A widely popular and bipartisan bill meant to tackle wildfire preparedness is sailing through the Roundhouse this session.
The core of the law aims to put the money into people’s hands to “fire-proof” their homes. But some lawmakers worried it may violate New Mexico’s constitution.
Not a single person stood in opposition to SB 33, or the Wildfire Prepared Act, when the House Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Committee met early Tuesday morning to discuss details.
“If anyone goes through Otero County and goes up into the Cloudcroft area, it’s really overgrown in there,” said bill co-sponsor Rep. Harlan Vincent (R-Ruidoso). “And, either we get ahead of this and we learn our lesson, or we don’t get ahead of it and it takes that forest out.”
Vincent, who decided to take up the legislation following last summer’s devastating wildfires in Southern New Mexico, said a century of forest mismanagement from state and federal agencies – like excessive fire suppression and lack of thinning – has led to overgrown forests fueling larger, hotter, and more deadly fires across the country.
In addition to the grants, the bill would establish a task force to develop standards for “defensible space” and around homes and wildfire preparedness.
Insurance companies are raising their prices or pulling coverage in these areas plagued by wildfire because they’re paying out significantly more than what people pay in.
Lawmakers are hoping the $20 million they’d be setting aside for wildfire preparedness will help lower those rates, and increase the availability of premiums.
However, Committee Chair Rep. Matthew McQueen (D-Santa Fe) raised concerns about the legality of funneling public money into private home upgrades.
“Unless you fit into one of the exceptions for the anti-donation clause, I don’t see how you’d give grants to private individuals,” McQueen said.
Part of the original state constitution adopted in 1911, the anti-donation clause was created to ensure public money is used properly by preventing the government from giving funds to private people, businesses, or groups — unless there is a clear public benefit and an approved exception.
One of those exceptions allows the state to provide essential services for residential purposes – and sponsors see a loophole there, allowing the state to argue providing adequate safety could be labeled as an “essential service.”
McQueen, who voted against the bill along with Rep. Rod Montoya (R-Farmington), said the bill is flawed and he may craft language to amend it later.
While there seems to be a legal grey area, bill sponsors likened the legislation to other state public goods such as the Opportunity Scholarship, which helps residents pay for college tuition and fees.
It passed the committee on a 7-2 vote despite these concerns. It now goes to the House Appropriations and Finance Committee.
The legislation is quickly sprinting through the Roundhouse, passing unanimously on the Senate Floor late last month. At this pace, it could reach the House floor and, shortly afterwards, the governor’s desk in about a week or two – depending on committee assignments.
The likelihood of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signing the bill into law is high, given she specifically called for a solution to skyrocketing fire insurance rates in her 2025 State of the State Address.
The session ends Saturday, March 22nd at noon.
