House bill to create land‑grant and acequia infrastructure funds wins committee approval after amendment

House committee members voted to advance House Bill 330 as amended on a 10‑3 vote after a day of testimony from representatives of land‑grant and acequia communities and agency experts.

The bill would create two new severance‑tax bond set‑asides: a Land Grant Infrastructure Fund and an Acequia Infrastructure Fund. Sponsors said each new set‑aside would start at about 1.1 percent of the stateseverance‑tax bond capacity (estimated at roughly $19 million each under recent estimates) to fund capital projects such as community centers, water and wastewater systems, dam repairs and equipment storage, and other infrastructure the sponsors said many land‑grant and acequia communities cannot readily fund through existing capital‑outlay channels.

Supporters, including Representative Miguel Garcia, Arturo Archuleta of the New Mexico Land Grant Council and Paula Garcia of the New Mexico Acequia Association, told the committee the two funds address distinct governance and project requirements. Archuleta said the land‑grant council would operate as a standalone commission under the Department of Finance and Administration to vet and prioritize projects for land grants; the Interstate Stream Commission(ISC) and its acequia bureau would vet acequia projects.

The committee adopted an amendment (No. 231142.1) that responded to concerns from the State Investment Council (SIC). That amendment delayed disbursements from the trust fund for five years to allow the SIC to observe opening balances and moved the annual distribution date to August 1, per SIC recommendations. The amendment also increased the bonding percentage for the Tribal (Bridal) Infrastructure Fund from 4.5 percent to 6.5 percent; sponsors estimated that returning that percentage could add roughly $34 million in bonding capacity (about $16–17 million per 1 percentage point) compared with the lower level set in 2015.

Committee members pressed sponsors on how the new funds would interact with existing programs and whether the funding would reduce overall severance‑tax bond capacity for other priorities. LFC and committee economists told members the amendment would reduce available severance‑tax bond capacity for other programs by an estimated amount (presented in committee discussion as approximately $35 million from the amendment in the analysts' estimate), and sponsors acknowledged the tradeoff while arguing the change would address unmet needs in rural communities.

Witnesses from dozens of land grants, acequia associations and community groups offered testimony in support. They described projects that had taken years to complete under the current capital‑outlay system, the limited local revenue base of acequia and land‑grant entities, and the difficulty many acequias face in qualifying for other state funding programs that require engineering readiness and local cost share.

Representative Duncan and a small group of members said they opposed the measure because it diverts severance‑tax bond capacity from other capital needs and because some members thought the billwould have been cleaner if structured as a smaller appropriation or different mechanism. After debate the committee voted to advance the bill to the next stage 10–3.

The bill as amended requires rulemaking to implement project selection and prioritization; sponsors said the land‑grant council and ISC bureau would promulgate those rules and that the funds are intended to be used to ensure projects are shovel‑ready and to leverage other federal and state funds.

Questions remain about the long‑term fiscal impact on severance‑tax bond capacity and the mechanics of prioritization, but the committee vote sends the amended bill forward for further consideration.