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 Martinez

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

1-26-07

HB

SHORT TITLE Land Grant Waste Removal

SB 240

ANALYST Aubel

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY07

FY08

$600.0

Recurring

General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Attorney General’s Office (AGO)

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Bill 240 appropriates $600.0 thousand from the general fund to the New Mexico

Department of Environment in FY08 to contract for the removal of solid waste, liquid waste and

hazardous waste illegally deposited on the common lands of community land grants.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The appropriation of $600.0 thousand contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general

fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of FY08 shall revert to the

general fund.

NMED noted that its technical and administrative staff would provide contractor oversight to

ensure the selected contractor(s) adequately performs the work and to ensure the services are

procured in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, suggesting that the cost of this

oversight function would likely not exceed 20 percent of the appropriation for waste removal.

NMED stated that a slightly higher percentage of the appropriation would be used if

contaminated site clean up or site remediation is added as an eligible expense, as proposed in the

amendment, as shown in the Technical Issues section.

Senate Bill 240 – Page

2

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

The appropriation in Senate Bill 240 would be used specifically for contractual services to

remove illegally disposed waste on community land grants. NMED noted that illegal waste

disposal has been a chronic problem throughout the state, including land grant parcels.

Furthermore, NMED specified that many land grants do not have the economic resources to pay

for the clean up of their lands. Examples of the wastes include abandoned drums of unknown

contents, used oil, domestic/municipal refuse, construction debris, asbestos containing materials,

and seepage. Cleaning up these sites would benefit the citizenry by removing potential

hazardous and other unsightly materials, thereby protecting human health, the environment, and

surface and ground- water supplies.

NMED stated it would likely set up a fund for the cleanup activities. Examples of existing

mechanisms within the department include the Hazardous Waste Bureau’s Spill Response

Program or a grant process established in the Solid Waste Bureau for tire abatement projects.

Both bureaus could be used to provide contractor oversight and contract administration,

depending on the type of material requiring removal.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

NMED pointed out that performance in for the department would be enhanced due to additional

protection of surface and groundwater supplies. Habitat and view sheds on community land

grant lands would also improve. The removal of wastes would also act as a deterrent to prevent

additional illegal dumping because those who dump illegally tend to dispose of wastes in areas

already used for that purpose.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

NMED suggested that existing administrative functions within the Department within the

Hazardous Waste Bureau’s Spill Response Program, and the Solid Waste Bureau would need to

be used to ensure that the procurement of contractors is in accordance with applicable laws and

regulations, that adequate oversight of the contractor is performed, and that all work is completed

in a timely and appropriate manner.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

NMED suggested adding language clarifying the definitions of “community land grant" and

criteria for “cleanup" would be necessary to identify eligible recipients and projects.

NMED also recommended adding language to expand the scope of the bill to include

remediation, as follows:

Page 1, line 20:

to contract for the removal and proper disposal or treatment

of solid waste, liquid waste

and hazardous waste illegally deposited on the common lands of community land grants

organized under state law; and for other eligible contract expenses include any costs

associated with clean up of soil or water contamination, site remediation and groundwater

monitoring, as necessary.

Senate Bill 240 – Page

3

ALTERNATIVES

A complete survey of all illegal dumping sites on community land grants would provide a basis

for determining the total cleanup cost. This inventory could then be used as a basis for the state

initiating a cleanup schedule based on degree of acreage involved and danger to public health or

the environment. As part of this program, public outreach and other means of mitigating future

dumping would be implemented.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

Local government or private entities, who have limited resources, would continue to bear the

burden of clean up. Most likely illegal dumping on common lands of community land grants

would continue because many of these community land grants have no common funds to pay for

clean-up. If wastes are not removed, they would continue to pose a threat to human health and

the environment.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1.

What would be the mechanism for awarding the grants.

2.

Would $600.0 thousand be sufficient to address the illegal dumping on all the community

land grants.

3.

What would be the criteria and prioritization for competing recipients.

4.

How would this bill ensure that all hazardous sites are addressed.

5.

Would the illegal dumping sites be prioritized and proposals from the community grant-

holders be requested, or would it be a first-come-first-serve system whereby the grants

are recipient-driven.

6.

If hazardous waste is involved, what happens if remediation language is not added to the

bill.

7.

What initiatives are involved to prevent future dumping once a site as been cleaned up.

MA/csd