Senate committee debates bills to restore state surface-water permitting after Sackett ruling; tribes and environmental groups back measure, industry warns of,

A combined substitute for Senate Bills 21 and 22 — measures the sponsor described as restoring state authority to regulate surface-water discharges that federal courts have narrowed — drew a sharp division at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Supporters said the bills reinstate protections for thousands of streams and wetlands left vulnerable by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision; opponents from agriculture, mining and construction warned the language is broad, could duplicate existing state programs and may saddle businesses and local governments with permitting uncertainty.

"Passing SB 21 and SB 22 is a top legislative priority for Laguna," Pueblo of Laguna Governor Harry Antonio Jr. told the committee by remote testimony, urging that the bills protect water used for ceremony, agriculture and community life. Environmental groups, river outfitters and outdoor businesses also urged approval; witnesses said New Mexico’s outdoor economy and tribal water uses face harm if intermittent and ephemeral waters remain unregulated.

What the bills would do - According to sponsor testimony, SB 21 seeks primacy for the state to implement federal surface-water permitting (NPDES-style administration) within New Mexico; SB 22 would create a separate state permitting program to cover surface waters the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision left outside federal protection and would clarify the New Mexico Environment Department’s authority to investigate and remediate groundwater pollution. - The committee substitute aligns many definitions with the Federal Clean Water Act and with CERCLA (Superfund) and adds statutory detail that sponsors said is intended to guide the Water Quality Control Commission rather than shift broad new authority by rule alone. - Sponsors and the department said appropriations have already begun: the department noted prior legislative aid to program development, citing an initial appropriation to begin program planning and a later $7 million appropriation to build surface-water permitting capacity.

Supporters’ arguments Tribal leaders and conservation groups framed the bills as repairing regulatory gaps after the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of "waters of the United States." Testimony from river outfitters, tribal governors and environmental organizations described economic and cultural stakes and urged prompt action to protect streams that are important for ceremony, irrigation and recreation.

Opponents’ concerns Representatives of dairies, mining, construction and chambers of commerce urged more precise drafting and additional stakeholder work. Key concerns included: - Potential duplication with existing groundwater and pollution-control programs, including state groundwater-discharge permits and mining reclamation rules. - Broad or unclear definitions of "waters of the state," ephemeral streams and exemptions such as "normal farming," "minor drainage," "maintenance" and "return flows," which industry witnesses said could trigger permitting requirements for routine activities (flood-control maintenance, agricultural practices, road or pipeline work). - Liability provisions modelled on federal CERCLA that opponents said are broader than federal law and could expose past owners or parties in a chain of title to new cleanup liability. - Agency capacity and funding: some senators and stakeholders said the Environment Department has shortages that have already delayed other permitting work; opponents asked how the department would stand up a new surface-water program and whether funding and staffing would be sufficient.

Committee Q&A and process notes Committee members pressed sponsors and agency staff on key drafting choices: whether the bill simply restores pre-Sackett conditions or goes beyond them; the definitions that will govern exemptions for agriculture and maintenance; whether general permits and emergency authorizations would allow routine flood-control maintenance to proceed without delay; and whether citizens could bring private enforcement actions (sponsors said private causes of action were removed from the substitute after stakeholder feedback).

Sponsorship and proponents Sponsor: Senator Wirth and New Mexico Environment Department staff (Jonas Armstrong and Shelly Lemmon) led the presentation. Supporters who testified included Governor Harry Antonio Jr. (Pueblo of Laguna), Francisco (Cisco) Guevara (Los Rios River Runners), Adrian Angulo (Conservation Project), and multiple conservation and tribal organizations that registered support.

Opponents who testified Industry witnesses included TJ Trujillo (New Mexico Dairy Producers), Liz Taylor (AMAFCA attorney speaking for Albuquerque flood-control interests), Kelly Fajardo (Farm & Livestock Bureau), Matt Thompson (New Mexico Mining Association), Terry Cole (Greater Albuquerque Chamber), Lisonbee Riley (New Mexico Chamber), and Jason Espinosa (Associated General Contractors). They asked for narrower definitions, explicit protections for existing permits and guardrails on liability and fees.

Formal action and next steps The sponsor presented a committee substitute that combines the bills; the committee discussed amendments and procedural motions. At the close of the hearing the sponsor moved the combined substitute forward; the transcript records objections to the motion from several senators, and the final committee disposition on the substitute is not recorded in the provided transcript.

Why it matters Supporters say the bills restore long-standing protections for surface waters and create a state regulatory pathway for waters no longer covered by federal rules; opponents say the substitute risks duplicative regulation, costly permitting, uncertain fees and expanded liability exposure for landowners and regulated industries. The bill impacts tribal sovereignty claims, municipal flood maintenance, agricultural operations and mining reclamation plans, making the precise drafting and the funding plan central to whether the measure will produce the sponsor’s intended protections without unintended harm.

Documents and references cited in committee testimony included the Federal Clean Water Act, CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act), and references to the Water Quality Act and the Water Quality Management Fund as enacted in state law.