if the area is reclassified as a high-fire-risk zone. She cited a wildfire report estimating potential public losses between $515 million and $2.5 billion from a wildfire or detonation incident.

“This project operates without active federal, state, or municipal oversight, relying instead on self-certification by a private weapons manufacturer,” Cimino wrote.

Connie Hoffman, a resident of Nicklaus Drive SE, said the facility is too close to residential areas and expressed concerns about unknown impacts on land, air and water supply.

“This belongs somewhere else, farther away from civilization,” Hoffman wrote. “I love the sunsets, the weather, the safe feeling — this will not be the same if this is allowed to go forward.”

Zachary Darden, a Bernalillo County Open Space employee who lives in Rio Rancho, questioned the impacts on property owners in the area and raised concerns about national security, given the facility’s proximity to Sandia National Laboratories and Kirtland Air Force Base.

Technical documents reviewed by the Sandoval Signpost in October showed that emergency explosion scenarios could affect structures up to 5 miles away, with 5,933 buildings and structures within that radius. The site sits 2.9 miles from Rio Rancho’s Northern Meadows neighborhood.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Procedural concerns

Cimino’s written comment alleged multiple procedural violations in the approval process, including what she described as back-dating of the intergovernmental agreement between the city and county.

She noted that Sandoval County approved the agreement on Oct. 22, with an effective date of Nov. 1, even though the Rio Rancho City Council was not scheduled to vote on it until Nov. 13.

“This creates a chronological impossibility — an agreement cannot take effect before one of the contracting parties lawfully adopts it,” Cimino wrote.

She also alleged violations of the state’s Open Meetings Act, claiming that three lease agreements were added to a county agenda less than 24 hours before a vote in September, and that the company’s identity was withheld from the public until after county bonds were announced.

Farrell noted that the March city elections are approaching and said the Nov. 13 vote would have “enormous implications.”

“We’ve already seen how Sandoval County commissioners failed residents by fast-tracking this project without adequate notice, safeguards, or accountability — and voters will remember that,” Farrell wrote…………. https://sandovalsignpost.com/2025/11/rio-rancho-residents-sound-alarm-over-hypersonic-missile-plant/

November 19, 2025 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | opposition to nuclear, USA