State and municipal water officials told the Water & Natural Resources Committee that post‑fire erosion and debris flows overwhelmed surface‑water treatment in Las Vegas and Ruidoso and that recovery requires both infrastructure upgrades and operator capacity.

Jonas Armstrong, director of the Water Protection Division at the New Mexico Environment Department, said both watersheds lost important filtration capacity when wildfire burned vegetation and exposed soil. “Debris flows that can come from post‑fire flooding…make traditional treatment difficult,” Armstrong said, adding that properly maintained plants can often adapt but that Las Vegas’s system was particularly vulnerable because it lacks groundwater backup.

Joe Martinez, chief of NMED’s Drinking Water Bureau, confirmed the agency issued an administrative compliance order to the city of Las Vegas for past violations; Martinez said the agency has worked intensively with city operators during the emergency and that the city has undertaken upgrades and interim fixes. He told the committee the compliance order included penalties in the order of about $270,000 tied to historical violations noted in NMED inspections.

Travis Martinez, utilities director for the city of Las Vegas, described immediate operational impacts: the city’s primary watershed, the Gallinas River, saw large inflows of ash and sediment, intake contamination and increased turbidity that pushed the plant beyond its normal operating design. The city deployed mobile pretreatment units and changed chemical feeds to stabilize treatment. Martinez said the city has secured FEMA funding for a new treatment system — roughly $98 million was referenced as FEMA funding for a new plant and pretreatment — but stressed that design and construction remain multiyear efforts: “modernize and upgrade with the existing infrastructure … could look anywhere from 3 to 4 years,” he said, while a full new plant “can go anywhere from 5 to 8 years,” depending on size and permitting.

City manager Robert Anaya said the city has already put capital into the system (roughly $4 million in near‑term upgrades) and that Las Vegas officials are coordinating closely with NMED, DHSEM and federal partners. The mayor of Las Vegas told the committee that long‑term solutions require a partnership between the city and state to design and fund a resilient facility that can handle post‑fire water chemistry and flooding risks.

Legislators pressed for clearer state roles when local systems lack capacity. Representative Jennifer Cates asked whether NMED would include an analysis of climate‑impact risk assessments and monitoring investments in its budget request; Armstrong said the department is preparing budget requests for additional technical assistance and monitoring, but that final budget proposals would be submitted later in the cycle. Representatives stressed workforce issues: Martinez and NMED both said recruiting and retaining certified water operators is a statewide challenge and that the state’s technical assistance programs and low‑interest revolving funds (Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs, the Water Trust Board and the River Stewardship Program) can help communities upgrade source protection and treatment.

Armstrong recommended a “suite” of actions for lawmakers: expand match funds and grant programs targeted at small systems and acequias, prioritize equity in funding, invest in operator workforce development and monitoring networks, and support natural‑infrastructure work (watershed restoration and forest thinning) to protect source water upstream.

Less critical details: Ruidoso’s treatment plant had been recently modernized before its fire and had better performance; Ruidoso’s access to groundwater gave it resilience Las Vegas lacked. City operators and state staff emphasized the importance of coordinated planning, procurement and incremental upgrades while a longer‑term design and construction process proceeds.