Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hb35 Children Health Protection Zones topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pauses HB35 after heated public testimony on one‑mile oil-and-gas buffer around schools
Summary
The committee deferred consideration of House Bill 35, which would establish a one‑mile health buffer around schools, day cares and parks; the measure drew extensive public testimony both for and against and a committee sub was created but the panel opted to reschedule after members said a draft amendment was not distributed to analysts.
Santa Fe — The House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources Committee took public testimony and then postponed action on House Bill 35, the Children’s Health Protection Zones bill, after opponents and supporters gave polarized testimony and a committee substitute was not circulated to members and staff in advance.
Representative Sernana, sponsor of HB35, presented a committee substitute intended to set a minimum one‑mile setback for new oil and gas production sites near schools, day-care centers and parks. Before the committee could complete consideration, staff reported the substitute had not been emailed to committee members or analysts; the chair and sponsor agreed to reschedule the bill so members and staff could review the language.
Supporters who spoke in favor of the one‑mile buffer included tribal, public-health and youth organizations and parents from communities near active wells. Jonathan Juarez, who identified himself as from Laguna and Isleta Pueblos, said, “This is a public health crisis” and urged members to “stand with New Mexico’s children.” Testimony from parents and local residents described headaches, chronic cough and concerns about benzene detected in an air study at Lybrook Elementary; one parent said his children began coughing daily after the family moved into the area.
State Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard, who said she had implemented a similar setback on state trust lands, testified the policy had not reduced state revenue in the two years since it was enacted and that modern siting and drilling technology allows development farther from schools.
Opponents focused on economic and legal impacts. Allison Riley, director of public policy for the New Mexico Chamber of Commerce, told the committee the proposal would “create a one‑size‑fits‑all restriction” that could reduce oil-and-gas production, lower state revenues that fund education, and impose a $30,000‑per‑day penalty that the chamber said risked constitutional takings claims. Industry groups including the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association and local chambers argued local governments in producing basins already set appropriate setbacks through ordinance processes and that a statewide, rigid buffer would override local control.
Testimony and witnesses gave differing factual claims. Supporters said more than 34,000 students attend schools within one mile of active wells; a committee witness cited epidemiological findings tying proximity to increased risks of asthma, lymphoma and other health impacts. Opponents said available epidemiological research is not yet definitive and emphasized technological controls and local permitting processes.
The committee created a committee substitute for discussion but, after staff reported the substitute had not been sent to members and the bill’s analyst, the chair announced the substitute will be rescheduled for a later hearing. No committee vote on the substantive bill was taken at this meeting.
The postponement leaves pending several questions raised during the hearing: which agency would enforce a setback, how the bill would affect state revenue and school funding if production near schools declines, the scope of the penalty provisions, and whether a statewide standard should preempt local ordinances or be coordinated with local governments.
