Senate committee advances bill to spur brackish water treatment for strategic supply, 10‑1

Sponsor testimony and bill purpose A sponsor introduced House Bill 137 to promote development of brackish water supplies and treatment in New Mexico to increase drought resilience and reduce reliance on freshwater. The bill directs the Office of the State Engineer and the Environment Department to administer a program to support development of brackish sources and to establish eligibility, community benefit plan requirements, and grant/contracting authority.

Support and technical witnesses The sponsor brought technical staff including Rebecca Roosch and Jonas Armstrong and was joined by Tanya Trujillo, deputy state engineer. Supporters at the hearing included the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (Marla Schoetz), the Middle Rio Grande stakeholders (John Thompson), and the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce (Terry Cole). Testimony cited El Paso and Alamogordo as operational examples and urged investment in research, treatment technology and aquifer characterization.

Key issues and committee questions Committee members asked whether projects would use unappropriated water or trigger normal state‑engineer permitting; witnesses confirmed existing state engineer procedures and impairment review would apply. Senators pressed on who could receive grants (the bill limits grants to public entities), whether private contracting would be permitted, how contracts would be structured (capital support versus price subsidies), who would own and sell treated water, and how community benefit plans would be evaluated and made public. Deputy State Engineer Trujillo and environment department witnesses said proposals would be evaluated for water rights impacts, public health and environmental protections, and that community benefit plans would be posted for public review.

Treatment, disposal and scale Witnesses described treatment processes that remove dissolved minerals and produce a potable product; by‑products (minerals) may be sold for agricultural use and non‑salable waste streams reinjected. Costs vary by project scale; witnesses cited roughly $25–110 million for sample facilities (El Paso and Alamogordo examples), and said facilities can be sized to local needs.

Economic development and contracting Committee members sought clarity on whether private firms could build and sell treated water under contracts and whether state investments would include clawbacks or lead‑project protections. Witnesses said contracting could include a variety of structures — capital support, price incentives, or other terms — and that the bill directs agencies to design solicitations and evaluation criteria. Some senators urged stronger limits or use of existing financing authorities; others noted the bill is part of the governor’s 50‑year water action plan.

Vote and next step After discussion the committee voted to give HB 137 a due pass recommendation: 10 in favor, 1 opposed. The sponsor and agency staff said rulemaking and funding details would be developed if the bill advances.