Committee debates HB35 to create "children's health protection zones" around schools; panel recommends no passage

The House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 12, 2025, debated House Bill 35, which would establish "children's health protection zones" that generally bar new oil-and-gas permitting within 5,280 feet of school property, require operators within those zones to adopt leak-detection and response plans, expand water testing and public-notice requirements, and increase civil penalties for violations.

Sponsor Rep. Debbie Serenayana, who represents House District 21, told the committee the measure amends the Oil and Gas Act and the Air Quality Control Act and moves many monitoring responsibilities to the New Mexico Environment Department so agency experts can set detailed standards. "We are making changes to the Oil and Gas Act and to the Air Quality Control Act," Serenayana said, summarizing the committee substitute.

The bill's nut graf: supporters said HB35 targets a narrow set of wells near schools and is intended to reduce children's exposure to air and water pollution from oil-and-gas operations; opponents said it would overreach state rulemaking, risk local economic harm and duplicate existing local setbacks.

Key provisions and why they matter

- Setback and scope: The substitute defines a children's health protection zone as the area within 5,280 feet (one mile) of a school's property line and prohibits the Oil Conservation Division from approving a permit to drill within that zone except by variance to avoid a takings claim.

- Monitoring and agency roles: The substitute shifts primary responsibility for air-quality monitoring and for establishing performance standards for continuous emissions monitoring and leak-detection plans to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB). Gail Evans, climate director at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the change to the committee: "The responsibilities were moved from one agency to the other because the environment department is already responsible for monitoring air quality," she said.

- Leak response, reporting and water testing: Operators in the zones would submit leak-detection and response plans, report leaks to agencies and the public, suspend operations when leak events exceed thresholds, and—at the request of nearby owners—conduct baseline and follow-up groundwater and surface-water testing at operators' expense.

- Penalties: The substitute increases penalty limits for violations that occur inside the children's protection zones. Supporters said the higher caps respond to agency feedback about enforcement tools; opponents called the proposed caps excessive. Jim Winchester, executive director of the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, told the committee the proposed maximums "are excessive," arguing they could threaten small producers.

Public comment and stakeholder concerns

The committee heard limited public comment restricted to differences between the introduced bill and the committee substitute. Industry witnesses, including Jim Winchester (Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico) and TJ Tree (registered lobbyist for Occidental Petroleum), urged opposition to the substitute, citing concerns about statewide rulemaking replacing local stakeholder processes and potential economic impacts.

Supporters included health and environmental advocates and community organizers. Kaylee Shoop, a community organizer with Citizens Caring for the Future in Southeast New Mexico, said she "lives here" and supported the bill's penalty increases as necessary to encourage enforcement. Charles Goodmacher of Earthworks told the committee the penalty increases were justified by agency investigations finding multiple noncompliant facilities.

Local control and takings questions

Committee members pressed the sponsor and witnesses about local setbacks already adopted in some municipalities and counties, the consultation process with affected communities, and the bill's variance process to avoid takings claims. Serenayana said the bill is intentionally narrow—targeting schools—and noted the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) estimated that fewer than 1% (roughly 800) of the state's 73,000 wells are within a mile of schools.

On takings, the bill creates an administrative variance process at the Oil Conservation Division so operators who claim a permit denial would amount to a taking may apply for relief; the OCD would review requests and make an initial determination.

Committee action

Committee members debated motions during the meeting. A motion to table the substitute was put to a roll-call vote and failed; the committee later recorded a committee recommendation of "do not pass" on HB35. (Tabling and final roll-call tallies were recorded during the hearing; the chair announced the tabling motion failed and that the committee reached a recommendation of do not pass.)

What proponents and opponents told the committee

Supporters argued the bill addresses documented health risks from proximity to oil-and-gas emissions and relies on agency expertise for technical rulemaking. "The responsibilities were moved from one agency to the other because the environment department is already responsible for monitoring air quality," said Gail Evans of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Opponents stressed local control, questioned the fiscal and employment impacts, and argued that existing local setbacks and agency authorities could address concerns. "3,000,000 is excessive," said Jim Winchester, executive director of the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, referring to the higher penalty cap in the substitute.

Why this matters

The bill would change how New Mexico regulates wells near schools, change which agency sets technical standards, and raise potential enforcement penalties. Committee members repeatedly urged better local stakeholder engagement and sought additional fiscal and technical details before advancing the measure.

Next steps

After the committee's "do not pass" recommendation, HB35 may still be considered further in the legislative process depending on procedural options and any amendments, or sponsors could pursue revisions and renewed committee consideration.

Ending note

Committee debate lasted several hours, with repeated questions on science, local consultation, fiscal impacts and which agency should set technical standards. The hearing record includes public comments from industry, environmental groups, health professionals and community organizers who represent both local and statewide perspectives.