The Sleeping Giant on the San Juan by jianghongl

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 8

									Natural Resources,
Energy and


                                                    Vista
Environmental
Law Section

State Bar of New Mexico                                                                                 June 2005


                                         The Sleeping Giant
Welcome                                  on the San Juan
Back!
                                         by Joshua Mann
    There has been a hiatus of
several years since SONREEL                   How does a nation that professes   to avoid long, costly litigation, have
has produced a Newsletter. This          to spread democracy and freedom to      formed compromises and on April
year the Board has supported law         oppressed peoples of the world settle   19, 2005 signed a complex settlement
student articles, to both provide a      its own less than righteous past and    agreement. This agreement between
link with the Law School and to          make good on its debt to the people     Navajo Nation, the State of New
generate articles of interest to Sec-    from whose land and water this great    Mexico and the United States aims
tion members. This document is           nation grew? Reconciling the claims     to “resolve the claims of the Navajo
the result, and we hope you will         of indigenous peoples with the real-    Nation to the use of water of the San
find it useful and thought-pro-           ity of the people now living on that    Juan River Basin… [and] is intended
voking. The publication will best        land is a daunting task with no easy    to provide water rights and associated
serve our readers if you provide us      solution. The proposed Navajo Set-      water development projects…in ex-
with feed-back on what you like,         tlement on the San Juan Basin is no     change for a release of claims to water
what you could do without, top-          exception. The Navajo possibly have     that potentially might otherwise dis-
ics you might be interested in,          a very large legal claim to water of    place existing non-Navajo water uses
and your own articles or letters.        the San Juan Basin (in excess of New    in the Basin.”2
Please contact me (466-7139 or           Mexico’s entire apportionment of the        The history of the Navajo Na-
jjpruett@cybermesa.com) if you           Colorado River), but that important     tion and current law provides an im-
have comments or would like to           claim is amorphous and not useful       portant context for understanding
                                         without the infrastructure to bring                           continued on page 2
write a short article for our next is-
sue, which we hope to publish late       wet water to the reservation.
next fall (2005).                             On the Eastern Agency of the        Inside This Issue:
    Thanks for your support and          Navajo reservation approximately        Future of Water
                                         half of the people lack running water   Management Policy                     3
happy reading,
                                         in their homes.1 On the other side,
                                                                                 Geothermal Electric
           Jennifer J. Pruett, Editor    the State of New Mexico seeks to cast   Development                           5
                                         off the cloud of uncertainty hover-
                                         ing above the San Juan Basin to en-     Section Budget                        7
                                         sure growth and development there.      Board of Directors                    8
                                         These parties have come together
Sleeping Giant
continued from page 1

the nature of the Settlement. The               The Settlement bridges the con-      by corresponding reductions” in use
Navajo have traditionally occupied         flicting aspects of the two doctrines      by the rights of the Navajo Nation
the Four Corners area                                      by quantifying the        and not additional to them.
where the San Juan                                         Navajo Nation’s rights         Under the administration provi-
Rivers flows and forms                                      to San Juan water, es-    sions of the Settlement, the Navajo
the Northern border                                        tablishing the admin-     Nation agrees to subordinate its pri-
of the reservation.3 In                                    istration of that water   ority rights and reduce its ability to
1863 the US govern-                                        with respect to other     make priority calls on the River. Al-
ment took over the                                         uses in the basin, and    though the Nation will retain an 1868
Navajo territory and                                       providing appropria-      priority date for its use of the Navajo
forced the Navajo                                          tions for water proj-     Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP) and
to relocate in south-                                      ects benefiting Navajo     Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Proj-
eastern New Mexico.                                        Nation. Accordingly,      ect, those rights will be subject to
However in 1868 both                                       it includes four appen-   a 1955 priority date and will share
parties signed a treaty                                    dix documents: a Par-     shortages with the San Juan-Chama
that allowed the Na-                                       tial Final Decree for     Project, the Jicarilla Apache Nation,
vajo to return to their                                    entry in the San Juan     the Hammond Irrigation Project and
homeland and grant-                                        River Adjudication;       other Project contractors. Similarly,
ed each Navajo family 160 acres of         a Supplemental Partial Final Decree       the Navajo Nation will retain an
farmland and single adults 80 acres.4      for entry in the Adjudication quan-       1868 priority date for use of Animas-
In 1906, the Supreme Court handed          tifying certain reserved rights of the    La Plata Project water that will be
down the Winters Doctrine5, which          Navajo Nation for historic and exist-     subordinated to a 1956 priority and
held that when the Federal Govern-         ing uses; a Settlement Act for Con-       will share shortages with the San Juan
ment sought to change the Indians          gress to authorize the construction       Water Commission and other Project
from nomads to farmers, it gave them       and operation of the Navajo-Gallup        contractors. Senior irrigation rights
sufficient water to irrigate their lands.   project and to fund construction and      for Navajo and non-Navajo ditches
Winter’s recognizes that Indian reser-     rehabilitation of Navajo water proj-      on the San Juan and its tributaries
vations have a right to a quantity of      ects; and a Settlement Contract to        will retain their rights in a priority
water based on the amount of “prac-        provide for deliveries to the Navajo      administration of the river and not
ticably irrigable acres” on the reser-     Nation under Bureau of Reclamation        share shortages. Under the settle-
vation, a right that cannot be lost to     water projects.                           ment, the Navajo Nation will admin-
nonuse and a right that has a priority          The agreement quantifies Navajo       ister its rights on Navajo lands subject
set at the date of the reservation/trea-   Nation’s “reserved rights” that are       to non-impairment of non-Navajo
ty. Accordingly, the Navajo Nation         subject to the San Juan Adjudication      water rights, and the State Engineer
has a powerful right to water from the     (606,660 acre feet per year). Howev-      would monitor Navajo Nation water
San Juan River with a priority date of     er, individual Navajo members who         uses for compliance with the decree.
1868 and a quantity that some have         have been allotted land by the U.S.       This is significant because these “pro-
measured as large as five million acre      are not bound by the Settlement and       visions substantially reduce the risks
feet.6 New Mexico follows the Doc-         may have additional claims to “his-       and occurrences of shortage to di-
trine of Prior Appropriation which         toric and existing agriculture, stock     rect-flow users that otherwise would
basically holds both that users senior     and domestic uses” in the San Juan        be anticipated to result from priority
in time have a superior right to more      River Basin. A hydrographic survey        calls on the river.”7
recent or junior users; however, un-       prepared jointly by the U.S. and N.M.          The Settlement Act authorizes
like Winter’s, the water must be put       will determined the limit of those re-    federal appropriations totaling $720
to “beneficial use” or the right to that    maining rights. However, any of those     million dollars for the construction
water is lost.                             claims would be “serviced by, or offset   or rehabilitation of water develop-

2 - Vista - Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law Section
ment projects, including the Fruit-            Projects, Native Americans And Envi-         TERS: IRON TRIANGLES, FED-
land-Cambridge Irrigation Project,             ronmental Justice: The Bureau Of Rec-        ERAL WATER DEVELOPMENT,
the Hogback-Cudei Irrigation Proj-             lamation’s History Of Discrimination,        AND INDIAN WATER 2 (1987).
ect and the Navajo-Gallup Water                20-JUN ENVIRONS ENVTL. L. &              7
                                                                                            REVISED DRAFT: EXECUTIVE
Supply Project. It requires that “cer-         POL’Y J. 40, 45 (June, 1997).                SUMMARY OF THE SAN JUAN
tain project construction and fund-        4
                                               Id.                                          RIVER BASIN IN NEW MEXI-
ing milestones be achieved by specific      5
                                               Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564       CO NAVAJO NATION WATER
completion dates.” The big question            (1908).                                      RIGHTS SETTLEMENT 6 (Dec.
remains whether Congress will fund         6
                                               Newell supra note 3, citing Daniel           10, 2004).
the settlement as it stands now. If            Mccool, COMMAND OF THE WA-
the current state of the Aamodt case,
which was designed to settle de-
cades-old water rights claims among        The Pending New Mexico Supreme Court Decision in
Pojoaque, Tesuque, Nambe and San
Ildefonso pueblos and non-Indian
                                           Herrington v. State ex rel.
residents in the Pojoaque basin, is a      Office of State Engineer:
sign of things to come, then it may
be a long road to passage. For that        Will it Affect the Future of New Mexico
settlement, Senators Domenici and
Bingaman have only been able to se-
                                           Water Management Policy?
cure eleven million of the estimated
$212 million needed.                       by Gabriel Wade
     The Settlement of the San Juan
is extremely important to all parties      Introduction                                 the OSE and the district court, the
involved. It provides the Navajo Na-           In 1982, Ellis and LaVerne Her-          Herringtons appealed to the New
tion with resources to get wet wa-         rington filed an application with the         Mexico Court of Appeals and were
ter to its members, it provides New        Office of the State Engineer (OSE)            again denied the transfer.3 On May
Mexico with certainty and the abil-        for a partial change
ity to administer water from the San       in their surface water
Juan and it provides the United States     point of diversion on
an opportunity to make good on its         the Rio de Arenas,
debt. The settlement is signed and         a tributary of the
ready for Congress to approve. It is       Mimbres River, to
now up to the Federal Government           a downstream well.
to choose whether to fund this cause       The       Herringtons
or spend our money elsewhere.              argued that ground
                                           water pumping by
Endnotes                                   up-stream, junior
1
    Stanley M. Pollack, Integrated Water   appropriators had
    Resources Management in the San Juan   diminished the sur-
    Basin: The Navajo Perspective.         face water available at their existing       17, 2004, the New Mexico Supreme
2
    REVISED DRAFT: EXECUTIVE               point of diversion. The Herringtons          Court granted certiorari. This article
    SUMMARY OF THE SAN JUAN                applied for the change in diversion          will discuss the Court of Appeals de-
    RIVER BASIN IN NEW MEXI-
                                           points from surface to groundwater           cision, and what the Herringtons and
    CO NAVAJO NATION WATER
                                           under the Templeton doctrine,1 as well       the OSE are arguing before the New
                                           as asserting an independent right to         Mexico Supreme Court as a matter of
    RIGHTS SETTLEMENT 1 (Dec.
                                           transfer based on Clodfelter v. Reyn-        law.
    10, 2004).
                                           olds.2 After unsuccessful appeals to
3
    Kaylee Ann Newell, Federal Water                                                                         continued on page 4


                                                    3 - Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law Section - Vista - 3
Water Management Policy
continued from page 3

The Court of Appeals Decision               Mexico water policy. Future water            Conclusion
     According to the Court of Ap-          planning depends on a water market                The Supreme Court’s decision in
peals, the Templeton “same-source”          system where outdated water uses             this case is likely to have a significant
requirement is only satisfied when           may be transferred into new uses.            effect on water management policy
the water drawn from the well is a          This includes surface to ground water        in New Mexico. Under the Court
source of the appropriated surface          transfers. Placing all such transfers        of Appeals ruling, the only surface to
waters at the point of the surface diver-   under the narrow Templeton doctrine          ground transfers possible are under
sion. The Court held that as a mat-         is contrary to good water policy.            the Templeton Doctrine. The Temple-
ter of law, a downstream well could              The OSE argues that the primary         ton Doctrine creates a more difficult
not meet that requirement because           question before the Supreme Court            barrier to water transfers than does a
it necessarily draws on seepage and         is whether substantial evidence sup-         Clodfelter-- “no impairment” transfer.
                                                                                         Clodfelter
percolation into the river that oc-         ports the factual determinations of          In a water market situation, the ease
curs downstream of the surface water        the district court, as upheld by the         of water transfers is crucial to re-al-
diversion. As the Herringtons’ pro-         Court of Appeals.5 Having affirmed            location of water rights. However,
posed well was downstream of their          the facts determined by the district         the OSE would prefer that no broad
surface diversion, the transfer did not     court and upheld by the Court of             policy implications be decided in
meet the Templeton “same source”            Appeals, the Supreme Court must              this case. Instead, the OSE wants all
requirement. The Court of Appeals           determine whether the Court of Ap-           transfer applications to be permitted
also ruled that the Templeton require-      peals correctly upheld the trial court’s     or denied under the specific fact de-
ments apply to all surface to ground        application of Templeton and Clodfel-        terminations in each application. In
transfers, and Clodfelter did not create    ter only to the facts of this case. In af-   this way, the OSE has a greater abil-
a right to transfer a surface to a ground   firming the lower court’s decisions, it       ity to control water transfers and New
water point of diversion independent        is not necessary to uphold the Court         Mexico water policy.
of the Templeton requirements.              of Appeals’ broader findings as a mat-
     The Supreme Court Arguments            ter of law that a well downstream of         Endnotes
     The Herringtons challenged             the surface point of diversion cannot        1
                                                                                             Established by Templeton v. Pecos
the Court of Appeals definition of           meet the Templeton “same-source”                 Val. Artesian Conservancy Dist., 65
“same-source” under Templeton and           requirement, and that a surface wa-              N.M. 59, 332 P.2d 465 (1958), the
that a Clodfelter right to transfer does    ter right can never be transferred               Templeton doctrine allows for a par-
not exist, so all surface to ground         to groundwater outside of Temple-                tial change in diversion points from
transfers can only be made under            ton. Instead, the Herrington trans-              surface to groundwater to supple-
Templeton.4 The Herringtons argue           fer must be examined on its facts,               ment surface flows under two condi-
that the location of the well should        including the fact that the original             tions. One, the ground water to be
not determine “same source” as a            application for transfer was made un-            pumped must be the “same source” of
matter of law. Instead, hydrologic          der the Templeton doctrine and not               the surface water. Second, the change
facts should determine same source,         under Clodfelter. Under the factual              in point of diversion must not impair
even if the proposed well is down-          determinations made by the district              other existing water rights. If the
                                                                                             transfer is successful, the ground wa-
stream. The Herringtons also argue          and Appeals Courts in this case, the
                                                                                             ter well takes on the priority date of
that even if the transfer is denied un-     Herringtons are unable to meet the
                                                                                             the surface water appropriation. Ad-
der Templeton, Clodfelter allows wa-        Templeton “same-source” requirement
                                                                                             ditionally, the transfer can be made
ter right transfers as long as there is     or the Clodfelter “no-impairment” re-
                                                                                             even when the ground water basin has
no impairment to other rights. The          quirement. No further policy deci-
                                                                                             been closed to new appropriation.
right to transfer surface water rights      sions need be made.                          2
                                                                                             358 P.2d 626 (1961). In Clodfelter,
has been recognized by statutory and                                                         the New Mexico Supreme Court
common law, and is crucial for New                                                           agreed with Colorado case law estab-
                                                                                             lishing that the right to change the

4 - Vista - Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law Section
An Overview Of Government Incentives Aimed
At Increasing Geothermal Electric Development
In The United States
by Carlos Ruiz de la Torre

     This Paper surveys the various              Of all the programs, funding for                  The Public Utilities Regulatory
federal and state governmental incen-            research and development (R&D)                Policies Act (PURPA) is another fed-
tives designed to promote the creation           is perhaps the most critical to the           eral program that significantly en-
of geothermal electric plants in the             growth of the geothermal industry             courages geothermal development.
United States. Like other renewable              because it is used to develop technol-        Under PURPA, utilities are required
energies, geothermal electric power              ogies that will ultimately bring down         to buy a certain amount of power
has enormous potential to supply a
significant portion of the nation’s en-
                                                                                           Like other renewable
ergy needs. Benefits associated with
geothermal power make it a very at-                                        energies, geothermal electric power
tractive alternative to the dominant                                          has enormous potential to supply
methods of producing electricity,                                                    a significant portion of the
which generally involve the burning                                                       nation’s energy needs.
of finite fossil fuels. In light of sig-
nificant obstacles facing investors of
geothermal electricity, there remains            the price of geothermal electricity.          (set at the utility’s “avoided cost”—
much more for the government to do               President Clinton’s Committee of              i.e., the amount that a utility would
if geothermal power is ever to supply            Advisors on Science and Technology            otherwise have to spend to generate
a significant portion of our energy               had recommended that $51 million              or procure their additional needed
needs.                                           be set aside for geothermal energy.           power) from small renewable energy
                                                 However, R&D appropriations from              plants and co-generation plants (i.e.,
I. Federal Government                            1998 to 2003 remained relatively flat          plants that produce electricity and
Incentives and Initiatives                       at $25 million. Increased federal geo-        another form of energy while using
    Currently, there are relatively few          thermal R&D appropriations would              the same fuel source). Geothermal
incentives and initiatives for geother-          help the geothermal industry expand           electric projects conveniently fit into
mal development at the federal level.            to its fullest potential.                     both of these categories much of the
                                                                                               time.
                                                                                                    Federal tax credits are another
Water Management Policy                                                                        means used by the government to
continued from page 4                                                                          promote the growth of the geother-
                                                                                               mal industry. The Energy Policy Act
    point of diversion, or place of use of       4
                                                     Brief in Chief of Ellis B. and LaVerne    of 1992 extended a 10% Federal tax
    water is one of the rights of owner-             Herrington, Herrington v. State ex rel.   credit for investments in geothermal
    ship. The only requirement is that the           Office of State Engineer, 2004-NMCA-
                                                                                               technologies and equipment. This
    transfer does not cause impairment to            062, 92 P.3d 31 (No. 28, 628).
                                                                                               10% tax credit had initially been cre-
    any other water rights holder-- junior       5
                                                     State of New Mexico ex rel. Office
                                                                                               ated by the Energy Act of 1978, was
    or senior. If the transfer is allowed,           of the State Engineer’s Answer Brief,
                                                                                               later repealed in 1985 by the Tax Re-
    the priority date becomes the date of            Herrington v. State ex rel. Office of
    the transfer.                                    State Engineer, 2004-NMCA-062, 92
                                                                                               form Act, and was reinstituted by the
3
    Herrington v. State ex rel. Office of State       P.3d 31 (No. 28, 628).                    1992 Energy Policy Act. Unfortu-
    Engineer, 2004-NMCA-062, 92 P.3d                                                           nately, this kind of variability in the
    31.                                                                                                              continued on page 6

                                                          5 - Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law Section - Vista - 5
Geothermal Electric Development
continued from page 5

political support of tax incentives for      power they sell will be produced from        used by 14 states, “allows renewables
renewable energies has a negative ef-        renewable sources. In New Mexico,            producers to reverse their meters when
fect upon investor confidence and the         utilities will be required to obtain         generating more electricity than is de-
long-term stability of the geothermal        5% of their electricity from renew-          manded.”
energy market.                               able energies, including geothermal               Sometimes a state sets an example
                                             energy, by the year 2006, increasing         for private industry by committing
II. State Incentives and Initiatives         by 1% each year until a 10% RPS              itself to increased use of renewable
     In recent years, many states have       will be required in 2011. In order           energies. State Renewables Purchase,
implemented novel programs to pro-           for utilities to comply with this man-       already used by at least five states,
mote the growth of the renewable             date, New Mexico allows the costs            requires a state to purchase a certain
energy industries. One such device,          incurred in meeting the RPS to be            amount of its energy from renewable
Public Benefit Funds (PBFs), has been         passed on to consumers via the rate-         sources for use in state-owned facili-
used by at least 24 states as a means        making process and also provides for         ties.
to raise money primarily for R&D.            a trading system whereby electricity              State tax incentives and credits
Typically generated from customer            retailers can sell their renewable en-       are another device used to promote
charges on utility bills and new user        ergy credits in excess of the RPS to         geothermal energy. State Produc-
access fees, PBFs fund various public        other utilities.                             tion Tax Credits, used in at least four
programs, including renewables tech-              Other state programs affecting          states, provide a tax credit (usually
nology development. New Mexico’s             utilities include Green Market Portfo-       around 1 cent per kWh) for elec-
“Clean Energy Grants Fund” allows            lios, used in at least two states, requir-   tricity generated from renewable
municipalities, state agencies, pub-         ing power providers to offer a menu          resources. Property Tax Incentives,
lic schools, universities, and Indian        of different renewable (or “green”)          used by at least 24 states, appear as
tribes to apply to the Energy, Miner-        products to customers. Disclosure            exemptions, exclusions and credits,
als, and Natural Resources Depart-           and Certification Programs, used by           generally structured so that any ad-
ment for funding of geothermal and           25 states, promote “truth in advertis-       ditional value that a device adds to a
other clean energy technology and            ing” for electricity retailers by requir-    property is not included in the value
education programs.                          ing them to display on a customer’s          of the property for taxation purposes
     Renewable Portfolio Standards           bill the mix of fuel sources that were       (i.e. if a renewable heating system
(RPSs) have been used by at least 12         used to generate the electricity, in-        costs $2,000 compared to $1,000 for
states to require electricity retailers to   cluding the amount derived from re-          a traditional system, the renewable
ensure that a certain percentage of the      newable sources. Also, Net-Metering,         system will only be assessed a prop-
                                                                                          erty tax based on $1,000). Finally,
                                                                                          Sales Tax Incentives, used in at least
                                                                            Visit         16 states, exempt renewable energy
                                         www.nmbar.org                                    equipment from state sales tax.

                                                                                          III. Conclusion
                                 to get the latest news and                                    In addition to the initiatives de-
                                     information about the                                scribed above, other federal and state
                                                                                          initiatives are needed to make geo-
                             Natural Resources,                                           thermal energy projects more attrac-
                                                                                          tive to investors. For example, gov-
                        Energy & Environmental                                            ernment loan guarantee programs,
                                                                                          the creation of a National Renewable
                                   Law Section                                            Portfolio Standard, the inclusion of
                                                                                          geothermal energy under the Federal
                                                                                          Production Tax Credit, and other
6 - Vista - Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law Section
incentives already effectively imple-         9
                                                   TROY GAGLIANO, NATIONAL                       mal energy. See Renewable Energy
mented in the Philippines have been                CONFERENCE OF STATE LEG-                      Production Tax Credit, NMSA § 7-
suggested. Our elected representa-                 ISLATURES, Geothermal Energy: A               2A-19.
tives would best serve us by exploring             Primer on State Policies and Technol-     16
                                                                                                 Id. Because property tax is collected
these ideas and by pondering the pro-              ogy, 28 STATE LEGISLATIVE RE-                 locally, some states give local authori-
found irony common to all renew-                   PORT 1, 11 (2003) [hereinafter GA-            ties the option of providing a proper-
able industries: (1) improved tech-                GLIANO], available at http://www.             ty tax incentive for renewable energy
nology is needed to bring down the                 eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/              devices. Id.
                                                   state_legislative_report.pdf (last vis-   17
                                                                                                 Id.
price of geothermal electricity, which
                                                   ited Mar. 1, 2005).                       18
                                                                                                 See 30 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1542,
will benefit the U.S., but (2) the U.S.        10
                                                   Renewable Energy Act, NMSA § 62-              1141(b)(1)-(5) (2002); see also 27
cannot afford to heavily subsidize the
                                                   16-1 to -10.                                  AM. JUR. 2D, Energy and Power
geothermal industry, and thus new             11
                                                   GAGLIANO, supra note 9, at 12.                Sources § 58 (2004).
geothermal projects and the needed            12
                                                   Id.                                       19
                                                                                                See Lauren Miura, Renewables Indus-
technological advancements do not             13
                                                   Christopher Flavin, Renewable En-             try Waiting For Word on RPS, Tax In-
materialize.                                       ergy Technologies and Policies: Status        centives, LAND LETTER (Sept. 25,
Endnotes                                           and Prospects, 5 BUFF. ENVTL. L.J.            2003).
1
    Although the various obstacles facing          1 (1997).                                 20
                                                                                                See Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003,
    investors are not examined in this ar-    14
                                                   GAGLIANO, supra note 9.                       S.597, 108th Cong. (2003), pro-
    ticle, see generally Kaveh Badiei, Geo-   15
                                                   Id. New Mexico extends a Produc-              posed by Senator Charles E. Grassley
    thermal Energy: Is It Attractive Enough        tion Tax Credit for solar, wind, and          (Iowa).
    To Draw Investors For Construc-                biomass energies, but not for geother-    21
                                                                                                REPP, supra note 2, at 19.
    tion of Geothermal Electric Plants?, 7
    HASTINGS W.-N.W. J. ENVTL.
    L. & POL’Y 109 (2001); Robert L.          Your Section Dues at Work
    Humphrey & Clayton J. Parr, Geo-
    thermal Sales Contracts, 14 NAT. RE-
    SOURCES LAW. 613 (1982); Laura                                        2005 SECTION BUDGET
    MacGregor Bettis, In Hot Water: Can
    Idaho’s Ground Water Laws Adequately                 BAL
                                                   FUND BALANCE CARRY FORWARD:                                         $ 3,908.93
    Govern Low Temperature Geothermal              PROJECTED DUES REVENUE:                                               3,780.00
    Resources?, 39 IDAHO L. REV. 113
    Resources?                                     OTHER PROJECTED REVENUE:                                              2,483.00
    (2002).                                           Source: 2004 reserves designated for newsletter                 __________
2
    RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY
    PROJECT [REPP], GEOTHER-                       TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:                                              $10,171.93
    MAL ENERGY FOR ELECTRIC
    POWER 16 (2003) [hereinafter                   BUDGETED EXPENDITURES:
    REPP], available at http://www.repp.             Administrative Expense                                                 50.00
    org/articles/static/1/binaries/Geo-              Annual Meeting                                                        300.00
    thermal_Issue_Brief.pdf (last visited            Board Meetings                                                        750.00
    Mar. 1, 2005).                                   CLE                                                                 3,000.00
3
    New Mexico has historically attracted            Marketing                                                             100.00
    significant R&D federal dollars. See              Newsletter                                                          2,483.00
    NMSA § 71-7-2.                                   Scholarships                                                        2,500.00
4
    REPP, supra note 2, at 17.                       Web Pages                                                             125.00
5
    Id. at 18.                                                                                                         _________
6
    Id.
7
    Id.                                            TOTAL PROPOSED EXPENDITURES:                                         $9,308.00
8
    Advanced Energy Technologies Eco-              Unbudgeted                                                            $863.93
    nomic Development Act, NMSA §
    71-7-1 to -7.

                                                        7 - Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law Section - Vista - 7
Natural Resources,
Energy &
Environmental
Law Section
2005 Board Officers
  Daniel W. Long, Chair
  A. Kyle Harwood, Chair-elect
  Karen L. Fisher, Budget Officer
  Lucas Williams, Secretary

Board Members
  Alletta D. Belin, Santa Fe
  Karen L. Fisher, Santa Fe
  Richard T. Tully, Farmington
  A. Kyle Harwood, Santa Fe
  Christopher Graham Schatzman,
     Santa Fe
  Lucas Williams, Roswell
  Cheryl L. Bada, Santa Fe
  Steven L. Hernandez, Las Cruces
  Daniel W. Long, Albuquerque
  J. Brent Moore, YLD Liaison,
      Santa Fe

 State Bar of New Mexico
  Natural Resources,                                                   Non-profit Organ
                                                                       U.S. POSTAGE
  Energy and


                               Vista
                                                                           PAI D
  Environmental                                                         Permit No. 275
  Law Section                                                         Albuquerque, N.M.




 PO Box 92860
 Albuquerque, NM 87199
 www.nmbar.org




 Designed and printed by the State Bar of New Mexico


8 - Vista - Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law Section

								
To top