'Rust' crew settles lawsuit against film producers and Alec Baldwin in fatal shooting – Morgan Lee, Associated Press
A settlement has been reached in the civil lawsuit alleging negligence in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of the Western movie “Rust”, according to court documents released Friday.
The lawsuit was brought by three “Rust” crew members seeking compensation for emotional distress from producers of “Rust," including Alec Baldwin as co-producer and lead actor.
The civil suit accused producers of failing to follow industry safety rules — allegations they denied.
Terms of the settlement were not available. Attorneys for “Rust” producers and the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached by phone or email.
Plaintiffs to the lawsuit included Ross Addiego, a front-line crew member who witnessed at close range the fatal shooting of Halyna Hutchins at close during a rehearsal in October 2021 on a film set ranch on the outskirts of Santa Fe.
A charge of involuntary manslaughter against Baldwin was dismissed at trial last year on allegations that police and prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense.
Separately, “Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and completed an 18-month sentence in May.
Prosecutors accused Gutierrez-Reed of unwittingly bringing live ammunition on set and failing to follow basic gun safety protocols.
Baldwin was pointing a gun at Hutchins during a rehearsal on a movie set outside Santa Fe when the revolver went off, killing Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza.
Addiego testified at Gutierrez-Reed's trial and appeared before the grand jury that indicted Baldwin.
The filming of “Rust” was completed in Montana. The Western was released in theaters in May.
Supreme Court to hear arguments on Tesque wastewater July 8 – Danielle Prokop, Source New Mexico
The state’s highest court will hear arguments in early July over a legal challenge to sewage disposal in Tesuque Village, as residents contend that state regulators’ permitting actions were unconstitutional.
In an order issued last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court set a date for arguments on July 8.
The hearing allows the justices to ask questions of attorneys, said Tom Hnasko, an attorney representing residents, with a brief 20-minute window for arguments.
At the center of the dustup is the New Mexico Environment Department’s nod for a proposed permit for plans to dispose of treated wastewater from Bishop’s Lodge, a luxury resort, and adjacent homes.
The permit allows for the discharge up to 30,000 gallons per day of treated wastewater into a new low-dose disposal field using a treatment plant installed in 2024. The current state permit allows Bishop’s Lodge to dispose of about half that across two disposal fields on the property.
Residents objecting to the permit coalesced into the nonprofit Protect Tesuque, which claims the disposal method threatens to pollute drinking wells downstream. Tesuque Village, with a population of about 1,000 people, relies on private wells and septic tanks.
In April, attorneys representing Project Tesuque submitted an emergency petition that claimed the state’s process amounted to a constitutional violation by unequally enforcing limitations in liquid waste laws between smaller and larger permits.
In court documents, The New Mexico Environment Department requested the court dismiss the proceedings, saying the claims did not meet the threshold of an emergency, needlessly interrupted the permitting process and that the water was treated to exceed state and federal quality standards.
“[Bishop’s Lodge] Santa Fe has the best available technology wastewater treatment facility on site that treats wastewater so thoroughly that the wastewater can be recycled and reused… to irrigate food crops,” the response stated.
Administrative proceedings for the permit’s approval started in May, but were delayed following an order from the New Mexico Supreme Court to pause the hearings until the court weighed in.
Sandia National Laboratories to cut up to 3% workforce by early fall - Megan Gleason, Albuquerque Journal
Sandia National Laboratories on Thursday announced plans to lay off up to 510 employees.
The news comes nearly two months into the tenure of new Director Laura McGill, who told the Journal when she started in May that the “workforce is in a good place.”
The plan will reduce Sandia’s workforce of nearly 17,000 by between 1% and 3%, which would represent 170 to 510 workers. The “realignment” should finish by early fall, spokesperson Kenny Vigil said via email. It’s not clear when the layoffs will start.
“Sandia is taking proactive steps to ensure the Labs’ long-term sustainability and continue delivering on its critical national security mission,” Vigil said in a statement. “Sandia has developed a restructuring plan to help reduce costs.”
The “restructuring plan” includes a voluntary separation program, if approved by the National Nuclear Security Administration, and limiting external hiring, Vigil said.
The layoffs could possibly stem from a lack of funding for renewable energy work in the labs’ proposed fiscal year 2026 budget. The proposed budget shows $0 in areas such as geothermal, wind and solar technologies.
The layoffs could amount to a big blow for Sandia, which has grown its workforce steadily from 15,533 in FY22 to 16,915 in FY24, according to the labs’ economic reports.
Sandia’s main complex is in Albuquerque, where 13,299 workers are employed, and it has a second principal laboratory in Livermore, California. It also has a presence in Hawaii, Nevada and Washington, D.C.
It’s not clear if the layoffs will be focused in Albuquerque or not.
McGill, who spoke to the Journal in May, said she was worried about how changes at a federal level could impact the labs, in response to a question. At the time, she was more directly referencing recent turmoil at the NNSA, when news of layoffs — and then rehiring — was happening.
“Our federal partners are absolutely key to our ability to work,” McGill said.
Los Lunas fires allegedly caused by tossed cigarette - Nakayla McClelland, Albuquerque Journal
Authorities say the suspect in a devastating fire told an acquaintance he wanted to show his children how fast fire can spread. The man said he did so by flicking a lit cigarette into the Rio Grande bosque behind a stretch of homes.
The result, according to Valencia County deputies, was the Cotton Fire 1, a blaze that jumped into an adjacent neighborhood and torched nearly a dozen homes. Hundreds were forced to flee with whatever belongings they could gather at a moment’s notice.
The suspect, 31-year-old Jacob LaHair, of Los Lunas, was taken into custody Wednesday and charged with one count of negligent arson and one count of criminal damage to property over $1,000. The charges are fourth-degree felonies.
LaHair’s attorney was not available for comment Thursday.
A criminal complaint filed in Los Lunas Magistrate Court unveiled the first details as to how authorities believe the fire began.
“Jacob LaHair advised (a witness) he started the fire by demonstrating to his children how fast cotton burns and proceeded to flick his cigarette onto the cotton located in the bosque,” according to the criminal complaint. The witness told deputies that LaHair “was laughing and making jokes” about starting the blaze.
Firefighters responded to a wildfire call at 2:36 p.m. in the riverside forest before the flames jumped to homes along Las Rosas Road, on the west side of the Rio Grande, south of the Main Street bridge.
The initial fire was joined by another on Sunday, the Cotton Fire 2, which sparked on the opposite side of the river. The two blazes were eventually named the Desert Willow Complex Fire.
On Tuesday, a man reported seeing LaHair walking away from the Cotton 1 Fire. LaHair told the man he was “trying to help stop the fire,” the criminal complaint said. The man’s wife took photos of LaHair as he left the area.
Deputies received another report on Wednesday from a resident who said LaHair told them he lit the fire with a cigarette, according to the complaint. The Valencia County Sheriff’s Office went to look for LaHair at a home where he had been staying.
LaHair “was not being himself,” a woman at the residence told deputies. The woman told deputies that LaHair said on Tuesday he started the fire by accident.
The woman called LaHair and told him authorities wanted to question him about the fire. The complaint states that after an arson investigator got on the phone, LaHair hung up and didn’t answer any calls.
LaHair turned himself in to the Los Lunas Police Department on Wednesday.
Tribal governments, conservation groups urge feds to keep Chaco protections - Danielle Prokop, Source New Mexico
Tribal and Pueblo governments, elected officials and conservation groups this week intensified calls for federal officials to limit the areas surrounding Chaco Canyon from further oil and gas development.
Situated in the Mancos Shale formation in the San Juan Basin, Chaco Canyon holds paramount spiritual and cultural significance to several New Mexico Pueblos, the Hopi Indians of Arizona and the Navajo Nation.
Since the Trump Administration took office, the federal government has moved to reverse a Biden administration policy — Public Land Order No. 7923 — that banned further oil and gas development on federal lands within 10 miles of the historic site for 20 years. This includes a Republican-backed bill in Congress to terminate the order.
On June 17, The National Congress of American Indians, a congress of American Indians and Alaska Natives, adopted a resolution calling on Congress to ratify federal legislation from the New Mexico’ delegation to make the withdrawal permanent. The resolution further called on the U.S. Interior Department to complete a study looking at the area’s resources and consult with tribal governments before any final decision is made.
The buffer zone policy was hard-won, said Pueblo of Acoma Governor Charles Riley, who carried the resolution in the National Congress of American Indians.
“Over a thousand years ago, our Pueblo ancestors called Chaco Canyon and the Greater Chaco Region home, creating one of the most magnificent civilizations in North America,” Riley said in a written statement this week. “Today, we stand at a crossroads where we must choose between short-term energy profits and the permanent preservation of our most sacred ancestral homeland. The choice is clear – we cannot allow the desecration of this World Heritage Site for minimal energy gains.”
A coalition of more than two dozen conservation, Indigenous and historical preservation groups and 38 members of local and state government also this week submitted letters to U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, urging him to reverse course on removing the buffer zone.
“Chaco Canyon transcends politics—it is a place of reverence that is beloved throughout our nation,” the letter reads. “The 20-year mineral withdrawal represents years of careful tribal consultation, a triballyled ethnographic study, collaborative design, and thoughtful balancing of multiple uses. It provides essential protection for sacred sites and cultural resources while respecting Tribal sovereignty and development rights.”
By the #s: Nearly a quarter of the Gila is protected as ‘roadless.’ Those protections could be nixed – Patrick Lomann, Source New Mexico
United States Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ announcement June 23 in Santa Fe that her agency is seeking to repeal the “Roadless Rule” has drawn sharp criticism from environmental groups in New Mexico and across the country.
Nixing the rule means 58 million acres of land across the country could lose protections from road construction and logging the areas have enjoyed since 2001. Environmental groups, including New Mexico Wild, have said stripping the protections could spell the end of some of the last wild places in America.
“This will cause immense damage to public lands, drinking water, and wildlife, and also threatens to increase wildfires,” a Climate Forests Campaign, a coalition of environmental groups, said in a joint statement Tuesday.
A news release from New Mexico Wild notes that the Forest Service received 1.6 million comments in favor of the “Roadless Rule” when the agency was considering it more than 20 years ago, “more comments than any other rule in the nation’s history.”
About 1.6 million acres, or about 2,500 square miles, in national forests in New Mexico are currently protected.
A Source New Mexico review of Forest Service data shows that the Gila National Forest, one of five national forests in the state, could lose the most protected land to roads and other development.
More than 730,000 acres of the Gila’s 3.3 million acres of land is currently protected, though about 45,000 acres of it does allow roads to be built or rebuilt under certain circumstances, according to a Source New Mexico review. The Gila National Wilderness recently celebrated its 100th anniversary.
Rollins, in her speech Monday at the Western Governors’ Association meeting, touted the repeal as a way to protect forests against wildfires and also to put more “logs on trucks” as the Trump administration seeks to rekindle a nationwide logging industry in federal forests.
“The heavy hand of Washington will no longer inhibit the management of our nation’s forests,” she said.
Environmental groups have pushed back against Rollins’ claim that the repeal could reduce the risk of wildfire. New Mexico Wild’s statement Tuesday said “human-caused fire ignitions are far more likely in roaded landscapes.”
Since Monday, the USDA website about the “Roadless Rule” has now been updated with next steps about what repeal will look like, including an environmental analysis; consultation with tribes and affected states; and compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
“More information will be released as the rescission process gets underway,” the website says.
See the maps below of each of New Mexico’s national forest, excluding the sliver of Coronado National Forest located in the state’s southwest corner.
The Forest Service map of “roadless inventoried areas” includes the following:
- Areas where road construction is prohibited;
- areas where it is prohibited and also where the Forest Service has recommended it be designated a “wilderness”; and
- areas where road construction is allowed in certain circumstances.