WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 35

Vacancies in elected office.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Jim Anderson and 3 co-sponsors

Creates a one-mile no-drilling setback near schools to limit oil and gas activity and require stricter monitoring, reporting, and penalties for violations.

H Did not Consider for Introduction
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 35

Summary — HB 35: “Children’s Health Protection Zones”

Status: Action postponed indefinitely (per materials provided)
Subject areas: Children & families; energy & natural resources; environment

Main purpose

HB 35 would amend the Oil and Gas Act to create "children’s health protection zones" that restrict oil and gas activity within one mile of school property lines (schools defined broadly to include public and private schools, daycare facilities, and parks/playgrounds/recreation facilities associated with a school). The stated intent is to reduce children’s exposure to air- and water‑polluting emissions from nearby oil and gas operations.

Key provisions

  • Setback / permit prohibition

    • Prohibits the Oil Conservation Division (OCD, within EMNRD) from approving any new permit to drill a well inside a children’s health protection zone (one‑mile buffer from school property lines), beginning August 1, 2025.
    • OCD may grant variances under specified conditions to allow continued operations in a zone.

  • Inventory, mapping, and compliance deadlines

    • By January 1, 2026, each oil & gas operator must submit to OCD a certified inventory and map identifying any operations that fall within children’s health protection zones.
    • Operators with operations inside zones must develop a chemical leak detection and response plan and implement it by July 1, 2026.
    • The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) must review operators’ leak detection and response plans.

  • New environmental requirements & rulemaking

    • Operators with activities inside a zone would be subject to new air and water quality requirements; the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) is directed to adopt rules setting emissions levels for newly established zones and rules governing noncompliance.
    • NMED and OCD roles include monitoring and enforcement tied to those rules.

  • Enforcement and penalties

    • OCD may assess civil penalties for violations in a children’s health protection zone up to $30,000 per day and up to $3 million total for a finding by OCD (court-imposed penalties are not limited by those caps).

Who would be affected

  • Oil & gas operators: operators with facilities within one mile of school property would face inventory/reporting obligations, stricter operational controls, leak detection/response requirements, and potential permitting limitations or variance requirements.
    • LESC analysis identified 864 operations (about 1.3% of active New Mexico wells) owned by 52 operators that fall within the proposed zones; impacts would be concentrated in a few districts (e.g., Farmington, Hobbs, Carlsbad, Lea County areas).
  • State agencies: OCD (EMNRD), NMED, and EIB would incur new responsibilities for review, monitoring, rulemaking, and enforcement.
  • Schools and communities: intended benefit is reduced exposure of children to pollutants from nearby oil and gas activity.

Fiscal impacts (estimates from legislative fiscal materials)

  • Revenue impacts: LFC reported recurring state and local revenue decreases across multiple funds. Illustrative statewide revenue change entries (in thousands) shown in the LFC fiscal note:
    • FY26: approx. ($270)k
    • FY27: approx. ($600)k
    • FY28: approx. ($1,690)k
    • FY29: approx. ($2,200)k (Impacts are driven mainly by reduced oil & gas production from not‑yet‑permitted wells and associated severance and royalty revenues; estimates are illustrative and sensitive to market/production assumptions.)

  • Agency operating costs:

    • OCD estimated it would need about seven new full‑time equivalent (FTE) positions; annual cost estimate about $850,000 for implementation, monitoring, plan review, and adjudication tasks.
    • LFC/FIRs estimate additional costs to EMNRD/NMED for implementation and rulemaking (varying ranges appear in fiscal materials).

  • No appropriation included in the bill; impacts projected as recurring revenue losses and agency workload/costs.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • The bill text and committee substitutes in the provided files set key compliance dates (Aug 1, 2025 permit prohibition; Jan 1, 2026 inventory/map deadline; July 1, 2026 implementation of leak‑detection plans).
  • The bill directs rulemaking by the Environmental Improvement Board and requires agency review powers (OCD, NMED).
  • According to the materials provided at the top, current bill status is “action postponed indefinitely,” meaning it is not advancing at this time; earlier committee reports (HENRC, Health & Human Services, Judiciary) show it had passed through multiple committees before fiscal analyses were prepared.

Uncertainties and implementation considerations

  • Exact fiscal outcomes depend on how many not‑yet‑permitted wells would be prevented or delayed, the frequency and terms of variances, and the degree to which compliance costs affect smaller operators.
  • Geographic impacts vary by school locations and local concentrations of oil/gas activity; mapping verification by OCD may change operator counts.
  • Enforcement approach (OCD rulemaking, variance standards, interplay with NMED air/water rules, and court actions) will shape practical effects on operations and community protections.

If you want, I can:
- Produce a one‑page fact sheet tailored for community stakeholders in a specific county (e.g., Lea, Eddy, San Juan), or
- Extract and format the LESC/OCD list of operators and wells identified within one mile of schools (if you provide the data or want me to prepare a template for that analysis).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.