Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they are used for other purposes.

 

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are available on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).  Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may also be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

 

F I S C A L    I M P A C T    R E P O R T

 

 

SPONSOR

Ponce

DATE TYPED

02/10/04

HB

375/aHENRC

 

SHORT TITLE

Pecos River Phreatophyte Control

SB

 

 

 

ANALYST

Maloy/Williams/Baca

 

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY04

FY05

FY04

FY05

$2,500.0

 

 

 

Recurring

General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

 

Relates to House Bill 53, Senate Bill 212, Senate Bill 230, Senate Bill 322

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

 

Responses Received From

Office of the State Engineer

Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources

New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA)

Commission on Higher Education

 

SUMMARY

    

            Synopsis of HENRC Amendment

 

The House Energy and Natural Resources Committee requires that NMSU shall conduct an

assessment.

 

Synopsis of Original Bill

 

House Bill 375 appropriates $2.5 million from the general fund to the board of regents of New Mexico State University for expenditure in FY04 – FY06, with $1.25 million being expended for non-native phreatophyte eradication and control and $1.25 million being expended for re-vegetation with native species on the Pecos river.

 

The bill’s appropriation is contingent on soil and water conservation districts:

 

·        developing management and vegetation plans;

·        conducting hearings within the local districts to receive public input;

·        carrying out aerial spraying only by helicopter or ground application with prior public notice;

·        monitoring effects of the control on wildlife, water, soil and vegetation quality and health; and

·        if control affects threaten or endangered species, complying with applicable federal law and associated recovery plans.

 

The bill also charges NMDA with publishing a project expenditure report. 

 

The bill contains an emergency clause.

 

Significant Issues

 

The bill lacks accountability requirements for NMDA included in related bills.

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The appropriation of $2.5 million contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general fund.  Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of FY06 shall revert to the general fund.

 

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES  

 

Other agencies, such as the Office of the State Engineer and those listed below, likely should be involved in the removal process and quantification assessments.  The appropriate Interstate Stream Commission river manager(s) have not been involved in planning or implementation.  Further, the Office of the State Engineer reports it has not been informed of any quantification of water savings, or any future plan for quantification by the university. 

 

The LFC recommended a quantification evaluation be undertaken by the university, and a report be made to the LFC and other appropriate committees during the FY05 interim.

 

According to the New Mexico Department of Agriculture:

 

  • These projects require NMDA to expend significant resources for administering funds, ensuring  legislative requirements are met, and coordinating a broad spectrum of stakeholders.
  • Phreatophyte control efforts already underway have reached approximately 15,000 acres.  Water conserved within these river systems will help meet water delivery requirements of interstate compacts, reducing the need for the state to purchase water rights.
  • NMDA notes opportunities to leverage federal funds.

 

According to the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department:

 

·        Significant issues relate to the importance of restoring native vegetation and enhancing water supplies.  Stands of non-native salt cedar trees are vulnerable to wildfire, but regeneration increases when burned.  Bosque fires often damage native riparian vegetation.  Streamside stands of salt cedar and Russian olive are believed to move significant amounts of water through the leaves and release the moisture into the atmosphere (transpiration).  It may be possible to improve stream flows by removing these species. 

·        The Forestry Division is aware of some issues regarding the implementation of last year’s appropriation.  In particular, there may be some problems with herbicide impacts to non-target vegetation and drought impacting natural vegetation recovery.  This year’s program would benefit from the increased project design and evaluation.

·        This bill will indirectly benefit the Forestry Division’s efforts to restore the health of riparian ecosystems.  Removing stands of salt cedar and replacing them with native vegetation will reduce the risk of wildfires and make suppression less costly. 

 

According to the Office of the State Engineer:

 

·        Removal of non-native phreatophytes may or may not result in any water salvage or gain.  The potential savings, reduction in evapo-transpirated water from plants, is exceedingly difficult to measure and compare between non-native phreatophytes and re-introduced native vegetation.  The bill should require planning for what vegetation will be reintroduced before any spraying takes place. 

·        The impacts of the applied herbicides on endangered species will likewise be difficult to assess.  The bill should require careful study of Endangered Species Act issues prior to application.  Salt cedar currently serves as an effective bank stabilization agent and helps to prevent erosion.  Large-scale eradication may have deleterious effects in some areas and the bill should require thorough consideration.

·        As part of the funding provided, New Mexico State University should contract with another entity such as Jornada Experimental Range to evaluate and report on the results of the program it is tasked with executing.  This would provide oversight by an agency other than that implementing the project.

 

AMENDMENTS

 

The Office of the State Engineer proposes the following:

 

As part of the funding requirements, the bill should additionally require:

 

·        A rigorous scientific evaluation of long-term water uses before and after phreatophyte eradication.

·        A study and plan to prevent deleterious erosion or bank de-stabilization.

·        Require NMSU to contract with an outside entity such as USDA’s ARS Jornada Experimental Range evaluate and report on the results of the program.

·        Require that a long-term management plan be developed by the property owner prior to treatment.

 

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

 

How can the state improve communication and teamwork among the various agencies (Environment, Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources, Agriculture, universities, and the State Engineer) to address the drought?   

 

SJM/yr:lg:dm