Showing posts with label State Legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State Legislation. Show all posts
Friday, March 8, 2013
State asks Forest Service to collaborate on land management
While a bill that would call on the state to take over much U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands in New Mexico appears to be floundering in the state Legislature, another measure that would request the Forest Service work collaboratively in land management has been approved without a dissenting vote.
A House Memorial will ask the federal Forest Service to engage with state agencies and local governments in "meaningful" watershed health planning and management.
The House of Representatives message contends the Forest Service has done a poor job, "in light of the history of wildfires on public land in New Mexico and it light of the United States Forest Service's breach of regulatory and fiduciary responsibilities to New Mexico."
The memorial calls on the state engineer, attorney general and state forester to take steps to enforce the obligations of the Forest Service under an 1897 federal act to protect watershed health in New Mexico's forests.
The state agencies will be requested to integrate local, state and tribal watershed plans and management with the efforts of the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Bureau of Reclamation.
The memorial was introduced by Rep. Yvette Herrell, R-Alamogordo, who also offered the measure for New Mexico to take over much of the Forest Service and BLM property in the state.
The Organic Act of 1987, Herrell said, established much of the national forests. She noted the act states that, "No national forest shall be established except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States."
The memorial contends there have been two decades of catastrophic wildfires in New Mexico that have adversely affected private property, commerce and the environment of the public lands in the state.
The New Mexico Environment Department, in commenting on House Memorial 65, attested to the damage that wildfires have caused to New Mexico watersheds.
"Given the experiences seen with the 2012 Little Bear Fire, which affected watersheds for Ruidoso and Alamogordo, and the 2011 Track Fire in Raton, small communities can lose drinking water supplies due to sediment and other water quality impacts after a fire," the department wrote. "The NMED has seen first-hand the consequences of forest fires on drinking water supplies for small communities and support efforts for watershed planning across the state. The watershed planning and associated prescribed burns and thinning that have occurred in the Santa Fe municipal watershed provide an example of the type of activities that can help to avoid the disastrous impacts of these types of fire."
A memorial carries no legal weight and simply asks that its wishes be considered.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
New Mexico Natural Heritage Conservation Act
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson recently signed the Natural Heritage Conservation Act, a bill passed during the recent legislative session to protect land, water, wildlife, and working farms and ranches across New Mexico. This new legislation, sponsored by state Senator Carlos Cisneros (D-Taos), will establish a program that will enable the state to make grants to fund conservation easement and restoration projects on private lands.
''For the first time, New Mexico will have a permanent mechanism for funding conservation projects across our state,'' said Governor Richardson at the signing ceremony for the Natural Heritage Conservation Act. ''I am also pleased that we were able to secure $5 million during the legislative session, so that we will be able to start funding these important initiatives right away.'' Despite the state's current financial problems, New Mexico House Speaker Ben Lujan (D-Santa Fe) said it was important to earmark land for conservation. At the signing ceremony, Lujan posed the question, ''If we don’t do it now, when? When the land is gone?''
With conservation easements, willing private landowners voluntarily enter into agreements with qualified conservation organizations or public agencies to restrict subdivision, development and certain incompatible uses of the land in order to protect the wildlife, agricultural, scenic open space, cultural and/or recreational values of the subject lands. Landowners who grant easements retain ownership of their land and can continue to farm, ranch and engage in other traditional forms of land use that are consistent with the purposes of the easement. They can also lease, sell or pass their land on to their heirs, but the easements run with the land and are binding on all future landowners.
''Every year, New Mexico is losing thousands of acres of productive farm and ranch land along with the associated conservation values they provide to unbridled growth and development,'' said Larry Winn, Chair of the New Mexico Soil & Water Commission. ''We view conservation easements as a way to keep agricultural land in family ownership and in production, and as an important option for farmers and ranchers to consider as an alternative to simply selling, subdividing and developing their lands.''
''Easements are as much a tax and financial planning mechanism as they are a conservation tool for private landowners,'' said Scott Wilber, Executive Director of the New Mexico Land Conservancy, a statewide non-profit land trust based in Santa Fe. He noted that landowners can receive significant federal and state tax incentives by donating part or all or the value of a conservation easement, but added that in a state like New Mexico where many of the landowners are land-rich and cash-poor, particularly within the agricultural community, tax benefits alone are not always enough to get the job done.
''Conservation easements and restoration cost money,” said Wilber. ''A combination of state funding and tax incentives will further enhance the ability of conservation organizations, public agencies, municipalities, land grants, tribes, and soil and water conservation districts to work with private landowners to conserve their lands.''
The program created by the Natural Heritage Conservation Act will also help leverage other sources of conservation funding, through federal programs such as the Land & Water Conservation Fund, the Farm Bill, the Clean Water Act, the USDA Farm & Ranchland Protection and Forest Legacy programs, as well as state wildlife grants and local conservation funding from New Mexico’s cities and counties. Studies have shown that New Mexico misses out on approximately $20 million in federal land and water conservation funding each year because it does not have adequate state matching funds. By creating this program, New Mexico is capitalizing on a major opportunity to draw more resources to the state to help preserve what makes it the ''Land of Enchantment'' – its natural, agricultural and cultural heritage.
Resource(s): http://www.nmlandconservancy.org/Publications/Images/NHCA%20PR%203-10-10.pdf
''For the first time, New Mexico will have a permanent mechanism for funding conservation projects across our state,'' said Governor Richardson at the signing ceremony for the Natural Heritage Conservation Act. ''I am also pleased that we were able to secure $5 million during the legislative session, so that we will be able to start funding these important initiatives right away.'' Despite the state's current financial problems, New Mexico House Speaker Ben Lujan (D-Santa Fe) said it was important to earmark land for conservation. At the signing ceremony, Lujan posed the question, ''If we don’t do it now, when? When the land is gone?''
With conservation easements, willing private landowners voluntarily enter into agreements with qualified conservation organizations or public agencies to restrict subdivision, development and certain incompatible uses of the land in order to protect the wildlife, agricultural, scenic open space, cultural and/or recreational values of the subject lands. Landowners who grant easements retain ownership of their land and can continue to farm, ranch and engage in other traditional forms of land use that are consistent with the purposes of the easement. They can also lease, sell or pass their land on to their heirs, but the easements run with the land and are binding on all future landowners.
''Every year, New Mexico is losing thousands of acres of productive farm and ranch land along with the associated conservation values they provide to unbridled growth and development,'' said Larry Winn, Chair of the New Mexico Soil & Water Commission. ''We view conservation easements as a way to keep agricultural land in family ownership and in production, and as an important option for farmers and ranchers to consider as an alternative to simply selling, subdividing and developing their lands.''
''Easements are as much a tax and financial planning mechanism as they are a conservation tool for private landowners,'' said Scott Wilber, Executive Director of the New Mexico Land Conservancy, a statewide non-profit land trust based in Santa Fe. He noted that landowners can receive significant federal and state tax incentives by donating part or all or the value of a conservation easement, but added that in a state like New Mexico where many of the landowners are land-rich and cash-poor, particularly within the agricultural community, tax benefits alone are not always enough to get the job done.
''Conservation easements and restoration cost money,” said Wilber. ''A combination of state funding and tax incentives will further enhance the ability of conservation organizations, public agencies, municipalities, land grants, tribes, and soil and water conservation districts to work with private landowners to conserve their lands.''
The program created by the Natural Heritage Conservation Act will also help leverage other sources of conservation funding, through federal programs such as the Land & Water Conservation Fund, the Farm Bill, the Clean Water Act, the USDA Farm & Ranchland Protection and Forest Legacy programs, as well as state wildlife grants and local conservation funding from New Mexico’s cities and counties. Studies have shown that New Mexico misses out on approximately $20 million in federal land and water conservation funding each year because it does not have adequate state matching funds. By creating this program, New Mexico is capitalizing on a major opportunity to draw more resources to the state to help preserve what makes it the ''Land of Enchantment'' – its natural, agricultural and cultural heritage.
Resource(s): http://www.nmlandconservancy.org/Publications/Images/NHCA%20PR%203-10-10.pdf
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Gov. Richardson signs bill to allow conservation easements
A new law will allow the state to acquire conservation easements from farmers, ranchers and other landowners to ensure that the property is not developed.
Gov. Bill Richardson on Monday signed legislation into law that supporters say can help protect land in New Mexico, improve wildlife habitat and provide for open space for communities or recreation.
"New Mexicans want their land preserved. They are committed to conservation, to wildlife," Richardson said at a news conference at ranch south of Santa Fe, which is protected by a conservation easement with a nonprofit group. The agreement prevents the ranch from being broken up into smaller parcels for real estate development.
The new law, which takes effect May 19, also establishes a fund for the state to make grants for conservation and land restoration projects. The legislation was approved by lawmakers during a 30-day session, which ended in February.
Lawmakers allocated $5 million for conservation easements during a special session of the Legislature, which ended last week.
Despite the state's current financial problems, House Speaker Ben Lujan, D-Santa Fe, said it was important to earmark money for land conservation.
"If we don't do it now, when? Do we do it when all the land is gone?" Lujan said at the news conference with Richardson.
With a conservation easement, landowners can enter into an agreement with the state to ensure there's no development on the land. The individual will continue to own the property, however, and the conservation easement will apply to those who buy or inherit the property in the future. The new law does not allow the state to buy the land, however.
"Protection of New Mexico's conservation heritage makes good economic sense. As New Mexico's population expands, the value of our wildlife resources are increasingly being appreciated and recognized as a major economic and renewable resource," Karyn Stockdale, executive director for Audubon New Mexico, said in a statement. "The Natural Heritage Conservation Act is not only protecting our natural lands, it is investing in New Mexico's long-term economic future, a win-win scenario for all involved."
Gov. Bill Richardson on Monday signed legislation into law that supporters say can help protect land in New Mexico, improve wildlife habitat and provide for open space for communities or recreation.
"New Mexicans want their land preserved. They are committed to conservation, to wildlife," Richardson said at a news conference at ranch south of Santa Fe, which is protected by a conservation easement with a nonprofit group. The agreement prevents the ranch from being broken up into smaller parcels for real estate development.
The new law, which takes effect May 19, also establishes a fund for the state to make grants for conservation and land restoration projects. The legislation was approved by lawmakers during a 30-day session, which ended in February.
Lawmakers allocated $5 million for conservation easements during a special session of the Legislature, which ended last week.
Despite the state's current financial problems, House Speaker Ben Lujan, D-Santa Fe, said it was important to earmark money for land conservation.
"If we don't do it now, when? Do we do it when all the land is gone?" Lujan said at the news conference with Richardson.
With a conservation easement, landowners can enter into an agreement with the state to ensure there's no development on the land. The individual will continue to own the property, however, and the conservation easement will apply to those who buy or inherit the property in the future. The new law does not allow the state to buy the land, however.
"Protection of New Mexico's conservation heritage makes good economic sense. As New Mexico's population expands, the value of our wildlife resources are increasingly being appreciated and recognized as a major economic and renewable resource," Karyn Stockdale, executive director for Audubon New Mexico, said in a statement. "The Natural Heritage Conservation Act is not only protecting our natural lands, it is investing in New Mexico's long-term economic future, a win-win scenario for all involved."
Friday, January 15, 2010
Depredation reform a priority for NM environmental groups
Reforming a state law that allows landowners to kill wild game that cause property damage will be a priority issue for environmental groups at the state Legislature this year.
The Environmental Alliance of New Mexico announced its priorities this week at a briefing with reporters.
Depredation refers to the damage or loss caused by wildlife to private property, most notably when predators kill livestock or when grazing animals eat plants that have economic benefit to landowners. How to prevent or mitigate such damage has been an ongoing source of tension between ranchers, hunters, environmentalists, and farmers.
In 1997, the “Jennings amendment,” named for Sen. Tim Jennings, allowed property owners to kill wildlife if necessary to protect their property. Such killings have been a long simmering issue, but feelings boiled over in 2008 when a farmer near Cimarron killed at least 39 antelope that had been foraging on his winter wheat crop. Images of slaughtered antelope littering the property showed up on the evening news, igniting a vigorous public debate.
Because the state doesn’t own free roaming wildlife and people have the right to protect their property, how to mitigate wildlife damage to property without allowing landowners to kill the animals is a “contentious and difficult to resolve issue,” R.J. Kirkpatrick, Wildlife Management Division Chief with the Department of Game and Fish, said.
But while he expects it to continue being a controversial issue, wholesale killing of non-predatory animals isn’t an “ethical thing to do,” Kirkpatrick said. A bill that seeks a middle ground on the contentious issue will be sponsored this year by State Rep. Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque.
The 2010 legislation will separate animals into two categories: predators and grazers. Property owners would still be allowed to kill predators if they felt the animals were a threat to property, he said. But with foraging animals, property owners would have one of two options. The state will either purchase fencing for the property to cover the cost of keeping the animals out, or the state would help improve the property in such a way that wildlife could continue being on the property with minimal damage. This option would include purchasing seed for the animals to eat and improving water delivery systems.
When asked how the legislation is viewed by those in support of the current depredation law, Kirkpatrick said organizations like the Cattle Growers Association “weren’t high on the idea.” The main sticking point, he said, is that there continues to be no mechanism through which the state provides financial compensation for crops lost to foraging animals.
In addition to the depredation bill, the EANM will proactively support legislation by Sen. Howie Morales, D-Grants, to mandate energy efficient building codes for public structures. The legislation would mandate that buildings are designed to use half or less than half of the energy a conventional building of that type would use.
The EANM is composed of groups like Amigos Bravos, Conservation Voters New Mexico, the Sierra Club, and the NM Wildlife Federation. In addition to the proactive legislation they’re supporting this year–which has to be ruled germane to the 30 day budget session or be allowed by the Governor–they’ll also oppose legislation that seeks to rollback environmental regulations.
The Environmental Alliance of New Mexico announced its priorities this week at a briefing with reporters.
Depredation refers to the damage or loss caused by wildlife to private property, most notably when predators kill livestock or when grazing animals eat plants that have economic benefit to landowners. How to prevent or mitigate such damage has been an ongoing source of tension between ranchers, hunters, environmentalists, and farmers.
In 1997, the “Jennings amendment,” named for Sen. Tim Jennings, allowed property owners to kill wildlife if necessary to protect their property. Such killings have been a long simmering issue, but feelings boiled over in 2008 when a farmer near Cimarron killed at least 39 antelope that had been foraging on his winter wheat crop. Images of slaughtered antelope littering the property showed up on the evening news, igniting a vigorous public debate.
Because the state doesn’t own free roaming wildlife and people have the right to protect their property, how to mitigate wildlife damage to property without allowing landowners to kill the animals is a “contentious and difficult to resolve issue,” R.J. Kirkpatrick, Wildlife Management Division Chief with the Department of Game and Fish, said.
But while he expects it to continue being a controversial issue, wholesale killing of non-predatory animals isn’t an “ethical thing to do,” Kirkpatrick said. A bill that seeks a middle ground on the contentious issue will be sponsored this year by State Rep. Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque.
The 2010 legislation will separate animals into two categories: predators and grazers. Property owners would still be allowed to kill predators if they felt the animals were a threat to property, he said. But with foraging animals, property owners would have one of two options. The state will either purchase fencing for the property to cover the cost of keeping the animals out, or the state would help improve the property in such a way that wildlife could continue being on the property with minimal damage. This option would include purchasing seed for the animals to eat and improving water delivery systems.
When asked how the legislation is viewed by those in support of the current depredation law, Kirkpatrick said organizations like the Cattle Growers Association “weren’t high on the idea.” The main sticking point, he said, is that there continues to be no mechanism through which the state provides financial compensation for crops lost to foraging animals.
In addition to the depredation bill, the EANM will proactively support legislation by Sen. Howie Morales, D-Grants, to mandate energy efficient building codes for public structures. The legislation would mandate that buildings are designed to use half or less than half of the energy a conventional building of that type would use.
The EANM is composed of groups like Amigos Bravos, Conservation Voters New Mexico, the Sierra Club, and the NM Wildlife Federation. In addition to the proactive legislation they’re supporting this year–which has to be ruled germane to the 30 day budget session or be allowed by the Governor–they’ll also oppose legislation that seeks to rollback environmental regulations.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
SB9 - Removing ag workers comp exemption
SENATE BILL 9
49th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2009
INTRODUCED BY
Cisco McSorley
FOR THE COURTS, CORRECTIONS AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE
AN ACT
RELATING TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION; REMOVING THE EXCLUSION FROM THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS OF FARM AND RANCH LABORERS IF THE EMPLOYER EMPLOYS THREE OR MORE EMPLOYEES; PROVIDING AN AFFIRMATIVE ELECTION TO EXCLUDE FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYEES IN A FAMILY FARMING BUSINESS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT; PROVIDING FOR REVOCATION OF AFFIRMATIVE ELECTIONS TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EMPLOYEES FROM THAT ACT; CLARIFYING DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES OF A FAMILY FARMING BUSINESS; DEFINING TERMS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
Section 1. Section 52-1-6 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1990 (2nd S.S.), Chapter 2, Section 4) is amended to read:
"52-l-6. APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF ACT.--
A. The provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall apply to employers of three or more workers; provided that act shall apply to all employers engaged in activities required to be licensed under the provisions of the Construction Industries Licensing Act regardless of the number of employees. The provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall not apply to employers of private domestic servants [and farm and ranch laborers]. Language within brackets [ ] is deleted.
B. An election to be subject to the Workers' Compensation Act by employers of private domestic servants [or farm and ranch laborers], by persons for whom the services of qualified real estate salespersons are performed or by a partner or self-employed person may be made by filing, in the office of the director, either a sworn statement to the effect that the employer accepts the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act or an insurance or security undertaking as required by Section 52-l-4 NMSA l978.
C. Every worker shall be conclusively presumed to have accepted the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act if [his] the worker's employer is subject to the provisions of that act and has complied with its requirements, including insurance.
D. [Such] Compliance with the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, including the provisions for insurance, shall be [and construed to be] a surrender by the employer and the worker of their rights to any other method, form or amount of compensation or determination thereof or to any cause of action at law, suit in equity or statutory or common-law right to remedy or proceeding whatever for or on account of personal injuries or death of the worker other than [as] those actions, suits or rights provided in the Workers' Compensation Act and shall be an acceptance of all of the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act and shall bind the worker [himself] and, for compensation for [his] the worker's death, shall bind [his] the worker's personal representative, [his] surviving spouse and next of kin, as well as the employer and those conducting [his] the employer's business during bankruptcy or insolvency.
E. The Workers' Compensation Act provides exclusive remedies. No cause of action outside the Workers' Compensation Act shall be brought by an employee or dependent against the employer or [his] the employer's representative, including the insurer, guarantor or surety of any employer, for any matter relating to the occurrence of or payment for any injury or death covered by the Workers' Compensation Act. Nothing in the Workers' Compensation Act, however, shall affect [or be construed to affect] in any way the existence of or the mode of trial of any claim or cause of action that the worker has against any person other than [his] the worker's employer or another employee of [his] the worker's employer, including a management or supervisory employee, or the insurer, guarantor or surety of [his] the worker's employer."
Section 2. Section 52-1-7 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1975, Chapter 284, Section 4, as amended) is amended to read:
"52-1-7. APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF ACT TO CERTAIN EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES, [OR] SOLE PROPRIETORS OR FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYEES OF A FAMILY FARMING BUSINESS.--
A. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Workers' Compensation Act, an executive employee of a professional or business corporation or limited liability company, employed by the professional or business corporation or limited liability company as a worker as defined in the Workers' Compensation Act, or a sole proprietor may affirmatively elect not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act.
B. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Workers' Compensation Act, the employer of a family member employee in a family farming business may affirmatively elect not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act for the family member employee.
[B. Each] C. An executive employee, [or] sole proprietor or employer of a family member employee of a family farming business desiring to affirmatively elect not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act as permitted in Subsection A or B of this section may do so by filing an election in the office of the director. An employer of a family member employee of a family farming business shall deliver a copy of the affirmative election made pursuant to this section to the family member employee for whom the affirmative election is made.
[C. Each] D. An executive employee, [or] sole proprietor or employer of a family member employee of a family farming business desiring to revoke [his] an affirmative election made pursuant to this section not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act may do so by filing a revocation of the affirmative election with the workers' compensation insurer and in the office of the director. The revocation shall become effective thirty days after filing. An executive employee shall cause a copy of the revocation to be mailed to the board of directors of the professional or business corporation or limited liability company. An employer of a family member employee of a family farming business shall deliver a copy of the revocation of the affirmative election made pursuant to this section to the family member employee for whom the affirmative election was made.
[D.] E. The filing of an affirmative election not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall create a conclusive presumption that an executive employee, [or] sole proprietor or family member employee of a family farming business is not covered by the Workers' Compensation Act until the effective date of a revocation filed pursuant to this section. The filing of an affirmative election not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall apply to all corporations or limited liability companies in which the executive employee has a financial interest.
[E.] F. In determining the number of workers of an employer to determine who comes within the Workers' Compensation Act, an executive employee who has filed an affirmative election not to be subject to the Workers' Compensation Act shall be counted for determining the number of workers employed by [such] the employer.
G. In determining the number of workers of an employer to determine who comes within the Workers' Compensation Act, a family member employee of a family farming business shall not be counted by the employer.
[F.] H. For purposes of this section:
(1) "executive employee" means the [chairman] chair of the board, president, vice president, secretary, treasurer or other executive officer, if [he] that person owns ten percent or more of the outstanding stock, of the professional or business corporation or a ten percent ownership interest in the limited liability company; [and]
(2) "family farming business" means a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company or corporation in which all of the partners, members or shareholders are related within the third degree by blood or marriage and where the business cultivates the land for the production of agricultural crops, fruit or other horticultural products or the business is for the ownership, keeping or feeding of animals for the production of livestock or livestock products;
(3) "family member employee" means a spouse of an employer or an employee related to the employer within the third degree by blood or marriage;
(4) "within the third degree by blood or marriage" means related to the third degree of consanguinity or affinity and includes parents, grandparents, great- grandparents, children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces and spouses; and
[(2)] (5) "sole proprietor" means a single individual who owns all the assets of a business, is solely liable for its debts and employs in the business no person other than [himself] that individual."
Section 3. REPEAL.--Section 52-1-6.1 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1984, Chapter 127, Section 988.3) is repealed.
- 7 -
49th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2009
INTRODUCED BY
Cisco McSorley
FOR THE COURTS, CORRECTIONS AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE
AN ACT
RELATING TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION; REMOVING THE EXCLUSION FROM THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS OF FARM AND RANCH LABORERS IF THE EMPLOYER EMPLOYS THREE OR MORE EMPLOYEES; PROVIDING AN AFFIRMATIVE ELECTION TO EXCLUDE FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYEES IN A FAMILY FARMING BUSINESS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT; PROVIDING FOR REVOCATION OF AFFIRMATIVE ELECTIONS TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EMPLOYEES FROM THAT ACT; CLARIFYING DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES OF A FAMILY FARMING BUSINESS; DEFINING TERMS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
Section 1. Section 52-1-6 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1990 (2nd S.S.), Chapter 2, Section 4) is amended to read:
"52-l-6. APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF ACT.--
A. The provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall apply to employers of three or more workers; provided that act shall apply to all employers engaged in activities required to be licensed under the provisions of the Construction Industries Licensing Act regardless of the number of employees. The provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall not apply to employers of private domestic servants [and farm and ranch laborers]. Language within brackets [ ] is deleted.
B. An election to be subject to the Workers' Compensation Act by employers of private domestic servants [or farm and ranch laborers], by persons for whom the services of qualified real estate salespersons are performed or by a partner or self-employed person may be made by filing, in the office of the director, either a sworn statement to the effect that the employer accepts the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act or an insurance or security undertaking as required by Section 52-l-4 NMSA l978.
C. Every worker shall be conclusively presumed to have accepted the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act if [his] the worker's employer is subject to the provisions of that act and has complied with its requirements, including insurance.
D. [Such] Compliance with the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, including the provisions for insurance, shall be [and construed to be] a surrender by the employer and the worker of their rights to any other method, form or amount of compensation or determination thereof or to any cause of action at law, suit in equity or statutory or common-law right to remedy or proceeding whatever for or on account of personal injuries or death of the worker other than [as] those actions, suits or rights provided in the Workers' Compensation Act and shall be an acceptance of all of the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act and shall bind the worker [himself] and, for compensation for [his] the worker's death, shall bind [his] the worker's personal representative, [his] surviving spouse and next of kin, as well as the employer and those conducting [his] the employer's business during bankruptcy or insolvency.
E. The Workers' Compensation Act provides exclusive remedies. No cause of action outside the Workers' Compensation Act shall be brought by an employee or dependent against the employer or [his] the employer's representative, including the insurer, guarantor or surety of any employer, for any matter relating to the occurrence of or payment for any injury or death covered by the Workers' Compensation Act. Nothing in the Workers' Compensation Act, however, shall affect [or be construed to affect] in any way the existence of or the mode of trial of any claim or cause of action that the worker has against any person other than [his] the worker's employer or another employee of [his] the worker's employer, including a management or supervisory employee, or the insurer, guarantor or surety of [his] the worker's employer."
Section 2. Section 52-1-7 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1975, Chapter 284, Section 4, as amended) is amended to read:
"52-1-7. APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF ACT TO CERTAIN EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES, [OR] SOLE PROPRIETORS OR FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYEES OF A FAMILY FARMING BUSINESS.--
A. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Workers' Compensation Act, an executive employee of a professional or business corporation or limited liability company, employed by the professional or business corporation or limited liability company as a worker as defined in the Workers' Compensation Act, or a sole proprietor may affirmatively elect not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act.
B. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Workers' Compensation Act, the employer of a family member employee in a family farming business may affirmatively elect not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act for the family member employee.
[B. Each] C. An executive employee, [or] sole proprietor or employer of a family member employee of a family farming business desiring to affirmatively elect not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act as permitted in Subsection A or B of this section may do so by filing an election in the office of the director. An employer of a family member employee of a family farming business shall deliver a copy of the affirmative election made pursuant to this section to the family member employee for whom the affirmative election is made.
[C. Each] D. An executive employee, [or] sole proprietor or employer of a family member employee of a family farming business desiring to revoke [his] an affirmative election made pursuant to this section not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act may do so by filing a revocation of the affirmative election with the workers' compensation insurer and in the office of the director. The revocation shall become effective thirty days after filing. An executive employee shall cause a copy of the revocation to be mailed to the board of directors of the professional or business corporation or limited liability company. An employer of a family member employee of a family farming business shall deliver a copy of the revocation of the affirmative election made pursuant to this section to the family member employee for whom the affirmative election was made.
[D.] E. The filing of an affirmative election not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall create a conclusive presumption that an executive employee, [or] sole proprietor or family member employee of a family farming business is not covered by the Workers' Compensation Act until the effective date of a revocation filed pursuant to this section. The filing of an affirmative election not to accept the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall apply to all corporations or limited liability companies in which the executive employee has a financial interest.
[E.] F. In determining the number of workers of an employer to determine who comes within the Workers' Compensation Act, an executive employee who has filed an affirmative election not to be subject to the Workers' Compensation Act shall be counted for determining the number of workers employed by [such] the employer.
G. In determining the number of workers of an employer to determine who comes within the Workers' Compensation Act, a family member employee of a family farming business shall not be counted by the employer.
[F.] H. For purposes of this section:
(1) "executive employee" means the [chairman] chair of the board, president, vice president, secretary, treasurer or other executive officer, if [he] that person owns ten percent or more of the outstanding stock, of the professional or business corporation or a ten percent ownership interest in the limited liability company; [and]
(2) "family farming business" means a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company or corporation in which all of the partners, members or shareholders are related within the third degree by blood or marriage and where the business cultivates the land for the production of agricultural crops, fruit or other horticultural products or the business is for the ownership, keeping or feeding of animals for the production of livestock or livestock products;
(3) "family member employee" means a spouse of an employer or an employee related to the employer within the third degree by blood or marriage;
(4) "within the third degree by blood or marriage" means related to the third degree of consanguinity or affinity and includes parents, grandparents, great- grandparents, children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces and spouses; and
[(2)] (5) "sole proprietor" means a single individual who owns all the assets of a business, is solely liable for its debts and employs in the business no person other than [himself] that individual."
Section 3. REPEAL.--Section 52-1-6.1 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1984, Chapter 127, Section 988.3) is repealed.
- 7 -
HJM 1 - NMSU Water Study
HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 1
49TH LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO -
FIRST SESSION, 2009
INTRODUCED BY
Paul C. Bandy
FOR THE WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
A JOINT MEMORIAL REQUESTING NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY TO REPORT RESULTS OF RESEARCH ON WATER CONSERVATION METHODS THAT REDUCE CONSUMPTIVE USE.
WHEREAS, the legislature has received testimony on the
need for water conservation; and
WHEREAS, agriculture is the single largest consumer of
water; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 461 was negotiated and enacted in
2007 to provide incentives for irrigators to conserve more
water; and
WHEREAS, implementation of Senate Bill 461 by the office
of the state engineer has not resulted in water savings as
intended; and
WHEREAS, the need to encourage conservation and respect
private property rights are inherently compatible; and
WHEREAS, existing state policy works contrary to that
goal; and
WHEREAS, New Mexico state university has continuing
research programs to test various water practices and their
impacts on consumptive use efficiencies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO that New Mexico state university be
requested to report to the legislature the results of research
on water conservation methods that reduce consumptive use along
with any recommendations for legislation to the appropriate
interm committee by December 2009; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this memorial be
transmitted to the president of New Mexico state university.
49TH LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO -
FIRST SESSION, 2009
INTRODUCED BY
Paul C. Bandy
FOR THE WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
A JOINT MEMORIAL REQUESTING NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY TO REPORT RESULTS OF RESEARCH ON WATER CONSERVATION METHODS THAT REDUCE CONSUMPTIVE USE.
WHEREAS, the legislature has received testimony on the
need for water conservation; and
WHEREAS, agriculture is the single largest consumer of
water; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 461 was negotiated and enacted in
2007 to provide incentives for irrigators to conserve more
water; and
WHEREAS, implementation of Senate Bill 461 by the office
of the state engineer has not resulted in water savings as
intended; and
WHEREAS, the need to encourage conservation and respect
private property rights are inherently compatible; and
WHEREAS, existing state policy works contrary to that
goal; and
WHEREAS, New Mexico state university has continuing
research programs to test various water practices and their
impacts on consumptive use efficiencies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO that New Mexico state university be
requested to report to the legislature the results of research
on water conservation methods that reduce consumptive use along
with any recommendations for legislation to the appropriate
interm committee by December 2009; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this memorial be
transmitted to the president of New Mexico state university.
HB 39 Land Grants
HOUSE BILL 39
49th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2009
INTRODUCED BY Paul C. Bandy
FOR THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE
AN ACT
RELATING TO PUBLIC LANDS; REQUIRING STATE AGENCIES TO INCLUDE LAND GRANTS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE USE OF CERTAIN LANDS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
Section 1. STATE AGENCY LAND USE PLANNING--FORMER LAND GRANT LANDS.--A state agency that owns any interest in real property that is located within the boundaries of a land grant-merced shall include the board of trustees of that land grant-merced in the planning process for the use of the interest in real property if:
A. the location of the property is within the boundaries of the grant as shown in the United States patent to that land grant-merced; and
B. the land grant-merced is governed as a political subdivision of the state pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 49, Article 1 NMSA 1978 or statutes specific to the named land grant-merced.
49th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2009
INTRODUCED BY Paul C. Bandy
FOR THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE
AN ACT
RELATING TO PUBLIC LANDS; REQUIRING STATE AGENCIES TO INCLUDE LAND GRANTS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE USE OF CERTAIN LANDS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
Section 1. STATE AGENCY LAND USE PLANNING--FORMER LAND GRANT LANDS.--A state agency that owns any interest in real property that is located within the boundaries of a land grant-merced shall include the board of trustees of that land grant-merced in the planning process for the use of the interest in real property if:
A. the location of the property is within the boundaries of the grant as shown in the United States patent to that land grant-merced; and
B. the land grant-merced is governed as a political subdivision of the state pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 49, Article 1 NMSA 1978 or statutes specific to the named land grant-merced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)