Green amendment gets grilled, but moves forward

Yahoo

04-02-2025

Maya van Rossum is the founder of the nonprofit Green Amendments for the Generation and author of The Green Amendment: The People's Fight for a Clean, Safe, and Healthy Environment. She is working to pass Green Amendments in New Mexico and across the country. (Courtesy photo)
A proposed so-called 'Green Amendment' to enshrine a right to 'clean and healthy air, water, soil and environment' in the New Mexico Constitution moved through its first committee Monday, but not without bipartisan questioning signaling a possible uphill battle.
The committee voted 6-3 along party lines to approve the bill, but as a 'no recommendation' vote, which means the committee will neither endorse nor oppose the bill, which heads to the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
House Joint Resolution 3, sponsored by Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-Albuquerque) and Democratic Reps. Joanne Ferrary of Las Cruces, Patricia Roybal Caballero of Albuquerque and Farmington's Joseph Franklin Hernadez, if passed, would place a constitutional amendment on the next general election ballot. HJR3 would allow New Mexico voters, in turn, to adopt additional language for the state's constitution and add rights to 'to clean and healthy air, water, soil and environments; healthy native flora, fauna and ecosystems; a safe climate; and the preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic and healthful qualities of the environment.'
Maya van Rossum, an environmental lawyer and author who has pressed for green amendments in other states, as well as in New Mexico previously, said the amendment would put environmental rights on 'equal footing' with civil rights and property rights.
With the federal government poised to roll back environmental standards, HJR3, if passed by the Legislature and then adopted by voters, would provide the state more control, said Cliff Villa, a University of New Mexico environmental law professor and senior climate policy advisor.
'The New Mexico Green Amendment does not depend on the federal government to protect our health and environment,' Villa told the committee, ' it allows New Mexicans to protect New Mexicans and exercise existing authorities across our state government.'
Public comment supporting the bill came from representatives in environmental nonprofits, church groups, teachers and Democratic party members from across the state.
As in years past, critics expressed concern that a Green Amendment could thwart developments, and put the state at risk for increased financial liability from litigation. Opposition speaking on Monday included lobbyists for the New Mexico Chamber of Commerce and realtor groups, the Cattle Growers Association – which often oppose environmental bills – as well as several clean energy companies.
Both Pattern Energy, a wind, solar and transmission construction company – which is constructing the controversial SunZia transmission line – and Interwest Energy Alliance, which promotes wind and solar in the intermountain west, spoke against the bill, saying the groups are concerned the amendment could be used to block development of renewable energy projects.
'The language in the proposal is so broad, neither government-decision makers nor private developers can accurately guess what it requires, leading to incredible inefficiencies, uncertainty and legal risk in the context of renewable energy development,' said Deborah Condit, a lobbyist for Interwest Energy Alliance.
The advocates tried to counter concerns about renewable energy projects, noting that nuisance laws, not green amendments, had been used in some of the examples critics cited.
'We have to acknowledge that clean energy projects are already being challenged under a wide variety of theories,' van Rossum told the committee. 'But with the passage of HJR3, as long as government fulfills their duty to fully assess and minimize environmental impacts, government and proponents of clean energy projects would be better prepared to avoid and defend against community concerns.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Lawmakers asked about the potential for higher liability costs or increases in lawsuits against state or local governments should the constitutional amendment be adopted.
Sedillo Lopez countered by saying the amendment 'is not a way for people to get monetary damages, it's a way for people to ensure that the state of New Mexico protects our air, land and water.'
Rep. Cynthia Borrego (D-Albuquerque) voted to pass the bill, but said there may need to be further amending to assuage renewable energy industry concerns.
'I think there are significant questions in my mind still regarding local agencies, state agencies, and the questions they've raised,' she told the sponsors. 'I think those questions need to be answered, and hopefully will be, in the next committee.'
A similar version of the amendment has been introduced for the past five years, but has never made it beyond committees on either side of the Roundhouse. If passed by New Mexico voters, the state would join Montana, New York and Pennsylvania as the fourth to have a Green Amendment.
Debate and comments over the bill stretched the hearing to the full two hours, meaning the rest of the committee's agenda – which included expanding felony voting rights and installing a climate health program – got bumped to Wednesday's meeting.
With a slew of bills assigned to the remaining agendas, the committee's chair, Rep. D. Wonda Johnson (D-Rehoboth) warned the committee may have to meet over the weekend.
van Rossum, in a call with Source NM Monday, said she was satisfied with the committee outcome, given that the ultimate goal is to place the proposal before voters.
She also said that the Green Amendment has not been used to stop any clean energy projects, calling statements otherwise a 'scare tactic.'
'Really what's happening here is there really is a misrepresentation of what are the impacts or the implications of the New Mexico Green Amendment, particularly we hear a lot about advancing clean energy,' she said. 'It's really a line of misinformation that's being used to…dissuade people from being in support based on false claims.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX