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: |
Stewart |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
260 |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
State Water Plan |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Chabot |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
$500.0 |
Recurring |
General
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Relates
to Appropriation in the General Appropriation Act: The 2002 General Appropriations Act
appropriates $500.0 as a special appropriation for development of regional and
a framework water plan.
Duplicates
SB 195
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
Department
of Game and Fish (DGF)
Energy,
Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD)
New
Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA)
Office
of the State Engineer (OSE)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House Bill 260 enacts
new statute and amends Section 72-4A-2 NMSA 1978 to require the Interstate
Stream Commission (ISC) to develop a comprehensive, coordinated state water
plan. The plan will consist of the
following: public notice, review and
comment; historic and prevailing uses; inventory of water resources; water
budgets; management and policy issues impacting the resource; common priorities
and goals; water conservation as the first water supply alternative; Native
American water rights; the connection between water availability and land use;
integration of region water plans; and appropriate water management
strategies. ISC shall convene a committee
of regional water planners and stakeholders to develop the plan and submit to
the Legislator and Governor annually suggestions for legislation and
funding. The bill stipulates no water
planning grants may be made unless the entity is part of a regional planning
group. The plan will be updated every
five years. Regional water plans must
also be updated every five years and incorporated in the state water plan.
Significant
Issues
The Legislature began authorizing regional water
plans in 1987, but has been reluctant authorize a state plan. To date, all 16 planning regions have
initiated plan development and four plans have been adopted by ISC. These plans are all in the southeast corner
of the state and are from the
ISC points out current planning efforts are
being done by term employees under special appropriations. To develop a planning structure with
recurring updates, ISC needs a permanent planning staff with continuing
appropriations through the agency operating budget.
EMNRD states that this bill would considerably
change the agency’s role in drought planning.
Executive Order 98-41 named the agency secretary as the drought task
force chairman coordinating cabinet agency efforts. This bill would put all water planning,
including drought, under the ISC.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
House 260 contains no
appropriation; however, continuing appropriations will be required to carry out
the provisions of the bill. The
Legislature has funded the planning effort by annual, special
appropriations. The planning process
needs to be funded through the agency operating budget to ensure annual
funding. The amount indicated in the
Appropriation table is based upon the existing special appropriation in the
2002 General Appropriation Act.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
The ISC will need to
determine how to integrate regional plans into a state plan and how to ensure
“other stakeholders” are part of the process in the development of the state
plan.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The term “other stakeholders” on page 4, line 2
is not defined in the bill and could be subject to differing interpretations.
ISC recommends striking the underlined phrase on
page 5, lines 12-13 and replacing it with “consistent with state water plan
policies.”
ISC recommends that the following should be
inserted after (4) on page 6, line 8:
C. qualifying projects shall have State
Engineer permitted water rights for the water use envisioned by the project,
not have adverse impacts on species protected by the federal Endangered Species
Act and not have an adverse effect on water management strategies that allow
compliance with interstate compacts.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
1.
How
long will it take ISC to develop the state water plan?
2.
What
are the ISC staffing requirements to develop the
state water plan?
3.
Will
the Legislature be required to provide funding for the updates of the regional
plans?
4.
What
is the estimated funding ISC needs annually to comply with the requirements of
this act?