It’s been over three months since the South Fork and Salt Fires devastated Ruidoso and the surrounding areas, causing more than $29 million in damage, and victims are frustrated with the federal government’s response.
RUIDOSO, N.M. – It’s been over three months since the South Fork and Salt Fires devastated Ruidoso area, causing more than $29 million in damage.
Since then, the community has also faced flood after flood. Luckily, they’ve gotten a break from Mother Nature, but they’re still picking up the pieces.
KOB 4 spoke to FEMA officials about how they’ve helped some fire and flooding victims. But there are residents who say they’ve been having trouble getting that help.
Advertisement
“It has been a nightmare. I’m telling you because I’ve gone over there like 21 times, and they haven’t responded,” said Priscilla Aguilar, a wildfire evacuee.
Aguilar and Abel Montelongo are trying to get their money back. They had to leave Ruidoso Downs because of the South Fork and Salt Fires.
According to Montelongo, FEMA was supposed to help with those costs. However, after trying to track them down several times, he never got his money back. He did get $291 in food stamps/EBT money.
But it was flooding, not the fires, that impacted Aguilar and Montelongo’s home.
“Since the rain and the water is coming into the yard and getting under the house, it’s going to ruin all the piping,” Aguilar said.
Advertisement
Aguilar says they didn’t get the sandbags that officials promised them. At this point, they just want answers.
“At least they should have sent us a letter saying, ‘We’re not going to help you.’ Because that’s a promise that they made, not just to us, but to the whole community,” Aguilar said.
They applied for flooding insurance after FEMA mentioned an exception with the National Flooding Insurance Program might expedite the process.
“Normally, when you buy a brand-new flood insurance policy, there is a 30-day waiting period,” said Roberto Ramirez, a director of FEMA’s hazard mitigation branch. “If you are in a post-wildfire situation, like we are in Ruidoso, those 30 days can change to one day.”
There are different qualifications. For example:
Advertisement
If the fire happened on federal land
If you bought a flooding insurance policy within 60 days of the fire being fully contained
If the flooding results from, or was made worse by, a wildfire
“We’re still within at least those 60 days from fire containment,” Ramirez said.
According to ArcGIS data, both fires were 100% contained Aug. 26. That means you have until Oct. 25 to apply.
“In Lincoln County, there’s only 252 policies. That’s the entire county. There’s a lot of people that don’t have flood insurance. Right now, we only had 73 claims since the disaster was declared,” Ramirez said.
We reached out to FEMA on behalf of Aguilar and Montelongo. However, FEMA told us that they can’t discuss individual cases due to privacy.
KOB 4 was told that once someone receives a letter of denial, they can appeal it. Denials can also happen for a number of reasons.
FEMA sent KOB 4 the following statement:
“They have 60 days from the date that appears in the Determination Letter. That letter is not the last word.
Advertisement
When someone applies with FEMA, we send an Inspector to verify losses and damages, ownership of property or rental contract and identity of the person. If the applicant don’t keep the appointment the system generates a Letter.
Many times survivors don’t present sufficient evidence and FEMA ask for more documentation such as hotel receipts with letterhead, and the dates have to match with the evacuation dates, food receipts, contractors estimates are verified. Every case is unique.”
Though the alleged sex trafficking on Jeffrey Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little Saint James, has dominated the national discourse recently, another Epstein property has largely stayed out of the news — but perhaps not for long. A ranch outside Santa Fe, New Mexico, that belonged to the disgraced financier has been the subject of on-and-off investigations, and many are now reexamining what role the ranch may have played in Epstein’s crimes.
What is the ranch in question?
The compound, named Zorro Ranch, includes a 30,000-square-foot mansion that “sits on a ridge overlooking thousands of acres of southwestern land,” said The New York Times. The ranch is in the middle of the desert, an area with low population density where the “nearest neighbors are miles away and most everyone minds their own business.”
Epstein first purchased the ranch in 1993, and it made his seven-story Manhattan penthouse “look like a shack,” he said to Vanity Fair in 2003. Recently released photos by the Department of Justice “provide a look inside the tightly guarded gates” of the compound, said the Santa Fe New Mexican, including images that “show Epstein and others posing” throughout the ranch. In addition to the main house, Zorro Ranch also had a “three-bedroom lodge and off-the-grid log cabin as well as a 4,400-foot airstrip with an aircraft hangar and helipad.”
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week’s Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Why is the ranch being investigated?
Given the isolated nature of Zorro Ranch, there are numerous allegations about “what role the secluded spot played in sexual abuse or sex trafficking of underage girls and young women,” said The Associated Press. Several of Epstein’s public victims have claimed they were trafficked at the ranch, but “New Mexico leaders say there has never been a thorough investigation of the criminal activity that may have occurred” on the property, said the Times.
Advertisement
There was previously a minimal investigation into the ranch, which was “taken over by federal prosecutors in 2019, and then apparently fizzled, according to New Mexico officials and recently unsealed records,” said the Times. However, unlike Epstein’s other properties, federal agents “did not appear to have ever searched Zorro Ranch,” according to a report from The Guardian. Officials were “paying attention to Paris, Little Saint James, New York and Miami, but they didn’t pay attention to Zorro Ranch,” Eddy Aragon, an Albuquerque radio D.J. and Epstein researcher, told the Times.
Following public pressure related to Epstein, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez recently “ordered that the criminal investigation into allegations of illegal activity at Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch be reopened,” the New Mexico Department of Justice said in a press release. But since Epstein’s 2019 death, the ranch has come under new ownership, meaning an investigation may not be simple.
After the most recent batch of Epstein documents was released, the “claims in the documents have proved impossible to ignore,” said the Times. Most notable is a 2019 email alleging that in the “hills outside the Zorro, two foreign girls were buried on orders of Jeffrey and Madam G,” the latter apparently referencing Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. “Both died by strangulation during rough, fetish sex.” The sender of the email was “redacted by the DOJ,” said CNN. It is “not clear that those allegations have been investigated by law enforcement.”
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Polls are now open in Rio Rancho where voters are set to elect a new mayor and decide several key measures Tuesday.
RIO RANCHO, N.M. — Rio Rancho voters are set to elect a new mayor and decide several key measures Tuesday in one of New Mexico’s fastest growing cities.
Voters will make their way to one of the 14 voting centers open Tuesday to decide which person will become mayor, replacing Gregg Hull. These six candidates are running:
Like Albuquerque, Rio Rancho candidates need to earn 50% of the votes to win. Otherwise, the top two candidates will go to a runoff election.
Advertisement
Regardless of who wins, this will be the first time Rio Rancho voters will elect a new mayor in over a decade. Their priorities include addressing crime and how fast the city is growing, as well as improving infrastructure and government transparency, especially as the site of a new Project Ranger missile project.
The only other race with multiple candidates is the District 5 city council seat. Incumbent Karissa Culbreath faces a challenge from Calvin Ducane Ward.
Voters will also decide the fate of three general obligation bonds:
LAS VEGAS, N.M. — The approaching desert dusk did nothing to settle Travis Regensberg’s nerves as he and a small herd of stray cattle awaited the appearance of a state livestock inspector with whom he had a 30-year feud.
This was Nov. 3, 2023, and, as Regensberg tells it, the New Mexico Livestock Board had maintained an agreement for almost a decade: Livestock Inspector Matthew Romero would not service his ranch due to a long history of bad blood between the two men. False allegations of “cattle rustling” had surfaced in the past, Regensberg said.
A dramatic standoff that evening, caught on lapel camera video, shows Regensberg at the entrance gate of his ranch. Defiant, Regensberg says anyone but Romero can pick up the stray cattle he had asked state livestock officials to pick up earlier in the day. Romero, who is backed up by two New Mexico State Police officers, directs Regensberg to open the gate or he will be arrested.
Advertisement
“You guys can send somebody who is not Matthew Romero,” Regensberg says in the video, which The New Mexican received through a public records request.
Then-New Mexico Livestock Board Deputy Director Darron “Shawn” Davis can be heard in the video during a call on Romero’s phone, saying, “Matthew, go ahead and arrest Mr. Regensberg for obstruction.”
Regensberg, a contractor and rancher, filed a civil rights lawsuit in February against the New Mexico Livestock Board, Romero and Davis, alleging an “appalling misuse” of power from the state agency. Initially filed in the state District Court in San Miguel County, the suit has been moved to U.S. District Court.
Advertisement
Travis Regensberg, rancher and contractor, practices his throw on a roping dummy in his barn in Las Vegas, N.M., on Feb. 17, 2025.
Gabriela Campos/The New Mexican
Regensberg, 60, maintains the incident that evening and the criminal charges later filed against him marked a “conspiracy” on the part of state livestock officials to use the weight of the agency to ruin his reputation amid a long-standing grudge held by Romero.
Advertisement
The District Attorney’s Office in San Miguel County filed criminal charges against Regensberg after the incident, although he was not arrested that night. The counts included unlawful dispossession of animals, livestock running at large and use of a telephone to intimidate and harass — all of which were dismissed “with prejudice,” meaning prosecutors could not refile them, in late 2024. An unlawful branding charge also did not stick.
Regensberg’s suit asserts the board pursued charges of cattle dispossession against him, even though he had called livestock officials and told them to pick up the stray cattle that had wandered onto his property. It says the agency also pursued a charge of cattle running at large, after state officials left a gate open on his property, allowing some of his own cattle to get loose that night.
Romero and Davis both declined to comment on the case.
Davis said he retired in July after 25 years with the agency, noting his retirement was unrelated to the case.
Romero has also retired from the agency; the livestock board did not answer a question about whether his retirement had any connection to the lawsuit.
Advertisement
Legal counsel for the defendants filed a 30-page motion Feb. 16 seeking to dismiss the case, arguing the defendants had cause to charge Regensberg.
“In this view, Plaintiff appears to argue that his history of conflict with Defendant Romero legally permits him to obstruct the performance of Defendant Romero’s duties. No facts support that this unlawful obstruction was anticipated,” the motion states.
“Just like any individual would not be able to choose which [state police] officer could pull them over for a traffic infraction, Plaintiff is not allowed to unilaterally decide which [livestock] Inspector would show up to a call,” the motion continues.
Unlawful impound?
The dislike between the two men evidently started when they were teenagers or in their early 20s. The suit states the pair had once shared rides to bull-riding events at rodeos, but the relationship soured when Regensburg made a certain pointed comment to Romero.
Advertisement
The lawsuit lays out subsequent flare-ups between the two men, including at a Wagon Mound rodeo and at a state park in San Miguel County where Romero was working as a ranger.
A small herd of Travis Regensberg’s cattle eat feed on his property in Las Vegas, N.M.
Advertisement
Gabriela Campos/The New Mexican
Belinda Garland, executive director of the New Mexico Livestock Board, declined to comment on the case.
“This matter is currently before the courts,” she wrote in an email. “Out of respect for the legal process, we cannot comment further. We intend to vigorously defend against the allegations and are confident in our position.”
State police officers were able to defuse the situation that night and convince Regensberg to let officials onto his property after they promised to manage any conflicts between him and Romero.
Advertisement
Someone left a gate open when they entered, allowing about 20 of Regensberg’s cattle to escape. All of those cattle were gathered back onto his ranch, except for a steer.
He alleges state officials later impounded the steer and sold it for just $75 at the Belen livestock auction without telling him.
In the motion to dismiss the case, lawyers for Romero, Davis and the livestock board say officials had informed Regensberg earlier in the day the cattle belonged to a neighbor.
“Plaintiff refused to allow [his neighbor] to pick up the cattle and demanded that NMLB come get the cattle, even though he was told that the cattle were [his neighbor’s] cattle by a NMLB Inspector,” the motion states. “Plaintiff fed and watered the cattle, without consent of the owner.”
Regensberg said he did not turn the cattle over to his neighbor because the receipt his neighbor presented to him from a Valencia County livestock auction showed they had been purchased at 2:56 p.m. that day, while the stray cattle had turned up on his property that morning.
Advertisement
“The invoice shown to him was for cattle purchased only minutes earlier at location more than a two-hour drive from Regensberg’s ranch in Las Vegas,” his lawsuit says.
Legal counsel for the livestock board have offered up a different narrative.
“By refusing to allow Defendant Romero on his property, and by knowingly herding, locking away, feeding, and watering [his neighbor’s] cattle, there was more than enough probable cause to charge Plaintiff with unlawful disposition of an animal,” states the motion to dismiss.
“I’m just going to go with obstruction, failure to comply,” Romero says in the lapel camera video, talking to two state police officers about Regensberg, who by that time in the evening had gone into his own residence on the property. “I can get him on unlawful impound, too.”
The history
Advertisement
What occurred Nov. 3, 2023, could have been a fairly routine job for state livestock agents, according to the lawsuit. Stray cattle had wandered onto Regensberg’s land that morning through a gate opened by a family member who had driven onto his property.
Regensberg, the suit states, herded the strays into an enclosure around 11:15 a.m. and then called a state livestock inspector to remove the animals, following what he believed to be correct protocol.
Eventually Regensberg, according to the lawsuit, fed the cattle as the day lengthened and as no state inspectors had come to remove the animals. Regensberg was told Romero was the only agent available to get the stray cattle, even as he insisted the agency send someone else.
Advertisement
Travis Regensberg takes a bag of feed out to his cattle followed by his dog Rooster in Las Vegas, N.M., on Feb. 17, 2025.
Gabriela Campos/The New Mexican
The suit states Romero had previously accused Regensberg in a 2014 lawsuit of threatening to kill him, so Regensberg was concerned Romero would try to shoot him that night.
Advertisement
In the late 1980s or early 1990s, according to the lawsuit, Regensberg was riding a motorcycle on a park roadway heading to a July 4 family gathering when he was stopped by Romero, who told him motorcycles were prohibited from the park and he would have to leave. Regensberg sought to explain he was on his way to a family gathering and would only ride on the road.
“Romero flared, insisting Regensberg’s motorcycle was prohibited and demanded he leave the Park,” the lawsuit says. “Regensberg left, which meant he missed the family gathering. After becoming a livestock inspector, Romero began confronting and harassing Regensberg at various events.”
‘A matter of principle’
It is not the first such lawsuit the agency has recently faced.
A suit filed in a little over a year ago in state District Court by Mike Archuleta, a Rowe cattleman, accuses the board of violating his civil rights by relying on false accusations made by a Texas-based rancher as the basis for seizing five unbranded calves from their home in 2023 and selling them at auction before the couple could prove through DNA testing the animals belonged to them.
Advertisement
Travis Regensberg gathers his rope while practicing his throw on a roping dummy in his barn in Las Vegas, N.M., on Feb. 17, 2025.
Gabriela Campos/The New Mexican
Advertisement
Regensberg, a team roper, reflected on how the whole affair has hurt his reputation in the small communities where he has spent his whole life.
He thinks the power of the state should not be used to settle what is, in his view, a personal score. Bringing feed pelts out to the pasture on a recent day — the wind tearing across the landscape and tearing at his clothing — Regensburg said he had to sell about 30 head of cattle just to pay legal fees.
“It’s about accountability,” he said of the lawsuit. “It’s a matter of principle.”
