Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Let me give you an example: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
The answer to this example can be: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Here is why: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

OK. solve this:
Paragraph: Attorney General Hector Balderas and the New Mexico Environment Department on Wednesday filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to require regular groundwater and surface water sampling as the case proceeds. They also want the Air Force to offer voluntary blood tests for residents who may have been exposed to the contamination as well as provide additional documentation on the extent of contamination around Cannon and Holloman air bases. The state sued in April, saying the federal government has a responsibility to clean up toxic chemicals left behind by past military firefighting activities. "I am extremely frustrated that the Air Force has not been responsive to protecting the health and safety of New Mexican families by addressing years of environmental pollution," Balderas said in a statement. The contamination is linked to chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. The Air Force has not commented directly on the pending litigation but has argued its response to PFAS contamination in New Mexico and elsewhere has been aggressive. Officials have said they've been working with regulators to identify and implement long-term solutions to prevent exposure. New Mexico environmental regulators first issued a notice of violation to the Air Force in 2018 for failing to properly address the contamination at Cannon Air Force Base near Clovis. They followed earlier this year on Holloman, saying that base had violated its state permit and had yet to respond to concerns about the pollution near Alamogordo. Balderas in May requested that a publicly accessible lake at Holloman be closed to limit exposure after sampling indicated PFAS contamination was dozens of times higher than federal health advisory levels. Fed by treated wastewater from the base, the lake already is off limits to swimming but camping is allowed along the shoreline. Balderas' office said Wednesday it believed the lake was still open. Similar contamination has been found at dozens of military sites across the nation, and growing evidence that exposure can be dangerous has prompted the EPA to consider setting a maximum level for the chemicals in drinking water nationwide. Currently only non-enforceable drinking water health advisories are in place. Members of New Mexico's congressional delegation have argued that the contamination needs to be addressed. A defense spending bill pending in Congress includes some provisions aimed at tackling PFAS, from funding further study on the best ways to clean up and dispose of contaminated groundwater and soils to assistance for dairies and other affected businesses. Claim: New Mexico AG 'frustrated' with response to contamination.
Answer:
Top New Mexico officials want the U.S. Air Force to immediately begin defining the boundaries of plumes of contamination at two bases in the state and provide alternate water supplies to affected residents.