Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR
Reps. Garcia and Martinez, J./Senator Jara-
millo
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 02/17/25
SHORT TITLE
Land Grant-Merced & Acequia Infrastruc-
ture
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 330
ANALYST Graeser
REVENUE*
(dollars in thousands)
Type FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
($39,400.0) ($39,600.0) ($40,600.0) ($41,600.0) ($42,600.0) Recurring
Severance Tax Bonding Ca-
pacity
$19,700.0) $19,800.0) $20,300.0 $20,800.0 $21,300.0 Recurring
Land Grant-Merced Infrastruc-
ture Project Fund (from sever-
ance tax bonding fund)
$0) $0) Up to $45.0 Up to $90.0
Up to
$135.0
Recurring
Land Grant-Merced Infrastruc-
ture Project Fund (from Trust
Fund
$0
Up to
$6,000.0
Up to
$6,000.0
Up to
$6,000.0
Up to
$6,000.0
Recurring
Land Grant-Merced & Acequia
Infrastructure Trust Fund (from
LG-M Project Fund & Acequia
Project Fund reversions)
$19,700.0) $19,800.0) $20,300.0 $20,800.0 $21,300.0 Recurring
Acequia Infrastructure Project
Fund (from severance tax
bonding fund)
$0) $0 Up to $45.0 Up to $90.0
Up to
$135.0
Recurring
Acequia Infrastructure Project
Fund (from Trust Fund)
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT *
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or Non-
recurring
Fund
Affected
Interstate
Stream Commis-
sion
No fiscal impact $500.0 $500.0 $1,000.0 Recurring General Fund
DFA No fiscal impact $258.8 $258.8 $517.6 Recurring General Fund
DOJ No fiscal impact
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring General Fund
Total No fiscal impact $758.8 $758.8 $1,517.6 Recurring General Fund
Relates to House Bill 21
Conflicts with House B ill 25 and Senate B ill 374
House Bill 330 – Page 2
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
New Mexico Attorney General
Department of Finance and Administration (DFA)
Board of Finance (BOF)
Acequia Commission (ACE)
Office of the State Engineer (OSE)
State Investment Council (SIC)
Acequias Association
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 330
House Bill 330 (HB330) creates new sections of statute that :
• Provide for the creation of a land grant-merced and acequia infrastructure trust fund ( trust
fund) and two related project funds, the land grant-merced infrastructure project fund and
the acequia infrastructure project fund;
• Grant the New Mexico Land Grant Council and the Interstate Stream Commission the au-
thority to administer, in conjunction with the New Mexico Department of Finance and Ad-
ministration (DFA), various aspects of the infrastructure funding process;
• Allow for the allocation of 1.1% of the estimated bonding capacity for severance tax bonds
for qualified land grant-merced infrastructure projects and an equal amount for qualified
acequia infrastructure projects; and
• Require New Mexico Land Grant Council and the Interstate Stream Commission to report
to the appropriate legislative interim committee on expenditures from the project funds, the
purposes for which expenditures were made, an analysis of the progress of the projects
fund-ed, and recommendations for improvement of HB330.
Qualified projects for land grant-merced infrastructure assistance include:
• Planning, designing, constructing, improving, expanding or equipping water and
wastewater facilities, major water systems, electrical power lines, communications infra-
structure, roads, health infrastructure, emergency response facilities, and infrastructure
needed to encourage economic development.
• Developing engineering feasibility reports for infrastructure projects.
• Providing special engineering services.
• Completing environmental assessments or archaeological clearances and other surveys for
infrastructure projects.
• Acquiring land, easements, or rights of way.
• Purchasing durable equipment.
Qualified projects for acequia infrastructure assistance include planning, engineering design, or
construction of irrigation works and infrastructure projects, including dams, reservoirs, diversions,
ditches, flumes, or other appurtenances for the purpose of restoration, repair, improvement of House Bill 330 – Page 3
irrigation efficiency, and protection from floods.
This bill does not contain an effective date and, as a result, would go into effect 90 days after the
Legislature adjourns, or June 20, 2025, if enacted.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
Each project fund receives 1.1 percent of s enior severance tax bonding (STB) capacity. This is
initially over $19 million. It is doubtful that either fund has projects that are sufficiently project-
ready to qualify the Board of Finance to approve selling bonds for the purpose. The t rust fund will
receive new funds only by amounts that revert from the project funds after any amounts that revert
to the s everance tax bonding fund. Funds for projects that are approved and funded but not com-
pleted within three years will revert to the se verance tax bonding fund. Six months after completion
of the project that received STB funding, any unspent STB proceeds for that project would revert
to the severance tax bonding fund. Funds that are not allocated in each year’s funding cycle will
be transferred to the trust fund. This is shown in the table as “Up to $6,000.0” but could be con-
siderably more, at least initially and particularly for the land grant -merced project fund. The Office
of the S tate Engineer indicates that funding applications for acequia projects may result in full
allocations of available funds. indicates that funding applications for acequia projects may result
in full allocations of available funds. Because of this asymmetry, the $19 million distribution from
the severance tax bonding fund to the land grant-merced infrastructure project fund will, in the
short run, be unallocated and reverted to the trust fund. As soon as those reversions exceed $5
million, there will be a distribution from the Trust Fund to the project funds split 50- 50. This means
that the land grants-mercedes may end up subsidizing subsidize acequia projects.
There are three temporal regimes for distributions from the t rust fund to the project funds:
1. Initially, until the balance in the fund exceeds $5 million, there will be no distribution from
the trust fund to the project funds.
2. When the balance in the trust fund exceeds $5 million, three percent of the balance will be
divided equally between the land grant -merced infrastructure project fund and the acequia
infrastructure project fund.
3. When 4.7 percent of the average of the year-end market values of the balance in the t rust
fund for the preceding five calendar years exceeds $5 million, then 4.7 percent of the bal-
ance in the t rust fund shall be divided equally between the land grant -merced infrastructure
project fund and the acequia infrastructure project fund.
The State Investment Council (SIC) provides extensive analysis:
The bill creates a t rust fund with potential to provide a recurring funding source to the p roject
funds; however, without an appropriation to the t rust fund, this provision would have no fiscal
impact. Should the trust fund receive a future appropriation, then on July 1 each year, the fund
would distribute 3 percent of the fund balance to the project funds, or 4.7 percent of the fund
balance if that amount exceeds $5 million. The trust fund would make no distribution if the
market value is less than $5 million.
As currently constructed, the primary source of funding for the project funds would be a 1.1
percent earmark for each fund of annual STB capacity. Since the bill has no effective date
(becoming effective on June 20, 2025) the earmark is assumed to apply to the June 30, 2025,
bond sale, affecting FY25 STB capacity. House Bill 330 – Page 4
The table [below] provides a simplified example of the available funding for the land g rant-
merced infrastructure project fund and the table [on the next page] provides a similar example
of the available funding for the a cequia project fund, assuming the entire available amount
would be spent that year; however, in practice, any unspent funds would be available for use
in subsequent years.
Project fund balances at the end of a fiscal year would revert to the t rust fund, except for STB
proceeds. Six months after completion of the project that received STB funding, any unspent
STB proceeds for that project would revert to the severance tax bonding fund. Bond sales
generally occur on December 31
st
and June 30
th
. For this analysis, we assume the proceeds
from the STB earmark are part of the June 30 bond sale each year, making those funds avail-
able for projects the following fiscal year.
Under this assumption, approximately $39.4 million would be available in FY27 for land grant-
merced and acequia infrastructure projects ($19.7 million each), and the project funds would
each receive an inflow of $20.3 million in STB proceeds at the end of that fiscal year, which
would be available for expenditure in FY28.
Land Grant-Merced Infrastructure Project Fund ($millions)
Fiscal Year
Distribution
Date
Beginning
Balance
Contrib.
from Trust
Fund (July
1)
Contrib.
from 1.1%
STBs (June
30)
Approp. for
Projects
Ending Bal-
ance
FY25 24-Jul $ - $ - $19.70 $ - $19.70
FY26 25-Jul $19.70 $ - $19.82 ($19.70) $19.82
FY27 26-Jul $19.82 $ - $20.26 ($19.82) $20.26
FY28 27-Jul $20.26 $ - $20.78 ($20.26) $20.78
FY29 28-Jul $20.78 $ - $20.89 ($20.78) $20.89
FY30 29-Jul $20.89 $ - $20.62 ($20.89) $20.62
FY31 30-Jul $20.62 $ - $20.08 ($20.62) $20.08
FY32 31-Jul $20.08 $ - $19.63 ($20.08) $19.63
FY33 Jul-32 $19.63 $ - $19.40 ($19.63) $19.40
FY34 Jul-33 $19.40 $ - $19.67 ($19.40) $19.67
FY35 Jul-34 $19.67 $ - $19.00 ($19.67) $19.00
FY36 Jul-35 $19.00 $ - $19.00 ($19.00) $19.00
FY37 Jul-36 $19.00 $ - $19.00 ($19.00) $19.00
FY38 Jul-37 $19.00 $ - $19.00 ($19.00) $19.00
FY39 Jul-38 $19.00 $ - $19.00 ($19.00) $19.00
FY40 Jul-39 $19.00 $ - $19.00 ($19.00) $19.00
Acequia Infrastructure Project Fund ($millions)
Fiscal Year Distrib Date
Beginning
Balance
Contrib.
from Trust
Fund (July
1)
Contrib.
from 1.1%
STBs (June
30)
Approp. for
Projects
Ending Bal-
ance
FY25 24-Jul $ - $ - $19.70 $ - $19.70 House Bill 330 – Page 5
OSE notes:
The [Interstate Stream Commission] would require additional staffing to administer the
$19.7M in new annual acequia funding provided by this bill dependent on needs/shovel-
ready projects as recommended by the Commission. The Acequia Bureau within the
agency is currently staffed with five FTEs administering $2.5 million annually in Acequia
and Community Ditch Infrastructure Funding in addition to all c apital outlay appropria-
tions directly to acequias, totaling over 300 individual awards and over $27M in the last
six years. A cequia and C ommunity Ditch Infrastructure Funding currently provides fund-
ing to acequias for planning, engineering designs, disaster response recovery and hazard
mitigation, and construction of infrastructure improvement projects in accordance with
guidelines that have been adopted by the Commission. The funding provided by HB330
could complement A cequia and C ommunity Ditch Infrastructure Funding and could be
used in the same manner as the existing funding sources for acequias. However, it is antic-
ipated at this time that the Commission would need approximately $500,000 recurring gen-
eral fund to hire four additional FTEs to provide sufficient staff capacity to administer and
oversee a significant increase in funds and projects administered
New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG) notes the agency may see a small fiscal impact due to the
bill’s requirement that the Land Grant Council adopt rules. NMAG provides legal representation
to the Land Grant Council and the council will likely request legal assistance from NMAG in
developing and adopting the rules contemplated by the bill and in implementing the bill.
This bill creates three new fund and provides for continuing appropriations. LFC has concerns
with including continuing appropriation language in the statutory provisions for newly created
funds because it reduces the ability of the Legislature to establish spending priorities. In any event,
this new diversion of Senior STB capacity may crowd out other projects of higher priority.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
OSE notes:
FY26 25-Jul $19.70 $ - $19.82 ($19.70) $19.82
FY27 26-Jul $19.82 $ - $20.26 ($19.82) $20.26
FY28 27-Jul $20.26 $ - $20.78 ($20.26) $20.78
FY29 28-Jul $20.78 $ - $20.89 ($20.78) $20.89
FY30 29-Jul $20.89 $ - $20.62 ($20.89) $20.62
FY31 30-Jul $20.62 $ - $20.08 ($20.62) $20.08
FY32 31-Jul $20.08 $ - $19.63 ($20.08) $19.63
FY33 Jul-32 $19.63 $ - $19.40 ($19.63) $19.40
FY34 Jul-33 $19.40 $ - $19.67 ($19.40) $19.67
FY35 Jul-34 $19.67 $ - $19.00 ($19.67) $19.00
FY36 Jul-35 $19.00 $ - $19.00 ($19.00) $19.00
FY37 Jul-36 $19.00 $ - $19.00 ($19.00) $19.00
FY38 Jul-37 $19.00 $ - $19.00 ($19.00) $19.00
FY39 Jul-38 $19.00 $ - $19.00 ($19.00) $19.00
FY40 Jul-39 $19.00 $ - $19.00 ($19.00) $19.00 House Bill 330 – Page 6
HB330 addresses the unmet needs of acequias and community ditches for planning, engineer-
ing design, and construction of infrastructure projects. There are an estimated 700 acequias
and community ditches in 23 counties in New Mexico. Statewide, hundreds of acequias and
community ditches require repairs and improvements to efficiently convey irrigation water.
The need for acequia infrastructure funding is demonstrated by the high number of acequias
requesting funding from the a cequia and c ommunity ditch infrastructure fund at the Interstate
Stream Commission. According to the annual workplans of the Interstate Stream Commission,
which administers the fund through the Acequia Bureau with 5 FTE, during FY24 and FY25
the applications to the Interstate Stream Commission for the acequia and c ommunity ditch
infrastructure fund far exceeded the annual funding of $2.5 million. In FY24, the Interstate
Stream Commission approved $6.5 million for 42 projects and, in FY25, the Interstate Stream
Commission approved $5.8 million for 36 projects. The reason that Interstate Stream Commis-
sion was able to fund a higher amount than $2.5 million per year was because of special ap-
propriations from the Legislature to the Interstate Stream Commission for acequia projects
statewide. A reliable revenue stream from severance tax bonds for the a cequia infrastructure
project f und would help meet the demonstrated need.
The New Mexico Acequia Association has compiled data showing that the need for acequia
infrastructure funding far exceeds the available resources. A total of the unfunded c apital out-
lay from FY25, FY26, infrastructure capital improvement plan requests, and the acequia and
community ditch infrastructure fund FY26 applications is $51.7 million . The amount needed
to respond to disasters from FY25, which would help acequias meet the cost share requirements
of federal disaster programs (75% federal/25% local-state) is estimated to be $24.5 million.
This amounts to over $75 million in unmet needs.
These proposed funds can play a vital role in addressing needs for infrastructure funding. T he
acequia and community ditch infrastructure fund is used to administer acequia project funding
and prioritizes acequia projects but is a fund that is capped at a $2.5 million annual appropria-
tion from the New Mexico i rrigation works construction fund. If enacted, these new funds will
have the necessary capital to provide the needed funding to acequias and meet the ever-grow-
ing need.
DFA notes the following:
The Land Grant Council is administratively attached to the DFA/Local Government Division,
while the Interstate Stream Commission is administratively attached to OSE. OSE has devel-
oped acequia and c ommunity ditch infrastructure fund guidelines that are used to make recom-
mendations to the c ommission for planning, engineering design, and construction of acequia
and community ditch projects under their Acequias Construction Programs. It is recommended
that OSE works in consultation with the Interstate Stream Commission to carry out the acequia
infrastructure project fund.
SIC provides the following guidance:
The bill’s structure for trust fund distributions is to send a percentage of the current fund value
as of July 1 any given year to the p roject funds, which is not standard and will create more
volatile distribution levels year-over-year, especially during times of market volatility. Typi-
cally, endowments and trusts base distributions on three- or five-year fund valuations, as
longer-term averages create smoother distributions, aiding the budgeting and planning pro-
cess. House Bill 330 – Page 7
The State Investment Officer, with the approval of the State Investment Council would man-
age the f und in accordance with the Uniform Prudent Investor Act and would seek to ethically
optimize risk-adjusted returns and grow the fund over time. The c ouncil does not currently
have a “boilerplate” asset allocation for any fund, including the proposed f und, but it is a fair
assumption that the new fund could/would be constructed in a manner similar to other perma-
nent/trust funds managed by SIC.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
SIC notes no current administrative impact but wishes policy makers to understand the magnitude
of impact if all proposed trust funds were enacted:
Because the bill does not seek funding for the trust fund it places under SIC management, the
bill would have no immediate impact on SIC operations.
However, we would note this bill is one of several bills introduced so far this session that seek
to create new funds to be placed under SIC management, which collectively would require
significant additional staff time and resources:
• House Bill 7 creates a new c hildren’s future fund to be managed by SIC . The bill seeks
to seed the fund with an initial $5 million general fund appropriation.
• House Bill 11 seeks to create a new p aid family m edical l eave fund to be managed by
SIC (however, SIC noted in its fiscal impact report that this is an expenditure fund that
would be best managed by the State Treasurer’s Office).
• House Bill 25 creates a new l and grant-merced infrastructure trust fund to be managed
by SIC. The bill seeks to seed the trust fund with a $20 million general fund appropri-
ation.
• House Bill 113 creates a new a nimal welfare trust fund to be managed by SIC . The bill
seeks to seed the trust fund with a $10 million general fund appropriation.
• Senate Bill 1 creates a new behavioral health trust fund to be managed by SIC . The bill
seeks to seed the trust fund with a $1 billion general fund appropriation.
• Senate Bill 88 creates a new Medicaid trust fund to be managed by SIC . The bill seeks
to seed the trust fund with a $300 million general fund appropriation. Senate Bill 234
creates a Tribal Education Trust to be managed by SIC. The bill seeks to seed the trust
with a $100 million general fund appropriation.
• Senate Bill 358 creates a new e quine shelter rescue fund to be managed by SIC . The
bill seeks to seed the trust fund with a $20 million general fund appropriation.
The O ffice of the S tate Auditor has a role to play in implementing this proposal:
Projects created and developed by H B330 would be subject to the requirements for financial
certification put in place by Executive Order 2013- 006. Many land grants-mercedes are small,
local public bodies that have not conducted up to date agreed upon procedures reviews as re-
quired for financial compliance with the Audit Act. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has
developed and implemented an assistance program to help these land grant communities with
achieving financial compliance requirements. OSA works closely with the Land Grant Council
to identify land grants with needs in financial certification, providing technical assistance and
training opportunities to these organizations and communicating with the Land Grant Council
on a regular basis. The small Local Public Bodies Program at OSA does cover more than land
grants-mercedes, providing assistance to other small rural governments too, such as acequias House Bill 330 – Page 8
and mutual domestic water associations (MDWA’s). As of January 16, 2025, OSA helped re-
move such access restrictions for approximately $3.1 million in withheld appropriations to
acequias, land grants, and MDWA’s, and new entities are being identified for assistance at any
given point in time. OSA would continue its partnership with the Land Grant Council to re-
move any access restrictions related to financial compliance to entities receiving new grants
under the new a ct.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
Relates to House Bill 21, which would make changes to the distributions of the land grant -
merced assistance fund.
Conflicts with House Bill 25, which also creates a new land grant-merced infrastructure trust fund
and project fund. The bill seeks to seed the trust fund with a $20 million general fund appropriation
and provide the project fund with a recurring 1.1 percent earmark of STB capacity.
Duplicates S enate B ill 374 with minimal differences.
SIC notes that language in the bill runs contrary to the clean-up language around Trust/Program
fund functions in Senate Bill 202, which creates standardized language requiring investment of
funds to be in accordance with the Uniform Prudent Investor Act and creates more consistent trust
fund distribution mechanisms that are based on a percentage of a rolling average calendar-year-
end market value.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
SIC requests consideration of possible amendments:
The bill calls for a distribution from the trust fund to the project funds on July 1 equal to 3
percent or 4.7 percent of the fund balance as of that date. For accounting and timing rea-
sons, the structure is problematic.
The funds managed by SIC – now 12 reserve, endowment and permanent funds as well as
25 governmental clients – are unitized in investment pools with valuations determined
monthly. Therefore, the valuation would need to be as of June 30. However, the reconcili-
ation process for determining monthly valuations for each of those funds takes roughly 21
days each month, so the earliest a June 30 valuation could be determined based on unau-
dited totals would be roughly July 21, making a July 1 distribution impossible.
SIC staff recommend amending the bill to allow SIC sufficient time to determine the mar-
ket value of the fund and make a distribution as soon as practicable. This would allow for
a functional fund structure to be in place should the trust fund receive future appropriations.
OSE notes:
The Interstate Stream Commission, through its Acequia Bureau, administers all of the in-
dividual capital outlay funds that are appropriated by the Legislature to individual acequias
within their districts. This workload currently consists of over 300 individual appropria-
tions totaling over $27 million during the last six years. In addition, the Acequia Bureau
provides $2.5 million annually to acequias as grants for planning, engineering designs, House Bill 330 – Page 9
disaster response recovery and hazard mitigation, and construction of infrastructure im-
provement projects in accordance with guidelines that have been adopted by the commis-
sion. These guidelines require acequias to submit funding applications, which are ranked,
and funding decisions are made based on their rankings. The acequia community has also
received special appropriations and capital outlay appropriations to be used at the c ommis-
sion’s discretion for acequia projects statewide. That funding has been utilized, in coordi-
nation with the Department of Finance and Administration, along with the existing a cequia
and community ditch infrastructure fund funding to provide more than $2.5 million to the
acequias over the past few years. The FY24 and FY25 budgets for a cequia and community
ditch infrastructure fund projects have exceeded $5 million each year because of that addi-
tional funding. HB330 could provide additional recurring funding for acequia projects and
could best serve the acequias if used in conjunction with the existing acequia and c ommu-
nity ditch infrastructure fund program and in accordance with the guidelines that have al-
ready been adopted. Those guidelines were developed in coordination with the NM
Acequia Commission and NM Acequia Association. HB330 requires the c ommission and
the department to promulgate rules but if the funding were instead allowed to be utilized
in conjunction with the existing a cequia and community ditch infrastructure fund then rule-
making could be eliminated, and the funds would be administered according to the existing
acequia and community ditch infrastructure fund guidelines. The applications received
over the past few years have exceeded the budgets available demonstrating a need for ad-
ditional funding for acequia infrastructure projects.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL
OSE comments:
If HB 330 is not enacted, acequias and community ditches will have a severe shortfall of
available infrastructure funding.
LG/rl/SL2
Attachtments:
1. Acequia and community ditch i nfrastructure f und workplan
House Bill 330 – Page 10
Attachment 1 - FY 2024 ACDIF Work Plan
Planning
Funding for planning assistance to acequias and community ditches. 100,000.00
Engineering
Acequia Name County Project Type
Funding
Requested
Acequia de Alcalde
Rio Ar-
riba
Bank Stabilization/Con-
crete Lining
$24,125.50
Acequia de la Canada Ancha
Rio Ar-
riba
Sluice/Water Control Struc-
ture
$17,956.93
Acequia de la Jarita
Rio Ar-
riba
Irrigation Pipeline $19,428.50
Acequia Madre del Bosque
Rio Ar-
riba
Culverts/Concrete Water
Control Structure
$21,892.60
Mariano Acequia Association
Rio Ar-
riba
Diversion, Siphon, Pipe-
line, Desague
$19,428.50
Acequia de la Concepcion
San
Miguel
Irrigation Pipeline $21,502.72
La Fragua Puertecito y Saiz Acequia Association
San
Miguel
Irrigation Pipeline $23,539.17
Canon Community Ditch
Sando-
val
Diversion Dam/Pipe-
line/Turnouts/Siphon
$42,273.00
Acequia de los Indios
Santa
Fe
Infiltration Gallery $26,536.00
Las Acequias de las Trampas Taos Log Flume Replacement $25,308.69
Rebalse Ditch Association Taos Concrete Ditch Lining $4,021.44
Vigil y Romo Acequia Association Taos
Bank Stabilization & Pipe-
line
$11,412.19
Engineering Services Subtotal $257,425.23
Approx. 5% Contingency $17,574.77
Engineering Services Total $275,000.00
Construction
Acequia Name County Project Type Total Request
Engineering
Services
Lower Bull Creek Ditch
San
Miguel
Diversion & Heading
Structure
$50,000.00 $ -
Acequia del Finado Francisco Martinez Taos Irrigation Pipeline $225,000.00 $14,085.90
Tularosa Community Ditch Otero Irrigation Pipeline $157,500.00 $ -
Abeyta-Trujillo Acequia Association
Rio Ar-
riba
Irrigation Pipeline $250,000.00 $10,520.61
Cuarteles Ditch Association
Santa
Fe
Grade Stabilzation/Sluice
Structures
$135,425.75 $ -
Acequias de Chamisal y Ojito Taos Divider Structure $65,023.00 $7,003.49
Acequia del Molino (Acequia de los Barriales Fiscal
Agent)
Rio Ar-
riba
Irrigation Pipeline $75,000.00 $8,140.70
Acequia de Abajo la Loma Taos
Irrigation Pipe-
line/Heading Structure
$100,000.00 $4,862.81
Acequia Madre de Penasco Sur Taos
Diversion Dam Reha-
bilitation
$250,000.00 $19,546.07
Des Montes Ditch Association Taos Division/Splitter Boxes $86,037.56 $5,943.44
Acequia Madre de Las Vegas
San
Miguel
Irrigation Pipeline $250,000.00 $21,705.37
Ferran Community Ditch Association
Rio Ar-
riba
Heading Structure Im-
provements
$180,000.00 $6,100.00
West Puerto de Luna Community Ditch
Guada-
lupe
Flume Replacement $42,762.00 $ - House Bill 330 – Page 11
Pacheco Community Ditch Taos
Diversion Dam Im-
provements
$23,400.00 $2,863.66
Lower Animas Community Ditch
San
Juan
Concrete Ditch Lining $250,000.00 $26,656.25
Acequia del Cano
Santa
Fe
Diversion Structure $250,000.00 $ -
Farmers Mutual Ditch
San
Juan
Heading Structure $205,000.00 $ -
Acequia del Llano
Rio Ar-
riba
Flume Rehabilitation $112,094.86 $11,008.32
Acequia del Ancon
Rio Ar-
riba
Irrigation Pipeline $250,000.00 $3,000.00
Polvadera Acequia #1 Association
Rio Ar-
riba
Irrigation Pipeline $250,000.00 $6,511.75
Vallecitos West Ditch Association
Rio Ar-
riba
Heading Structure Im-
provements
$44,000.00 $4,000.00
Acequia de Martinez de Abajo
Santa
Fe
Diversion Dam $250,000.00 $4,392.00
Storm Ditch Lincoln
Diversion Dam Im-
provements
$137,114.00 $15,487.98
Acequia Madre del Rio Grande del Rancho Taos Diversion Dam $215,674.50 $38,437.87
Acequia de la Agua Caliente
San
Miguel
Irrigation Pipeline $250,000.00 $20,000.00
Acequia del Pueblo Abiquiu
Rio Ar-
riba
Irrigation Pipeline $250,000.00 $7,045.50
Acequia de los Duranes
Rio Ar-
riba
Irrigation Pipeline $250,000.00 $5,551.00
Acequia de La Joya
So-
corro
Concrete Ditch Lining $250,000.00 $ -
Subtotal $4,854,031.67 $242,862.72
Approx. 5% Contingency
$811,105.22 $17,000.39
Total $5,665,136.89 $259,863.11
Total Construction Funding Request $5,925,000.00
Alternate Construction Projects
Rio Puerco Community Ditch
Rio Ar-
riba
Diversion Dam $250,000.00 $5,450.63
Questa Citizens Ditch Association Taos Diversion Dam/Headgate $250,000.00 $35,000.00
Disaster Response Recovery and Hazard Mitigation $100,000.00
Staffing funding for one acequia full-time position. $100,000.00
TOTAL WORK PLAN REQUEST $6,500,000.00