Committee debates HB 34 to add public‑health duty to Oil Conservation Division; bill passes then is tabled

Representative Saraniella presented the committee substitute for HB 34 to amend the Oil and Gas Act (section 70‑2‑11) so the Oil Conservation Division and Oil Conservation Commission have a duty to protect public health and the environment when implementing the act.

Sponsor and witnesses said the change would not upend existing statutory purposes (preventing waste and protecting correlative rights) but would add a specific duty to consider public health and environmental harms when permitting and regulating oil and gas activities. Gail Evans of the Center for Biological Diversity told the committee that most existing drilling permits were issued with no statutory authority to consider public health and that adding the duty would align New Mexico with other states and allow the agency to address air, water and other impacts.

Opponents — including Ashley Wagner of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, Mike Miller of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association and Jim Winchester of the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico — said the bill’s broad, undefined language could duplicate or conflict with the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and the Air Quality Control Act, invite litigation, increase regulatory costs, reduce drilling activity and raise orphan‑well counts. Several opponents asked how the new duty would be funded and noted the committee substitute did not include an appropriation.

Supporters including the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter, YUCA, Third Act and Western Resource Advocates argued oil and gas production has contributed to local air‑quality problems in oil‑producing counties and urged statutory authority for the OCD to consider public health in permits, setbacks, and other decisions. Community members described health complaints in areas near production.

Committee discussion covered whether the new language duplicates existing NMED authority (sponsor noted hazardous‑waste and solid‑waste statutes explicitly exclude oil and gas waste from some NMED programs) and whether the term “public health” is sufficiently defined for oversight and legislative accountability. Gail Evans and the sponsor responded that the phrase appears in many state statutes and that the bill makes the duty explicit rather than creating a new term.

Fiscal and implementation questions were raised. The fiscal impact report estimated costs from zero to about $1 million and committee members asked whether additional OCD staff or FTEs would be required; witnesses said PRC/OCD resourcing questions should be addressed in the budget process.

The committee first voted to pass HB 34 6‑5. Following that motion, a separate motion to table the bill passed by the same margin, 6‑5, and HB 34 was tabled. Committee members stated differing views about the bill’s merits: some said statutory clarity about public health is overdue, others said the language is too broad and risks economic harm and duplication.

Why it matters: proponents said the bill corrects statutory omissions that leave communities near oil and gas operations unable to have public‑health considerations applied during permitting; opponents said the change could have unintended regulatory and economic consequences without clear definitions or funding.

Recorded committee sequence: motion to pass as introduced (6 yes, 5 no); subsequent motion to table passed (6 yes, 5 no), bill tabled.