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 a vailable 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 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 Griego

DATE TYPED 3/10/05

HB

SHORT TITLE Soil and Water Commission Watershed Coordinator SB 690/aSCONC

ANALYST Aguilar

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

$60.0 Recurring General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Duplicates HB 661

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

New Mexico Finance Authority (NMFA)

Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD)

Office of the State Engineer (OSE)

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of SCONC Amendment

The Senate Conservation Committee amendment to Senate Bill 690 changes the scope of a re-

sponsibility to be assigned to the watershed coordinator from the use of to coordination with

the range improvement task force.

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Bill 690 provides for the Soil and Water Conservation Commission to establish a position

for and appoint a watershed coordinator whose duties would include: establishing cooperative

agreements between government agencies; coordinating landowner agreements; establishing a

clearinghouse for statewide watershed information in cooperation with the Water Resources Re-

search Institute; using the range improvement task force as the technical advisory group for wa-

tershed projects; increasing watershed education programs through the cooperative extension

service and soil and water conservation districts; expanding opportunities for biomass use and

Senate Bill 690/aSCONC -- Page 2

development and continue expansion of job development for watershed restoration projects.

Significant Issues

As demand for water increases, the limited supply of water will necessitate improved methods of

husbanding those supplies. Watershed improvement is one proposed method to better salvage

and harvest water. Evaluations of the benefits from watershed improvements, though touted by

many, are difficult to substantiate. The latest scientific evaluations of watershed improvement

projects indicate that water salvage is usually much less than anticipated, especially in the long

term. To ensure maximum benefit from expended funds, the legislature may wish to consider

subjecting watershed improvement projects to rigorous scientific planning, review, and evalua-

tion.

Section 9-5A-10 NMSA 1978 directs the Secretary of the Energy, Minerals and Natural Re-

sources Department (EMNRD) to develop a comprehensive watershed restoration strategy that

sets guidelines for coordination with state and federal land management agencies and political

subdivisions, including the soil and water conservation districts and other stakeholders. As a re-

sult of this legislation, the responsibility for convening and stewarding the Forest and Watershed

Health planning process was assigned to the State Forestry Division of EMNRD.

The Forestry Division notes a statewide committee was organized to collaboratively develop the

plan. The New Forest and Watershed Health Planning Committee was comprised of representa-

tives from a wide variety of governmental agencies (including the Soil and Water Conservation

Commission and the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts, citizen stakeholders

and other experts involved in ecological restoration efforts across New Mexico. This planning

effort represents an unprecedented collaboration among these diverse representatives, and the

Forest and Watershed Health Plan has the full endorsement of the planning committee.

The Forestry Division further notes planning committee sessions resulted in the establishment of

a consensus vision, guiding principles and specific recommendations to address the identified

needs, which the public reviewed at town hall meetings around the state during the summer of

2004. The Plan has been sent to the governor’s office for signature.

Efforts are currently underway to create a statewide office of watershed management that would

coordinate the activities of all agencies involved in watershed protection, including the Environ-

ment Department; Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department; as well as the agencies

listed in SB 690. The office of watershed management would have a broad and holistic mandate

to improve watershed health, including range management, forest health initiatives, water quality

improvement, etc. The planning discussions for this new office are a collaborative effort sup-

ported by the governor.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

At present the Soil and Water Conservation Commission has not established performance meas-

ures regarding the expenditure of funds for watershed health activities. The LFC in the interim

noted issues related to the lack of performance accountability with regard to water related expen-

ditures.

Senate Bill 690/aSCONC -- Page 3

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

This bill directs the hiring of personnel yet does not provide a recurring appropriation to cover

the costs of the position. It is estimated the cost of this employee would be approximately $60

thousand including benefits. Other costs associated with this position are not included in the es-

timate.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

A number of executive agencies as well as those specified in SB 690 have significant watershed

oversight responsibilities. The legislature may wish to consider this position within the proposed

office of water shed management and locate it within an executive agency.

The responsibility of the watershed coordinator to enter into cooperative agreements with federal

agencies appears to conflict with existing law as provided in Section 68-2-6 NMSA 1978 which

names the Forestry Division as the agent of the State to enter into agreements with federal and

other agencies for forest conservation purposes.

A number of executive agencies as well as those specified in this bill have significant watershed

responsibilities. It is not clear whether as provided for in HB 690, the soil and water conserva-

tion commission or its appointee is the appropriate governmental entity to supervise cooperative

agreements between the state and federal agencies, political subdivisions or particularly Indian

nations, tribes or pueblos. This interaction on the surface appears to be the function of the ex-

ecutive branch predominantly in government to government interaction with Indian entities. The

legislature may wish to consider this position within the proposed office of watershed manage-

ment within an executive agency.

PA/yr