Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Department Of Agriculture Updates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee reviews Department of Agriculture update bill; members flag drafting and authority concerns
Summary
The committee received an overview of legislation to modernize the Department of Agriculture’s fee structure, penalties and regulatory authority; senators raised drafting problems including delegation of penalty authority to the Board of Regents and removal of the statutory definition of “person.”
Senate Judiciary Committee members heard an overview of a bill to update the New Mexico Department of Agriculture’s administrative and enforcement authority, fees and penalty structures. Secretary of Agriculture Jeff Witte presented the bill and told the committee many fee caps date to the 1970s and require updating.
Why it matters: The bill would raise long-capped fees, create a uniform penalty matrix for the department, and change several regulatory provisions across pesticide control, plant protection, fertilizer and other agricultural statutes. Secretary Jeff Witte said the measure would allow the department to hold hearings statewide and take recommendations to the New Mexico State University Board of Regents for final review.
Witte said, “Most of the fees…have been capped in the 1970s. So many of them, it’s been over 50 years since they have been adjusted.” He told senators that penalty revenue under the proposed matrix would go to the state school fund, not to the Department of Agriculture.
Committee members raised immediate drafting and jurisdictional concerns. One senator pointed to statute 21-8-5 and questioned whether the Board of Regents has authority to set administrative fines for the Department of Agriculture; committee members said the bill’s initial language assumed powers for the regents not found in the cited statute. Members also said the draft replaces the longstanding statutory definition of “person” in multiple places, a drafting change that could unintentionally limit enforcement reach by excluding corporations, partnerships and other nonindividual actors unless the definition is restored.
Other concerns included whether the bill created felony offenses where existing law used civil or administrative penalties and a mismatch between the bill title and the body on page 80. Senator Stewart said he found portions of the Pesticide Control Act changes difficult to read and urged clearer drafting before the committee moves the bill.
Secretary Witte told the committee the legislation also repeals obsolete statutes (for example, an 1898 cotton-moth provision) and aligns state requirements with updated federal EPA training standards for pesticide applicators. Committee staff and the secretary identified pages and sections committee members should review closely (for example, pesticide licensing and private applicator examination material in the draft).
Action and next steps: Committee members asked for additional drafting corrections and technical clarification. The committee did not vote on the bill and deferred further consideration to a future meeting; staff and the sponsor were asked to provide a redline and clarify statutory delegation of authority and penalty classifications.
Speakers in the record included Senator Brantley (introducing the measure) and Secretary Jeff Witte, who answered members’ questions. Several senators asked staff to produce clearer section numbering and to restore or clarify definitions where statutory edits could create gaps.
No votes were taken on the agriculture bill during this hearing.
