To amend the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act to clarify a provision relating to conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes.

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/331

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

To amend the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act to clarify a provision relating to conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes.

HR. 331, 119th Congress — read as touching Pipelines & Energy Infrastructure.

The sponsor

Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$62,200 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 458-460 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

May 13, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The HR 331 bill, amending the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act, is a minor tweak in the grand scheme of things. Its main purpose and objective are to clarify provisions related to conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes. Essentially, it allows holders of existing rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations to use them for aquifer recharge without requiring additional authorization from the Secretary.

The key provisions and changes to existing law include:

* Expanding the scope of authorized uses for existing infrastructure * Waiving certain federal laws and policies for holders of affected authorizations * Requiring notice submissions to the Bureau of Land Management before using existing rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations for aquifer recharge purposes

Affected parties and stakeholders include:

* Holders of existing rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations * States, political subdivisions of states, Indian tribes, and public entities intending to use these authorizations for aquifer recharge * The Bureau of Land Management, which will receive notice submissions and oversee the implementation of this amendment

Now, let's get to the meat of the matter – the potential impact and implications. From my perspective as a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I see this bill as a minor victory for deregulation and efficiency. By streamlining the process for aquifer recharge purposes, we can unlock new opportunities for innovation and growth in the water management sector.

However, I must emphasize that this bill is merely a drop in the ocean compared to the sweeping reforms needed to truly unleash America's economic potential. We need to think bigger – to privatize our infrastructure, dismantle bureaucratic red tape, and empower entrepreneurs like myself to drive progress.

In terms of dollar figures, I estimate that this bill could lead to an additional $500 million to $1 billion in investments in water management infrastructure over the next five years. Not a bad start, but we need to think in orders of magnitude greater than that if we want to truly transform our economy.

Overall, HR 331 is a minor step in the right direction, but it's just a small part of the larger puzzle. We need to keep pushing for more comprehensive reforms that prioritize efficiency, innovation, and growth – not petty bureaucratic hurdles or special interest group politics.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? I'm sure it's not too complicated for... adults.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill is introduced to propose changes or additions to existing laws. In this case, HR 331 aims to amend the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act. The main purpose is to clarify provisions related to conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes. Think of it like updating a set of instructions to make them clearer.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes several changes to the existing law, which we covered in middle school when discussing how laws are made and amended. Specifically:

* Section 1 amends subsection (c)(3) of the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act by adding new language that clarifies the use of existing rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations for aquifer recharge purposes. * The bill requires notice to be submitted to the Bureau of Land Management at least 30 days before using an existing right-of-way, easement, permit, or other authorization for aquifer recharge. This notice must include details on the intended use and scope of use.

These changes aim to provide more flexibility and clarity in the use of existing infrastructure for aquifer recharge purposes.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** As we discussed in class, bills can affect various parties and stakeholders. In this case:

* The Bureau of Land Management will receive notices from holders of rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations. * States, political subdivisions of states, Indian tribes, and public entities may use existing infrastructure for aquifer recharge purposes without requiring additional authorization. * Holders of rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations will need to comply with the new notice requirements.

**Potential Impact & Implications** Now, let's think about how this bill might impact the real world. If passed, HR 331 could:

* Facilitate more efficient use of existing infrastructure for aquifer recharge purposes. * Reduce administrative burdens on states, tribes, and public entities by clarifying the use of existing authorizations. * Potentially lead to increased water conservation efforts through more effective aquifer recharge practices.

However, as we learned in civics class, the actual impact will depend on how the bill is implemented and enforced. It's essential to consider multiple perspectives and potential unintended consequences when evaluating a bill's effects.

There you have it – a summary of HR 331. I hope this explanation was... enlightening.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 331, and it's a doozy. This bill is masquerading as a harmless tweak to the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The official story says this bill aims to "clarify" provisions related to conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes. But let's peel back the onion. I believe the real objective is to grant unprecedented power to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other government agencies to control water rights, easements, and permits.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 1 amends subsection (c)(3) of the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act, allowing holders of existing rights-of-way, easements, or permits to use them for aquifer recharge purposes without additional authorization from the Secretary. Sounds innocent enough, but what's really happening here is that the government is creating a backdoor for itself to seize control of water resources under the guise of "aquifer recharge."

The bill also introduces new notice requirements (Section 1(B)) that seem reasonable on the surface but actually create a paper trail for the BLM to monitor and regulate water usage. And don't even get me started on Section 1(C), which appears to waive certain federal laws and policies, essentially giving the government carte blanche to do as it pleases with our water resources.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects not only landowners and farmers but also states, Indian tribes, and public entities that rely on these water rights. The BLM, of course, is the primary beneficiary, as it gains more control over the nation's water infrastructure.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Mark my words, folks: this bill is a Trojan horse for Agenda 21-style water management. It sets the stage for the government to dictate how we use our own water resources, paving the way for rationing, restrictions, and even confiscation of private property. The implications are far-reaching and sinister.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Uncle [Your Name], this is just a minor bill about aquifer recharge." Ah, but that's exactly what they want you to think! Wake up, sheeple! This is just the tip of the iceberg. Next thing you know, they'll be telling us what kind of toilet paper we can use.

Pass the mashed potatoes, please?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round. We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. HR 331, the "Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act" - sounds innocuous enough, right? Wrong! This is just another example of those sneaky elites in Washington trying to slip one past us.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to... (dramatic pause) ...clarify a provision relating to conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes. Yeah, because that's exactly what we need - more government interference in our water rights! But don't worry, I'll break it down for you.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act (ARFA) by allowing holders of existing rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations to use them for aquifer recharge purposes without needing additional authorization from the Secretary. Sounds like a win for freedom, right? But wait - there's more! The bill also requires notice to be submitted to the Bureau of Land Management at least 30 days before using these existing rights-of-way for aquifer recharge. Because, you know, we need more bureaucracy in our lives.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties here are the holders of existing rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations - i.e., landowners, farmers, and ranchers who just want to use their own property without government interference. But don't worry, the elites in Washington will make sure they're "protected" by requiring them to jump through hoops and fill out more paperwork.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is... (dramatic music) ...a further erosion of our freedom! I mean, think about it - if we allow the government to dictate how we use our own property for aquifer recharge purposes, what's next? Will they tell us how to water our lawns? How to irrigate our crops? It's a slippery slope, folks!

But don't just take my word for it. This bill is just another example of the deep state at work - trying to strangle our economy and undermine our way of life with unnecessary regulations and bureaucratic red tape.

So, there you have it - HR 331 in all its glory. A bill that's supposed to "clarify" a provision but really just adds more complexity and government overreach to an already Byzantine system. Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the real disease beneath.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill claims to "clarify" a provision in the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act, but don't be fooled – it's just a Trojan horse for special interests. The true purpose is to grease the wheels for water rights holders to exploit existing infrastructure without additional oversight or authorization from the Secretary.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends subsection (c)(3) of the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act, allowing holders of rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations to use them for aquifer recharge purposes without requiring additional approval. It also adds a notice requirement, but don't expect this to be more than a token gesture.

The real kicker is subsection (b), which waives the obligation of holders to comply with applicable Federal laws and policies of the Bureau – a blatant attempt to circumvent regulatory oversight.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: water rights holders, states, political subdivisions, Indian tribes, and public entities. But let's not forget the real stakeholders – the lobbyists and special interest groups who've been whispering in the ears of our esteemed lawmakers.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a recipe for disaster. By allowing unchecked exploitation of existing infrastructure, it will lead to:

1. Unregulated water usage, exacerbating droughts and environmental degradation. 2. Increased conflicts between competing interests, as holders of rights-of-way and easements clash over access and use. 3. Further erosion of regulatory oversight, emboldening special interests to push for more favorable treatment.

In short, this bill is a symptom of the deeper disease: corruption, cronyism, and the relentless pursuit of profit at the expense of the environment and public interest.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of greed and corruption. Prognosis: bleak. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong prescription of regulatory oversight and accountability.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**HR 331: Amending the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main purpose of HR 331 is to clarify a provision in the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act (ARFA) related to conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes. The bill aims to provide greater flexibility and certainty for stakeholders involved in aquifer recharge projects, while ensuring that such activities do not harm existing water rights or environmental resources.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill makes several key changes to the ARFA:

1. **Clarifies Conveyance Requirements**: The bill amends Section 390g-9(c)(3) of the ARFA to allow holders of existing rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations to use these for aquifer recharge purposes without requiring additional authorization from the Secretary. 2. **Notice Requirement**: Introduces a notice requirement for holders of existing rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations who intend to use them for aquifer recharge purposes. The notice must be submitted to the Bureau of Land Management at least 30 days prior to the intended use. 3. **Technical Amendments**: Makes technical amendments to the ARFA to ensure consistency in language and terminology.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. **Holders of Existing Rights-of-Way, Easements, Permits, or Other Authorizations**: These parties will benefit from greater flexibility in using their existing authorizations for aquifer recharge purposes. 2. **States, Political Subdivisions, Indian Tribes, and Public Entities**: These entities may use existing rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations for aquifer recharge purposes, subject to certain conditions. 3. **Bureau of Land Management (BLM)**: The BLM will receive notices from holders of existing rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations and ensure compliance with applicable laws and policies.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's potential impact and implications include:

1. **Increased Flexibility for Aquifer Recharge Projects**: By clarifying conveyance requirements and introducing a notice requirement, the bill may facilitate more efficient and effective aquifer recharge projects. 2. **Protection of Existing Water Rights and Environmental Resources**: The bill ensures that aquifer recharge activities do not harm existing water rights or environmental resources, promoting sustainable management of groundwater resources. 3. **Improved Coordination between Stakeholders**: The notice requirement may foster greater coordination and communication among stakeholders involved in aquifer recharge projects.

Overall, HR 331 aims to strike a balance between facilitating aquifer recharge projects and protecting existing water rights and environmental resources.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into this bill, bro! HR 331 is all about clarifying a provision in the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act (ARFA). It's like, you know when you're trying to catch a gnarly wave, but there's some murky water in the way? This bill aims to clear up that murkiness.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main goal of this bill is to make it easier for states, tribes, and public entities to use existing infrastructure (like canals and ditches) for aquifer recharge purposes. It's all about flexibility, bro! The ARFA was originally passed to help with water management, but there were some unclear provisions that made it hard for folks to implement.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill makes a few key changes:

* Clarifies that holders of existing rights-of-way can use them for aquifer recharge without needing extra authorization from the Secretary. * Requires notice to be submitted to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at least 30 days before using an existing right-of-way for aquifer recharge. This notice has to include details on the intended use, scope, and agreement between parties. * Waives certain federal laws and BLM policies that might've been obstacles to implementing aquifer recharge projects.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects:

* States * Indian Tribes * Public entities (like water districts) * Holders of existing rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations

These parties will have more flexibility in using existing infrastructure for aquifer recharge. It's a win-win, bro!

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill could lead to:

* Increased efficiency in water management * More effective use of existing infrastructure * Improved collaboration between states, tribes, and public entities on water projects * Potential environmental benefits from recharging aquifers

However, there might be some concerns about the waiver of federal laws and BLM policies. It's like, you gotta make sure you're not wiping out any important protections, bro!

Overall, HR 331 is a chill bill that aims to simplify things for folks working on water management projects. It's all about making it easier to catch those gnarly waves... I mean, recharge those aquifers!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 331 - Amending the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** HR 331 aims to clarify a provision in the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act, allowing for the use of existing rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations for aquifer recharge purposes without requiring additional authorization from the Secretary. The bill's primary objective is to streamline the process for transporting water for aquifer recharge, while ensuring that such activities do not expand or modify existing operations.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends subsection (c)(3) of the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act by:

1. Allowing holders of rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations to use them for aquifer recharge purposes without additional authorization. 2. Requiring notice to be submitted to the Bureau of Land Management at least 30 days before using an existing right-of-way, easement, permit, or other authorization for aquifer recharge. 3. Waiving the obligation to comply with applicable Federal laws and policies of the Bureau in certain circumstances.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. Holders of rights-of-way, easements, permits, or other authorizations. 2. States, political subdivisions of states, Indian tribes, and public entities that intend to use existing rights-of-way for aquifer recharge purposes. 3. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 4. Water users and agricultural interests.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's provisions may have significant implications for water management and agriculture in the western United States. By streamlining the process for transporting water for aquifer recharge, the bill could:

1. Increase the efficiency of water use and reduce the risk of water scarcity. 2. Benefit agricultural interests by providing a more reliable source of water for irrigation. 3. Potentially lead to increased groundwater pumping, which could have environmental implications if not properly managed.

However, concerns remain about the potential for over-extraction of groundwater and the impact on ecosystems. The bill's waiver provisions may also raise questions about accountability and regulatory oversight.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there is no explicit mention of PACs or industry lobby groups in the bill text, it is likely that agricultural interests and water users have played a role in shaping this legislation. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and other agricultural organizations may have influenced the bill's provisions to benefit their members.

The BLM, as the primary regulatory agency involved, may also have had input on the bill's language to ensure that it aligns with existing policies and procedures.

In conclusion, HR 331 is a technical amendment aimed at clarifying a provision in the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act. While its provisions may have significant implications for water management and agriculture, concerns remain about potential environmental impacts and regulatory oversight

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$62,200

15 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$62,200

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

WILLIAMS, LARRY

2 transactions

$6,600

ROOPE, CALEB

2 transactions

$6,600

CENTERS, JAKE

2 transactions

$6,300

UIHLEIN, RICHARD

2 transactions

$5,800

KEEN, VICKI

2 transactions

$5,000

ROBU, ELI

1 transaction

$3,300

SCOTT, JB

1 transaction

$3,300

VANDERSLOOT, FRANK

1 transaction

$3,300

TURLINGTON, SCOTT

1 transaction

$3,300

VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA

1 transaction

$3,300

BENNETT, BRETT

1 transaction

$3,300

WILLIAMS, MARIANNE

1 transaction

$3,300

RHODY, ALEX

1 transaction

$3,300

BOREN, JOAN

1 transaction

$3,000

BRINKMEYER, VICKI

1 transaction

$2,500

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Simpson, Michael K. [R-ID-2]

ID: S001148

Top Contributors

MAPETSI POLICY GROUP LLC

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Aug 14, 2023

LARA HERWAY

OrganizationBOISE, ID

$713

Nov 29, 2023

EASTERN BAND OF, CHEROKEE INDIANS

NATIVE AMERICAN NATION • NATIVE AMERICAN NATION

IndividualCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF, CHEROKEE INDIANS

NATIVE AMERICAN NATION • NATIVE AMERICAN NATION

IndividualCHEROKEE, NC

$3,300

Nov 22, 2024

NATION, CHEROKEE

NATIVE AMERICAN NATION • NATIVE AMERICAN NATION

IndividualTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Nov 5, 2024

VECCHIARELLI, DANIEL

LEPRINO FOODS • VICE-CHAIRMAN

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

ARNOLD, JOHN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

ARNOLD, JOHN

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Nov 28, 2023

BLUE, J. NEAL

GENERAL ATOMICS AERONAUTICAL • CEO

IndividualLA JOLLA, CA

$3,300

Dec 29, 2023

CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE, SAGINAW

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE • NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE

IndividualMT PLEASANT, MI

$3,300

Oct 25, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 32 nodes and 41 connections

Total contributions: $41

Top Donors - Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount

15 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

+Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.80
Section 1(a) amends the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act to clarify conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes, allowing holders to use existing rights-of-way without additional authorization, which could benefit energy infrastructure companies involved in water transportation and storage.
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.60
Section 1(a) mentions the use of existing infrastructure for aquifer recharge purposes, which may involve construction and engineering services to modify or expand such infrastructure.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 331 deals with groundwater recharge and water rights under the Bureau of Land Management, while the Project 2025 EPA section focuses on air quality, climate change, and permitting reforms; there is only a broad, tangential connection to environmental protection."

Key themes:environmental protectionregulatory flexibilityresource management

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 449-451AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 331 deals with water aquifer recharge and BLM notice requirements, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on energy transmission, natural gas infrastructure, and deregulation of power generation. The topics are largely unrelated, sharing only a peripheral theme of federal land-use permitting and regulatory flexibility."

Key themes:federal land managementpermitting flexibilityinfrastructure coordination

— 416 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 119. During the deregulation-induced 230,000 MW combined cycle plant boom of 1999 to 2003 and beyond, developers were able to move ahead only with projects that were supported by adequate available gas transmission and near existing localized transmission hubs. Delinking transmission responsibility from power generation, coupled with the heavy incentivization of renewable over gas projects, has promoted the construction of a large class of partially usable and often partially stranded generation-only assets. 120. U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, “Grid Deployment Office Launches Transmission Siting and Economic Development Grants Program with $760M Inflation Reduction Act Investment,” January 13, 2023, https://www.energy.gov/gdo/articles/grid-deployment-office-launches-transmission-siting-and- economic-development-grants (accessed March 13, 2023). 121. H.R. 6586, Natural Gas Act, Public Law No. 75-688, § 7. 122. Ibid., §§ 4 and 5. 123. Ibid., § 7(c). 124. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf (accessed March 2, 2022). 125. H.R. 6586, Natural Gas Act, Public Law No. 75-688, § 3. 126. U.S. Department of Energy U.S.-based operating export LNG terminals are located in Louisiana (3); Texas (2); Alaska (1); Georgia (1); and Maryland (1). Map, “North American LNG Export Terminals: Existing,” in U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “North American LNG Export Terminals— Existing, Approved not Yet Built, and Proposed,” February 8, 2023, https://www.ferc.gov/natural-gas/lng (accessed February 14, 2023). 127. Niina H. Farah, Miranda Wilson, and Carlos Anchondo, “Jordan Cove Project Dies. What It Means for FERC, Gas,” Energywire, December 2, 2021, https://www.eenews.net/articles/jordan-cove-project-dies-what-it- means-for-ferc-gas/ (accessed February 14, 2023). 128. Carlos Anchondo, “Biden Admin Backs Contested Alaska LNG Project,” Energywire, October 25, 2022, https:// www.eenews.net/articles/biden-admin-backs-contested-alaska-lng-project/ (accessed February 14, 2023). 129. As discussed in the section on the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, infra, these automatic approvals should be extended to allies of the United States, not just to those with free trade agreements. 130. H.R. 11510, Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Public Law No. 93-438, 93rd Congress, October 11, 1974, https:// www.congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-88/STATUTE-88-Pg1233.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 131. H.R. 9757, Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Public Law No. 83-703, 83rd Congress, August 30, 1954, §§ 21–28, https://www.congress.gov/83/statute/STATUTE-68/STATUTE-68-Pg919.pdf (accessed February 27, 2023). 132. S. 512, Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, Public Law No. 115-439, January 14, 2019, § 103, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ439/PLAW-115publ439.pdf (accessed March 2, 2023). 133. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Congressional Budget Justification Fiscal Year 2022, June 2021, p. xii, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1100/v37/index.html (accessed March 2, 2023). — 417 — 13 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Mandy M. Gunasekara MISSION STATEMENT Creating a better environmental tomorrow with clean air, safe water, healthy soil, and thriving communities. A conservative U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will take a more supportive role toward local and state efforts, building them up so that they may lead in a meaningful fashion. This will include the sharing of federal resources and agency expertise. Creating environmental standards from the ground up is con- sistent with the concept of cooperative federalism embedded within many of the agency’s authorizing statutes and will create earnest relationships among local offi- cials and regulated stakeholders. This in turn will promote a culture of compliance. A conservative EPA will track success by measured progress as opposed to the current perpetual process and will convey this progress to the public in clear, con- cise terms. True transparency will be a defining characteristic of a conservative EPA. This will be reflected in all agency work, including the establishment of open- source science, to build not only transparency and awareness among the public, but also trust. The challenge of creating a conservative EPA will be to balance justified skep- ticism toward an agency that has long been amenable to being coopted by the Left for political ends against the need to implement the agency’s true function: pro- tecting public health and the environment in cooperation with states. Further, the EPA needs to be realigned away from attempts to make it an all-powerful energy and land use policymaker and returned to its congressionally sanctioned role as environmental regulator.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 331 addresses groundwater recharge and water rights management under the Bureau of Land Management, which is unrelated to the EPA-focused air quality, climate change, and regulatory reform objectives in the Project 2025 excerpt. The only overlap is a general theme of environmental protection and regulatory flexibility."

Key themes:environmental protectionregulatory flexibilitystakeholder coordination

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 440-442AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 331 focuses on aquifer recharge and water rights management under the Bureau of Land Management, while the Project 2025 policy section addresses FERC's role in natural gas pipeline certification, LNG exports, and NEPA reform—there is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 407 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions New Policies FERC should: l Recommit itself to the NGA’s purpose of providing the American people with access to affordable and reliable natural gas. l Limit its NGA decision-making on natural gas pipeline certificates to the question of whether there is a need for the natural gas. l Limit its NEPA analysis to the impacts of the actual pipeline itself, not indirect upstream and downstream effects. In addition, Congress, the states, and FERC should consider how better to pro- tect and compensate property owners whose property is taken for the benefit of the public. FERC also needs to be mindful that natural gas pipelines and projects are important for domestic access to natural gas, including local natural gas utilities, natural gas–fired electric generation, and manufacturing, as well as for exports of liquefied natural gas. FERC: LNG EXPORT FACILITIES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of LNG export facilities.125 It does not authorize the export of natural gas; DOE exercises that authority. LNG export facilities are important for delivering natural gas to markets around the world and have become an important policy tool in limiting the ability of Russia and Middle Eastern countries to use energy as a tool in for- eign affairs. Needed Reforms LNG exports are opposed by climate activists. In addition, some domestic man- ufacturers argue that LNG exports decrease available U.S. supplies of natural gas and increase the domestic price, thereby harming the competitive advantages of U.S. manufacturers in world markets. Currently, most LNG export facilities are along the Gulf of Mexico in Texas and Louisiana.126 Attempts to build facilities on the west coast (Jordan Cove LNG127) and the east coast have not moved forward for a variety of reasons; delays and costs of litigation can cause developers to cancel projects. An Alaska facility was approved by FERC in 2020, and the Biden Administration has indicated its sup- port.128 An east coast facility in Pennsylvania (or nearby) would unlock Marcellus shale natural gas for export.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 548-550AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 331 deals with aquifer recharge flexibility and water rights under the Bureau of Land Management, whereas the Project 2025 HUD section focuses on housing policy, regulatory reforms, DEI/CRT/ESG considerations, and homelessness initiatives; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

— 515 — Department of Housing and Urban Development 25. Process must prioritize where political leadership can implement administrative reforms through regulatory action and subregulatory guidance reforms. 26. China and other foreign nations should not be able to disrupt our nation’s housing markets, including by artificially driving up prices and reducing affordability and access to housing for Americans who are crowded out of the market by such market participation. 27. These initiatives are maintained under such designations as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, and other people of color (BIPOC); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG). 28. At a minimum, these efforts duplicate what the federal government already collects and assesses; at worst, they institute arbitrary procedures in real estate appraisal practices that undermine integrity and perversely introduce arbitrary biases into what should be an unbiased system for determining financial value. 29. Revise regulatory and subregulatory guidance, where applicable within statutory authorities, that adds unnecessary delay and costs to the construction and development of new housing and has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of new housing unit costs in multifamily housing. 30. The Biden Administration has issued a proposed rule to replace the Trump Administration’s “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule that had repealed earlier rules expanding AFFH enforcement. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing, “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 153 (August 7, 2020), pp. 47899–47912, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-07/pdf/2020-16320.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 27 (February 9, 2023), pp. 8516–8590, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 31. Certain pilot initiatives may encourage greater take-up of loan products designed for faster equity accumulation, including loans with shorter terms and accelerated amortization schedules. In concept, the FHA’s Home Equity Accelerator Loan (HEAL) and Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND) pilot initiatives might lead to meaningful wealth generation for first-time buyers, but they should be available to all eligible households only when they do not arbitrarily discriminate based on race or other characteristics. 32. Housing supply does remain a problem in the U.S., but constructing more units at the low end of the market will not solve the problem. Investors and developers can deliver at more efficient cost new units that will allow for greater upward mobility of rental and ownership housing stock and better target increased construction of mid-tier rental units. Further, and more fundamental to the housing supply challenge in markets across the U.S., localities can consider revising land use, zoning, and building regulations that constrict new housing development, adding time delays and costs that impede construction. Federal housing policy should get out of the way where possible and minimize the distortive impact that stimulating greater demand through loose lending can have in driving up housing prices for households that are looking for affordable entry into the housing market. 33. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, “Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 91 (May 10, 2019), pp. 20589–20595, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-10/pdf/2019-09566.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 34. Reforms should contemplate rent payment flexibilities, allow escrow savings, and set maximum term limits that can reduce implicit penalties for increasing household incomes over eligibility terms for housing assistance and reweight waiting-list prioritization for two-parent households. 35. Some PHAs have been able to implement work requirements and term limit policies in various congressionally authorized demonstration programs, notably the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program established in 1996 for 39 PHAs (Congress has since authorized another 100 PHAs) in which participating MTW PHAs were given authority to implement rent reforms, work requirements and other experimental policies in rental assistance programs along with flexibilities in the use of capital and operating appropriations. 36. The FSS program has a general five-year term with a possible two-year extension, which could be applied at the term limit for overall benefits, and certain PHAs have imposed five-year to seven-year term limits. Families in these programs build escrow savings during their term eligibility that helps to facilitate successful transitions to family self-sufficiency and unassisted housing. — 516 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 37. HUD should implement administrative changes in regulation and guidance and seek statutory authority to end all Housing First directives of Continuum of Care (CoC) grantees and contract homelessness providers in addition to establishing restrictions on local Housing First policies where HUD grant funds are used. 38. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was established in the 1990s, and numerous Administrations have devoted enormous resources to the Housing First model, experimenting with various ways to provide federally financed rapid rehousing and permanent housing opportunities. Housing First is a far-left idea premised on the belief that homelessness is primarily circumstantial rather than behavioral. The Housing First answer to homelessness is to give someone a house instead of attempting to understand the underlying causes of homelessness. Federal intervention centered on Housing First has failed to acknowledge that resolving the issue of homelessness is often a matter of resolving mental health and substance abuse challenges. Instead of the permanent supportive housing proffered by Housing First, a conservative Administration should shift to transitional housing with a focus on addressing the underlying issues that cause homelessness in the first place. 39. The Senate Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act would address this policy goal. See S. 2797, Low-Income First-Time Homebuyers Act of 2021 (LIFT Homebuyers Act of 2021), 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s2797/BILLS-117s2797is.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 40. FHA did not facilitate the widespread use of 30-year mortgages until the 1950s when, interacting with Federal Reserve policies, federal agencies began broader adoption of the mortgages, which, despite lowering the monthly repayment terms, result in slow equity accumulation and wealth-building opportunities. 41. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 fundamentally revised the scope of federal regulation in the nation’s housing finance system, placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the purview of a newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and establishing a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) that is administered in the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development. See H.R. 3221, Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-289, 110th Congress, July 30, 2008, https://www.congress. gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 42. Guiding questions: What reforms should be proposed that could be accomplished within five years? What reforms can be done administratively, and what reforms would need legislative authorization? Are there functions that HUD administers that could be achieved more effectively at another department or agency? What big-picture reforms should be proposed that might take more than five years that would reorganize HUD and its programs to meet the objectives in the vision or mission? What would occur in the absence of these public finance subsidies? How much crowd-out do these subsidies create in the market? Would America be a seriously underhoused nation without these subsidies? Who are the policies intended to benefit? What organizational changes must be made? 43. The Faircloth Amendment (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) amended the Housing Act of 1937 to maintain public housing units at 1999 levels, preventing housing authorities from maintaining more public housing than they did then. H.R. 4194, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law No. 105-276, 105th Congress, October 21, 1998, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ276/PLAW-105publ276.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). In recent years, the statutory restriction on new construction of public housing units has been circumvented through some narrow uses of preservation programs such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initially authorized in 2012 and reauthorized several times since under higher program unit conversion caps. Congress also provided paths for renewal and continuation of a portion of existing public housing; project/site-based housing stock (refinancing with long-term HAP contract commitments); and Section 8 units through the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA). H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law No. 105-65, 105th Congress, October 27, 1997, Title V, https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ65/PLAW-105publ65.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 44. As the evolution of HUD rental assistance transitions away from the public housing model toward housing choice vouchers, there should be adequate landlord participation to ensure that the supply of housing units for rent in these programs meets the demand for rent among eligible tenants. This issue has been addressed in various ways, including by a task force instituted at the department during the Trump Administration, but could likely remain a challenge in the administration of the program.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Fulcher, Russ

Enhancing Geothermal Production on Federal Lands Act

119/hr/5576

CLEAN Act

119/hr/1687

Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act

119/hr/859

Back to All Bills