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: |
|
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Land for |
SB |
728 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Chabot |
|||||
REVENUE
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
$.01 (See
Narrative) |
$.01 (See
Narrative) |
Recurring |
Permanent
Fund |
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
Attorney
General (AG)
Commission
on Higher Education (CHE)
Commissioner
of Public Lands (SLO)
Interstate
Stream Commission (ISC)
New
Mexico Environment Department (NMED)
Office
of the State Engineer (OSE)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
Senate Bill 728 provides
that the State Land Office (SLO) may take into trust land purchased by ISC to
protect and retire water rights along the
Significant
Issues
The Legislature appropriated $42,000.0 in the
2002 session to the State Engineer/Interstate Stream Commission to purchase
land along the
AG states there are no
legal issues with this bill.
ISC points out SLO has experience and resources
to provide management over lands purchased under the
The State Land Office states that if it takes
the land into trust that any sale of the land would require the proceeds to be
deposited in the permanent fund by the Enabling Act. This would conflict with the requirements in
Section 72-1-2.4(h) which requires any proceeds will be deposited in the Irrigation
Works Construction Fund.
CHE states
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
It can be anticipated
that the land will accrue some revenue; however, since nothing has been
purchased to date, it is difficult to estimate what revenue will be
earned. In addition, there will be
up-keep costs on the land until a use is found that will reduce any revenue
earned by SLO ownership.
ISC states that there
is no provision in the bill to pay assessment costs due to the Carlsbad Irrigation
District. The amount required will be
determined after purchases are made.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
Section 72-1-2.4H NMSA 1978 provides that if
land purchases and appurtenant water rights are no longer needed to meet
“Provided, however, that in the event the
interstate stream commission determines that the total Pecos river rights it
has purchased with appropriations made by the legislature for that purpose are
in excess of those rights permanently needed for compliance with New Mexico’s
obligations under the Pecos River Compact, then the commissioner of public
lands shall return the lands to the interstate stream commission for sale in
accordance with the provisions of Section 72-1-2.4H NMSA 1978. The revenue from such sales shall be
deposited into the
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
SLO provides these
additional issues: “If the bill did not
include the lands in the Enabling Act trust, the bill would have to specify,
among other things: a) whether and how
the Commissioner can dispose of such property through sale, lease or exchange;
b) where the rents, profits, royalties and other proceeds from the use and
enjoyment of the land would be deposited; c) from what monies could the
Commissioner spend to maintain and protect the land for the sake of the designated
beneficiary. Such specificity would
unnecessary complicate the legislation and lead to additional administrative
burdens on the State Land Office, as opposed to managing the land in the same
manner as the over 9 million surface and 13 million subsurface acres overseen
by the Commissioner pursuant to existing law.”
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
GAC/njw