NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
Foley |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
HM 19 |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Reevaluate Endangered Species Act |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Maloy |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
See Narrative |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relates to SM 36 and Duplicates SM 8.
Responses
Received From
Energy,
Minerals and Natural Resources
Game
and Fish Department
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House Memorial 19 requests the United States
Congress to reevaluate the worth to the nation’s citizens of the failed
programs generated by the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), and to
restore property rights to the citizens.
In support of this request, HM 36 does the following:
· describes the history of the Federal Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973;
· asserts that private property owners have the greatest influence over the survival of endangered species, and that most of the costs of the Act are borne by private property owners because the Act provides restricts private property rights;
· provides estimates for the costs for endangered species recovery and the number of jobs lost due to recovery;
· reports the impact of critical habitat designation is not evenly distributed across the states;
· states affected communities perceive political considerations play a greater role than reliable scientific consideration in the designation of species;
· states that critics of the Act assert it is used as a punitive weapon against selected interests and economic endeavors; and
· reports only eight species of 1,400 listed as threatened or endangered have been recovered since 1973.
· The memorial asserts the position that
private property owners have been negatively affected by the Act.
· The memorial references national data and
may not reflect specific conditions in
FISCAL
IMPLICATIONS
·
While
there are no fiscal implications relating to the Memorial itself, if the
memorial were acted upon by Congress, there could be significant fiscal
implications for the Department of Game and Fish. The department receives federal funding
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act for the department’s nongame
and endangered species program. The
department receives approximately $150,000 – 1$75,000 annually.
· Loss of this funding would result in the
department no longer having the funding necessary to support 2 – 3 of its
FTEs.
·
·
Some of
these funds are used to support conservation and recovery activities pursuant
to the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act for designation and preservation of
critical habitat, or any comparable habitat designation. These funds are also used to achieve conservation
of species in
POSSIBLE
QUESTIONS
· In what ways do private property owners influence the survival of endangered species?
· What are the “costs” being borne by New Mexicans, as private property owners, because of the Act?
SJM/ls