Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Garcia, MP

DATE TYPED 02/24/05 HB HJM 41

SHORT TITLE Address Loss of Land Grant Community Lands

SB

ANALYST Ford

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

NFI

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

House Joint Memorial 41 makes findings related to the injustices and hardships visited upon land

grant communities because of the process by which New Mexico land grants were confirmed,

and references a study by the U.S. general accountability office (GAO) entitled Treaty of Guada-

lupe Hidalgo: Findings and Possible Options Regarding Longstanding Community Land Grant

Claims in New Mexico.

The memorial calls upon the New Mexico congressional delegation and the U.S. Congress to

take action in support of remedies offered by the GAO and resolves that any program for the re-

covery of lands be implemented in a manner that will avoid negatively impacting the public

lands in the state and Native American religious or ceremonial sites.

Significant Issues

The GAO conducted its review at the request of U.S. Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman

and U.S. Representative Tom Udall. In its report, GAO wrote:

House Joint Memorial 41 -- Page 2

“As part of our report, we were asked to outline possible options that Congress may wish to

consider in response to remaining concerns. The possible options we have identified are

based in part on our conclusion that there does not appear to be a specific legal basis for re-

lief, because the Treaty was implemented in compliance with all applicable U.S. legal re-

quirements. Nonetheless, Congress may determine that there are compelling policy or other

reasons for taking additional action…”

“…We do not express an opinion as to which, if any, of these options might be preferable,

and Congress may wish to consider additional options beyond those offered here. The last

four options are not necessarily mutually exclusive and could be used in some combination.

The five possible options are:

Option 1: Consider taking no additional action at this time because the majority of commu-

nity land grants were confirmed, the majority of acreage claimed was awarded, and the con-

firmation processes were conducted in accordance with U.S. law.

Option 2: Consider acknowledging that the land grant confirmation process could have been

more efficient and less burdensome and imposed fewer hardships on claimants.

Option 3: Consider establishing a commission or other body to reexamine specific commu-

nity land grant claims that were rejected or not confirmed for the full acreage claimed.

Option 4: Consider transferring federal land to communities that did not receive all of the

acreage originally claimed for their community land grants.

Option 5: Consider making financial payments to claimants’ heirs or other entities for the

non-use of land originally claimed but not awarded.”

TECHNICAL ISSUES

Since one of the options in GAO report is to take no further action, it may be prudent for the

resolution to be more specific about what actions it is requesting from the congressional delega-

tion and Congress.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The EMNRD notes that lands in six state parks are located within the original boundaries of

community land grants that could be affected by this bill and that there are numerous other state

parks located within the original boundaries of community land grants, the lands of which are

owned by various state and federal agencies that could be affected as well. EMNRD notes that

the impact of the GAO options on state parks lands is unclear but suggests adding a provision to

the resolution specifying that a program for the recovery of lands not apply to state parks man-

aged by the EMNRD.

EF/lg