Ohkay Owingeh Rio Chama Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/563

Last Updated: July 22, 2026

Ohkay Owingeh Rio Chama Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025

S. 563, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

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

The money

$124,962 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 461-463 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 428.

June 3, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

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 Ohkay Owingeh Rio Chama Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 is a bill that seeks to settle water rights claims in the Rio Chama Stream System, primarily benefiting the Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo and various stakeholders. As a billionaire analyst, I'll dissect this legislation through the lens of wealth and power implications.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to achieve a fair and final settlement of water rights claims in the Rio Chama Stream System, which will have significant implications for my business interests and investments in the region. The settlement will provide clarity on water rights, allowing for more efficient allocation and management of this vital resource. According to our projections at the Liberty Institute, a think tank I founded, this settlement could lead to increased economic activity in the region, with potential benefits for my investments in the energy and agriculture sectors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes the ratification of the Ohkay Owingeh Rio Chama Water Rights Settlement Agreement, which outlines the terms of the settlement. This agreement will supersede existing laws and regulations governing water rights in the region, creating a new framework for water management that could have significant implications for my business operations. For instance, Section 5 of the bill defines Pueblo Water Rights, which could impact my company's plans to develop new infrastructure projects in the region.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this legislation include: 1. Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo: The settlement will provide clarity on their water rights and ensure a stable source of water for their community. 2. State of New Mexico: The state will benefit from a more efficient allocation of water resources, which could lead to increased economic activity and growth. 3. Private companies: Companies like mine, with interests in the energy and agriculture sectors, may see new opportunities for investment and development in the region.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this legislation is significant, with far-reaching implications for my business operations and investments. A stable and predictable water rights framework will create a more favorable business environment, attracting investment and driving economic growth. According to our estimates at the Liberty Institute, this settlement could lead to increased economic activity in the region, with potential benefits ranging from $500 million to $1 billion over the next decade.

In conclusion, the Ohkay Owingeh Rio Chama Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 is a bill that has significant implications for my business interests and investments. While it may provide benefits for certain stakeholders, I will continue to monitor its progress and advocate for policies that prioritize efficiency, deregulation, and private sector growth. As I always say, "The most efficient system is one that is driven by the market, not by bureaucratic red tape."

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$124,962

25 donors

PACs

$1,000

Organizations

$123,962

Committees

Individuals

JSTREETPAC

1 transaction

$1,000

SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE

2 transactions

$25,562

CHEROKEE NATION

2 transactions

$10,000

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$6,600

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

2 transactions

$6,600

PUEBLO OF LAGUNA

1 transaction

$5,800

PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO

1 transaction

$5,000

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$5,000

PUEBLO OF TAOS

1 transaction

$3,300

ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE OF TEXAS

1 transaction

$3,300

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

1 transaction

$3,300

POARCH CREEK INDIANS TRIBAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS

1 transaction

$3,300

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

PUEBLO OF POJOAQUE

1 transaction

$3,300

SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

1 transaction

$3,300

FORT SILL APACHE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$3,300

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

OHKAY OWINGEH

1 transaction

$3,300

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

PUEBLO OF SANDIA

1 transaction

$3,300

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]

ID: L000570

Top Contributors

LYTTON BAND OF POMO INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2023

OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Dec 7, 2023

LYTTON BAND OF POMO INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2023

TAOS PUEBLO GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

OrganizationTAOS, NM

$3,300

Dec 2, 2024

OHKAY OWINGEH TRIBE

OrganizationOHKAY OWINGEH, NM

$3,300

Dec 2, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$3,300

Apr 18, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$3,300

May 22, 2024

MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE

OrganizationMESCALERO, NM

$3,300

Sep 25, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

Jun 25, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$2,000

Mar 21, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 74 nodes and 85 connections

Total contributions: $85

Top Donors - Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC24 Orgs

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.90
Section 6(g)(1) authorizes Trust Fund use for planning, permitting, designing, engineering, constructing, reconstructing, replacing, rehabilitating, operating, or repairing water production, treatment, or delivery infrastructure, which directly benefits construction and engineering firms involved in such projects.
+Agribusinessconfidence 0.85
Section 6(g)(2) authorizes Trust Fund use for on-farm improvements for irrigation, livestock, and support of agriculture, which benefits agribusinesses engaged in farming and agricultural production within the Pueblo's water rights system.
+Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.75
Section 6(g)(1) includes wastewater infrastructure, which may intersect with electric utilities that provide power for water treatment and pumping facilities, though the connection is less direct than construction or agribusiness.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Electric Utilities$27,500
from 36 contributions
- FRENZEL, ROBERT$3,300
- LONG, RYAN$2,000
- POPPE, PATTI$1,500
- BERNTSEN, ROB$1,500
- O'CONNOR, TIM$1,500
Construction & Engineering$2,050
from 4 contributions
- NEMSER, ELIZA$1,500
- HONG, JULIE$300
- RIFE, JOEL$250

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

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 461-463AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on water rights settlement and environmental restoration for a specific Pueblo, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on Clean Water Act implementation and water infrastructure, though it does not directly address EPA regulatory reforms, WOTUS definitions, or CWA Section 401 processes outlined in the policy."

Key themes:Clean Water Actwater rightsenvironmental restorationtribal water managementwater infrastructure

— 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey. — 430 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l An executive order requiring EPA to find avenues and expedite the process for states obtaining primacy in available CWA and SDWA programs. This order would require coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior. l Implementation of additional policies to address challenges in water workforce, issues surrounding timely actions on primacy applications, and cybersecurity. Budget While the overall goal is certainly to reduce government spending, there is one very targeted area where increased spending would be in the nation’s interest. The Clean Water Act needs survey is the entire basis for how congressionally appro- priated funds directed to state revolving funds—standard annual appropriations that are the true underpinning of all infrastructure funding for drinking water and clean water—are distributed by EPA across the country. Because this program is currently underfunded, money is being thrown at untargeted locations while water infrastructure is crumbling at other locations. Increased targeted funding would greatly benefit water systems across the country at a time when intervention is crucial, leaving fewer communities with significant water service challenges. Personnel OW would benefit greatly from the reshifting of SES employees to different programs and from headquarters out to regional offices. OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM) OLEM’s mission is to partner with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and communities to clean up legacy pollution and revitalize land for reuse. OLEM executes this mission by protecting human health and the envi- ronment while leveraging economic opportunities and creating jobs. OLEM also oversees the agency’s emergency response. The main statutes that OLEM exe- cutes are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)34 to regulate waste management; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)35 to clean up Superfund sites and provide resources for cleaning up brownfields sites; and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act36 to reduce the likelihood of accidental chemical releases. Needed Reforms OLEM’s main function is to oversee the execution of cleanups under CERCLA and RCRA; therefore, it is critical that OLEM staff focus on project management more than policy creation. Emphasizing productivity more than process and policies

Environmental Protection Agency

Moderate

Vector: 60%

Pages: 473-475AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports tribal water rights and environmental restoration, aligning with Project 2025's emphasis on strengthening tribal environmental programs through the American Indian Office, though it does not directly address EPA grant reforms or structural changes proposed in the policy."

Key themes:tribal environmental programswater rightsBosque restorationAmerican Indian OfficeEPA tribal affairs

— 440 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Repeal Inflation Reduction Act programs providing grants for environmental science activities. AMERICAN INDIAN OFFICE (AIO) AIO is a vital EPA function. It is mandated to carry out a 1992 act of Congress that administers the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program.51 Because of the sovereign-to-sovereign relationship between the U.S. government and fed- erally recognized sovereign Indian nations, this act’s purpose is to assist tribes in developing the capacity to manage their own tribal environmental protection programs and set them up to implement programs for the management of solid and hazardous waste. This office also is the chief office under which the EPA’s 1984 Indian Policy functions. Needed Reforms AIO should be significantly elevated as a stand-alone EPA Assistant Admin- istrator office. This would send a clear message to American Indians and Alaska Native Villages that the agency takes seriously the environmental issues plaguing Indian Country. While designated a “headquarters” office with direct reporting to the Administrator, its location should be in the American West, closer to most tribal nations. This could include Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Dallas, Texas; or Denver, Colorado. The state of Oklahoma is considered the tribal center of Amer- ica and is home to 39 federally recognized tribes, including the “Five Civilized Tribes.” The other two options are also close to numerous tribes and home to EPA regional offices. New Policies All EPA tribal grants and tribal matters should be run from this office as a one- stop-shop for all tribal affairs. Budget and Personnel AIO should be led by a politically appointed, Senate-confirmed Assistant Admin- istrator, ideally one with strong ties to a federally recognized tribe. He or she should have political deputies and staff to assist the political leadership in carrying out agency policies. Career EPA tribal staff are located throughout the nation in all regional offices but are paid mostly under the budget of the current Office of International and Tribal Affairs, which will be significantly restructured as international functions are reabsorbed into the appropriate media offices (for example, Air, Water, and Land and Emergency Management). Because of this, tribal staff should be fully under the authority of the new American Indian Office and its Assistant Admin- istrator, not the regional offices. — 441 — Environmental Protection Agency OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) OGC serves as the chief legal adviser to EPA’s policymaking officials. It also pro- vides legal support to regional actions and enforcement and compliance litigation. OGC lawyers represent the agency in court alongside the Department of Justice, typically defending agency actions. Needed Reforms and New Policies l Review EPA’s Environmental Justice and Title VI authority. Wherever possible, the Biden Administration is broadening EPA’s use and interpretation of Environmental Justice (EJ)52 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 196453 beyond long-standing understandings of the legal limits of that authority. As a threshold matter, there is an opportunity to redefine EJ as a tool for the agency to prioritize environmental protection efforts and assistance to communities in proximity to pollution or with the greatest need for additional protection. Allocations of agency resources, increased EPA enforcement, and/or agency distribution of grants should be based on neutral constitutional principles. In 2023, the Supreme Court is expected to provide guidance on the constitutionality of race-based discrimination as it considers Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina.54 Accordingly, the next Administration should pause and review all ongoing EJ and Title VI actions to ensure that they are consistent with any forthcoming SCOTUS decision. l Establish a policy of legally speaking with one voice. Some EPA offices (for example, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Offices of Regional Counsel) assert legal positions and interpretations of the law that conflict with an Administration’s interpretation as articulated by OGC with input from program offices. It is unacceptable for the agency to have inconsistent legal positions, particularly with respect to key interpretative issues. All attorneys with authority to represent EPA—not necessarily all attorneys—should therefore be housed in OGC. These offices include: 1. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). OECA was established during the Clinton Administration. Enforcement attorneys tend to take legal positions to win cases or obtain settlements that may be inconsistent with those of OGC and program offices. OECA attorneys should be moved into OGC. Additionally, non-attorney program staff in OECA could be moved into their relevant program offices (for example, the Clean Air Act Enforcement Advisor could

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on water rights settlement and environmental restoration for a Pueblo community, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt emphasizes streamlining energy leasing, reducing regulatory burdens, and expanding fossil fuel development on federal lands. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address oil, gas, coal, or mineral leasing priorities central to the cited policy."

Key themes:Department of the Interiorfederal land managementenvironmental policy

— 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. — 541 — Department of the Interior 39. Katie Tubb, “No More Standoffs: Protecting Federal Employees and Ending the Culture of Anti-Government Attacks and Abuse,” testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 2–4, October 22, 2019, https://congress. gov/116/meeting/house/110104/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-TubbK-20191022.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 40. News release, “Secretary Haaland Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant Chaco Canyon Landscape,” U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/ secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-culturally-significant-chaco (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden–Harris Administration Proposes Protections for Thompson Divide,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 12, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration- proposes-protections-thompson-divide (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden Administration Takes Action to Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 20, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-boundary- waters-area-watershed (accessed March 16, 2023); and News release, “Interior Department Takes Action on Mineral Leases Improperly Renewed in the Watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness,” U.S. Department of the Interior, January 26, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-takes-action- mineral-leases-improperly-renewed-watershed-boundary (accessed March 16, 2023). 41. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 91–135, § 4(b)(2), and Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 244 (December 18, 2020), pp. 82376–82389. 42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Governing the Take of Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta (accessed March 16, 2023). 43. Dino Grandoni and Anna Phillips, “Biden Restores Climate Safeguards in Key Environmental Law, Reversing Trump,” Washington Post, April 19, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 44. Donald Trump, “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Accepted Service,” Executive Order 13957, October 21, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating- schedule-f-excepted-service/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 45. Kathleen Masterson, “Nevada Wild Horse Population Skyrockets To New High,” KUNR Public Radio, July 22, 2019, https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2019-07-22/nevada-wild-horse-population-skyrockets- to-new-high (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achieving a Sustainable Horse and Burro Program,” Fact sheet, May 8, 2020, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/ Final%20Fact%20Sheet%20WHB%20Report%20To%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 47. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel, pp. 45–47. 48. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35: Delivering on the Promise, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 53, Chap. 12 (2007), § 12.03(1)(a)(iv), https://www.guessrudd.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 49. Ibid., § 12.03(1)(a)(vii). See generally Richard S. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–203): History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81–127 GOV, June 1, 1981, http://www.alaskool.org/PROJECTS/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm (accessed March 16, 2023). 50. 43 U.S. Code, Ch. 33. ANCSA also created 12 Native-owned regional corporations and authorized $962 million in “seed money.” Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35, § 12.03(2)(e). 51. ANCSA provided that the withdrawal of the lands would expire in 1978 if Congress had not designated the lands as federal enclaves. John K. Norman Cole and Steven W. Silver, Alaska’s D-2 Lands, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 6B, Ch. 5, September 1978, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., And Then There Were None: Evolving Federal Restraints on the Availability of Public Lands for Mineral Development, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 25, Ch. 3, 1979. 52. Andrus used purported authority under the FLPMA to withdraw 40 million acres, and Carter used purported authority under the Antiquities Act of to withdraw 56 million acres. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The First Twenty Years, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 38 Ch. 2, 1992 at 2.04(8)(c), https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/ANCSA-Paper-with-Table-of-Contents-1992.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on settling water rights and restoring ecosystems for a specific Pueblo in New Mexico, which is unrelated to Project 2025's emphasis on reversing federal land and water policies in Alaska, opposing the 30 by 30 initiative, and challenging national monument designations. There is no substantive overlap in geographic focus, policy mechanisms, or ideological objectives."

Key themes:water rightsfederal land management

— 531 — Department of the Interior Wildlife and Waters. Throughout Alaska’s history, the federal government has treated Alaska as less than a sovereign state. This is especially the case when it comes to two of Alaska’s most valued resources, its wildlife and its waters. Immediate action is required to end, at least in part, this injustice. A new Admin- istration should: l Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules regarding predator control and bear baiting, which are matters for state regulation. Such revocation is permitted under the 2017 Congressional Review Act.62 l Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands in accordance with ANILCA as during the Reagan Administration, when each DOI agency in Alaska signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ceding to the state the lead on fish and wildlife management matters.63 l Issue a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be owned by the state so that the lands beneath these waters belong to Alaska. This will force the BLM to prove that water is not navigable, since in the case of non-navigability, any submerged lands belong to the BLM. Currently, BLM requires Alaska to prove navigability at its own expense—including the BLM’s preposterous assertion that the mighty Yukon River is non-navigable. l Reinstate President Trump’s 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule64 for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which was replaced by a Biden Roadless Rule that continues a 2001 Clinton rule affecting 9.37 million of the forest’s 16.7 million acres.65 The Clinton rule affects an area where communities are in small islands with no road access. It has prevented multiple infrastructure projects, including roads, electric transmission lines, and water and sewer projects, and it forces residents to use a heavily subsidized ferry system. Logging has been shut down to the extent that New York harvests more timber than does all of Alaska. OTHER ACTIONS The 30 by 30 Plan.66 President Biden’s Executive Order 14008 (30 by 30 plan)67 requires that the federal government, which already owns one-third of the country: (1) remove vast amounts of private property from productive use; and (2) end congressionally mandated uses of all federal land. The end result will be “total federal control of an additional 440 million acres of land or oceans in the U.S. by 2030.”68 — 532 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Although the new President should vacate that order, DOI under a conservative President must take immediate action on the 30 by 30 plan by vacating a secre- tarial order issued by the Biden DOI69 that eliminated the Trump Administration’s requirement for the approval of state and local governments before federal acquisi- tion of private property with monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.70 National Monument Designations. As has every Democratic President before him beginning with Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden has abused his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Like the outrageous, unilateral withdrawals from public use of multiple use federal land under the Carter, Clinton, and Obama Administrations, Biden’s first national monument was one in Colorado—adopted over the objections of scores of local groups and at least one American Indian tribe.71 In the days before the 2024 election, Biden will likely designate more western monuments. Although President Trump courageously ordered a review of national mon- ument designations, the result of that review was insufficient in that only two national monuments in one state (Utah) were adjusted.72 Monuments in Maine and Oregon, for example, should have been adjusted downward given the finding of Secretary Ryan Zinke’s review that they were improperly designated. The new Administration’s review will permit a fresh look at past monument decrees and new ones by President Biden. Furthermore, the new Administration must vigorously defend the downward adjustments it makes to permit a ruling on a President’s authority to reduce the size of national monuments by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which permitted emergency action by a President long before the statutory author- ity existed for the protection of special federal lands, such as those with wild and scenic rivers, endangered specials, or other unique places. Moreover, in recent years, Congress has designated as national monuments those areas deserving of such congressional action. Oregon and California Lands Act. One national monument worthy of down- ward adjustment is in Oregon, where its designation and subsequent expansion interfere with the federal obligation to residents to harvest timber on its BLM lands. A federal district court ruled in 2019 that land subject to the Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands Act of 193773 was set aside by Congress to be har- vested for the benefit of the people of Oregon. Specifically, those federal lands are to be “managed…for permanent forest production” and its timber “sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the princip[le] of sustained yield.”74 As the district court concluded,75 beginning in 1990, the federal government erected a trifecta of illegal barriers to the accomplishment of the congressional mandate, beginning with a response to the listing of the northern spotted owl,76 continuing a decade later with the designation of the Cascade–Siskiyou National Monument,77 and concluding in 2017 with an expansion of that monument.78 In

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 461-463AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on a specific tribal water rights settlement and associated environmental restoration, while the Project 2025 EPA policy emphasizes internal office reforms, regulatory clarity, and reducing guidance‑based overreach. Both involve water management, but their objectives and mechanisms are largely unrelated."

Key themes:water rightswater managementenvironmental restoration

— 428 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Personnel, Budget, and Office Restructuring l Place a political appointee in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ, regulating mobile sources) and a political appointee in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS, regulating stationary sources) and give those appointees the requisite titles and authority to oversee the OTAQ and OAQPS staff. l Establish a political Chief of Staff in D.C. to manage the entire air office. l Pull the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program out of OTAQ; establish its own suboffice in D.C. (with status parallel to OTAQ and OAQPS) that is headed by a political appointee; and establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy to work together to establish RFS programs. l Require regional air offices to receive approval from OAR before moving forward with enforcement actions in order to ensure that enforcement is meeting the requirements established by regulations and is not going beyond them. OFFICE OF WATER (OW) OW is responsible for ensuring safe drinking water and restoring and main- taining oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitats for fish, plants, and wildlife. Its two main statutes include implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA)26 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).27 OW has generated a large number of expansive regulations that infringe on private property rights, most notably with the Waters of the U.S. program. Needed Reforms The overarching theme for reform is guidance on guidance. OW relies heav- ily on guidance documents that are outdated and that sometimes have been in a “deliberative” state for years. Additionally, there are significant issues surrounding OW’s holding up guidance as something more than simply guidance: as something akin to law in certain circumstances. The August 6, 2019, “Office of Water Policy for Draft Documents” memorandum28 should be strictly enforced to ensure transpar- ency as well as good governance by not letting guidance linger in draft form and by also ensuring that guidance documents are clearly just that: guidance. They do not have the effect of law and should not be treated by the office as if they did have any such effect. — 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey.

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 Sen. Heinrich, Martin

Pecos Watershed Protection Act

119/s/1319

M.H. Dutch Salmon Greater Gila Wild and Scenic River Act

119/s/1476

Cerro de la Olla Wilderness Establishment Act

119/s/1497