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
|
SPONSOR |
Smith |
DATE TYPED |
|
HB |
|
||
|
SHORT
TITLE |
State Lease Holder Drought Relief |
SJM |
37 |
||||
|
|
ANALYST |
Aguilar |
|||||
REVENUE
|
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
|
FY04 |
FY05 |
|||
|
|
(Significant) |
See
Narrative |
Recurring |
OSF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
Commissioner
of Public Lands
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
Senate Joint Memorial 37 requests the
Commissioner of Public Lands to provide economic relief for those lessees who
have been severely affected by drought conditions on their state trust land
lease holdings.
Significant Issues
Senate Joint Memorial 37 notes that drought has affected range conditions, yet no commensurate reduction in fees paid has been made.
Senate Joint Memorial 37 requests that Commissioner of Public Lands review the current rates for stocking and rental of all state trust land under agricultural lease and identify areas affected by drought and if applicable, offer drought relief to protect the state’s natural resources.
SLO
reports that drought relief should be considered by freezing rental rates,
adjusting the carrying capacity where warranted, requesting livestock
reductions and adjusting rentals on a percentage basis. Only lessees in good
standing are entitled drought relief.
SLO
notes that freezing the formula is the most viable option at this time; other
options would create an administrative burden on the agency.
Additionally,
SLO indicates that this legislation could result in protecting state trust
lands by encouraging lessees to carefully evaluate their livestock management
practices.
FISCAL
IMPLICATIONS
All proposed options will result in revenue loss
for the trust; however an accurate determination of the actual impact on
revenues is unclear at this time.
Reevaluating and recalculating all of the factors that make up rate
determinations is not funded by this legislation and
will cause considerable resource problems to the state land office.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
SLO reports that
activities required to meet the intent of this joint memorial will result in an
enormous effort to calculate and evaluate carrying capacities of the land. With more than 9 million acres of land in the
trust, this effort may be unmanageable in the short term.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
Proposed
options may conflict with the Enabling Act. Options available other than freezing the
formula could cause a fiscal and administrative burden on the agency due to the
intermingled land status of the state. State trust lands are located in every
county of the state except
PA/yr