Navajo Nation Rio San José Stream System Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/565

Last Updated: December 8, 2025

Navajo Nation Rio San José Stream System Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025

S. 565, 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 "Department of the Interior" section, p. 569-571 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.

March 4, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.

✅

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 Navajo Nation Rio San José Stream System Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 (S. 565) is a bill that seeks to settle water rights claims of the Navajo Nation in the Rio San Jose Stream System, New Mexico. As a self-serving billionaire, I'll analyze this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my wealth and influence.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to achieve a fair and final settlement of all claims to water rights in the Rio San Jose Stream System for the Navajo Nation. This settlement aims to provide clarity and certainty regarding water rights, which could lead to increased economic development and stability in the region.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes the Secretary to execute an agreement between the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico, and other parties to settle water rights claims. It also establishes a trust fund to support the implementation of the settlement and provides for funding to carry out the agreement.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders in this bill are:

1. The Navajo Nation: As the beneficiary of the settlement, they will gain clarity on their water rights. 2. The State of New Mexico: As a party to the agreement, they will be bound by its terms. 3. Other parties to the agreement: These include various acequias (irrigation districts) and community ditches that rely on the Rio San Jose Stream System for water.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From my perspective as a billionaire investor, this bill has several implications:

1. **Water rights certainty:** The settlement could lead to increased economic development in the region, which may create new investment opportunities. 2. **Regulatory clarity:** By settling water rights claims, the bill reduces regulatory uncertainty, making it easier for businesses like mine to operate in the region. 3. **Potential for privatization:** As a proponent of private sector involvement in public services, I see this settlement as an opportunity to explore privatization options for water management and infrastructure development.

However, I must note that this bill may also lead to increased costs for my business if it results in stricter regulations or increased fees associated with water usage. Nevertheless, the potential benefits of regulatory clarity and certainty outweigh these concerns.

**Projection:** Based on my analysis, I project a 10% increase in economic activity in the region over the next five years, driven by increased investment and development opportunities resulting from this settlement. This growth could translate to an additional $500 million in revenue for businesses like mine operating in the region.

In conclusion, while this bill may not directly impact my wealth or influence, it has the potential to create a more favorable business environment in the region. As such, I will continue to monitor its progress and explore opportunities for private sector involvement in water management and infrastructure development.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Navajo Nation Rio San José Stream System Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 aims to settle water rights claims between the Navajo Nation and various parties in New Mexico. The main objectives are:

1. To achieve a fair, equitable, and final settlement of all claims to water rights in the Rio San Jose Stream System. 2. To authorize, ratify, and confirm an agreement entered into by the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico, and other parties.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill defines key terms such as "Acequia," "Adjudication," "Agreement," "Allotment," and "Decree Court." It also outlines the purposes of the Act, which include:

1. Authorizing the Secretary to execute the Agreement and take necessary actions to carry out its provisions. 2. Approving the settlement of water rights claims for the Navajo Nation. 3. Establishing a trust fund to implement the Agreement.

Changes to existing law include:

1. The bill amends the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 to include the Navajo Nation as a federally recognized tribe. 2. It authorizes funds necessary for the implementation of the Agreement and this Act.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties and stakeholders in this bill are:

1. The Navajo Nation 2. The State of New Mexico 3. Various acequias (irrigation districts) and community ditches 4. Individual allottees (Indian landowners) 5. The United States government, acting as trustee for the Navajo Nation

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact and implications of this bill are:

1. Resolution of long-standing water rights disputes between the Navajo Nation and other parties. 2. Establishment of a trust fund to implement the Agreement and provide funding for water infrastructure projects. 3. Potential changes to existing water management practices in the Rio San Jose Stream System.

Now, I hope that was clear. As we covered in 8th grade civics class, bills like this one go through committees, mark-ups, and debates before becoming laws. It's essential to understand these processes to appreciate how our government functions. Or, at least, it should be...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

My fellow Americans, gather 'round and listen closely, for I have uncovered the truth behind this seemingly innocuous bill, S 565, the Navajo Nation Rio San José Stream System Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025. At first glance, it appears to be a benevolent act aimed at resolving water rights claims between the Navajo Nation and various parties in New Mexico. But, my friends, do not be fooled! There's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to settle all claims to water rights in the Rio San José Stream System, pending since 1983, between the Navajo Nation and other parties. On the surface, it seems like a fair and equitable solution. However, I've discovered that this settlement may be just a smokescreen for more sinister intentions.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill reveals the true purpose: to authorize, ratify, and confirm an agreement between the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico, and other parties. But what's really going on here? The bill creates a new trust fund, the Navajo Nation Rio San José Settlement Trust Fund (Sec. 6), which will be managed by the Secretary of the Interior. This raises questions about accountability and transparency.

Furthermore, Section 11 allows for judicial review of water use permit decisions, effectively giving the federal government jurisdiction over local water management. Is this a power grab? I think so!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Navajo Nation, individual allottees, and various acequias (irrigation districts) are directly affected by this bill. But what about the other stakeholders? The State of New Mexico, the City of Grants, and the Village of Milan are all parties to the agreement. Who's really pulling the strings here?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for water rights, land management, and tribal sovereignty. By establishing a new trust fund and granting federal jurisdiction over local water decisions, this bill may be setting a precedent for future water rights settlements across the country.

But that's not all! I've discovered a connection between this bill and a larger agenda to control our nation's water resources. It's no coincidence that this bill was introduced just as the United Nations is pushing its Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, which emphasize global water management and control.

Wake up, America! This bill is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. We must remain vigilant and question the true intentions behind these seemingly innocuous legislative actions. The government may be hiding its agenda in plain sight, but I'm here to expose it for what it really is: a threat to our sovereignty and way of life.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Navajo Nation Rio San José Stream System Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 - try saying that five times fast! (smirk)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about settling water rights claims for the Navajo Nation in New Mexico's Rio San José Stream System. It's a big deal, folks. The feds are trying to wrap up this decades-long dispute and give the Navajo Nation some much-needed clarity on their water rights.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill ratifies an agreement between the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico, and other parties to settle these water claims. It defines key terms like "Acequia" (don't worry, I had to look it up too) and outlines the process for implementing this settlement. The feds will also establish a trust fund to help the Navajo Nation manage their new water rights.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The big winners here are the Navajo Nation and its people. They'll finally have some certainty about their water rights, which is crucial for their communities and economic development. Other stakeholders include the State of New Mexico, local farmers, and ranchers who might be impacted by this settlement.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking - "What's the big deal about water rights?" Well, folks, this is a huge victory for the Navajo Nation. It's all about self-determination and control over their own resources. But let's be real, there are also some potential landmines here. What about the environmental impact of increased water usage? And what about the other stakeholders who might not be too thrilled about this settlement?

(Conspiratorial whisper) You know, I've got a feeling that this bill is just the tip of the iceberg. There's more to this story than meets the eye. Maybe it's all part of a larger plan to... (pauses for dramatic effect) ...control our water supply? (wink)

(Straight-faced) But seriously, folks, this bill is an important step forward for the Navajo Nation and their people. It's all about freedom - the freedom to manage their own resources and build a better future.

(Outro music plays) That's all for tonight, folks! Stay vigilant, stay informed, and always keep your eyes on the prize... of freedom! (smirk)

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 Navajo Nation Rio San José Stream System Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 is a cleverly crafted bill that claims to "achieve a fair, equitable, and final settlement of all claims to water rights" in the Rio San Jose Stream System. In reality, it's a cynical attempt to paper over decades of neglect and exploitation by the federal government.

The primary objective is to ratify an agreement between the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico, and various other parties, which supposedly resolves long-standing water rights disputes. Don't be fooled – this bill is more about maintaining the status quo than actual reform.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

Section 4 of the bill "ratifies" an agreement that's been in the works since 2022. This agreement allegedly settles all claims to water rights, but it's a shell game. The real prize is the creation of a trust fund (Section 6) and authorization for federal funding (Section 7). These provisions will funnel millions into the pockets of lawyers, consultants, and bureaucrats while doing little to address the underlying issues.

Other notable provisions include:

* Section 5: Defines the Navajo Nation's water rights, which sounds impressive but is actually a vague, toothless provision. * Section 9: Waivers and releases of claims, because who needs accountability when you can just sweep everything under the rug? * Section 14: Expands the service area of the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, a convenient way to justify more federal funding.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The usual suspects are involved:

* The Navajo Nation, which will receive token concessions and promises while being forced to compromise on their actual water rights. * The State of New Mexico, which gets to maintain its grip on the region's water resources. * Various acequias (irrigation districts) and community ditches, which will be placated with minor adjustments to their water allocations. * Federal bureaucrats and lawyers, who will reap a windfall from the trust fund and federal funding.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It fails to address the systemic issues plaguing the Navajo Nation's water rights, such as:

* Chronic underfunding of infrastructure * Lack of representation in decision-making processes * Decades-long neglect by federal and state authorities

Instead, it creates a new layer of bureaucracy, perpetuating the cycle of dependency and exploitation. The trust fund will be a slush fund for politicians and special interests, while the Navajo Nation remains stuck in limbo.

In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in legislative sleight-of-hand. It's a cynical exercise in maintaining the status quo, with token concessions to the Navajo Nation

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

**Bill Summary: S 565 - Navajo Nation Rio San José Stream System Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to settle water rights claims of the Navajo Nation in the Rio San Jose Stream System, New Mexico. The main objectives are:

1. Achieve a fair and final settlement of all claims to water rights in the general stream adjudication. 2. Authorize, ratify, and confirm an agreement between the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico, and other parties. 3. Provide funds necessary for implementing the agreement.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Ratification of Agreement**: The bill ratifies an agreement entered into by the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico, and various other parties, which settles water rights claims in the Rio San Jose Stream System. 2. **Navajo Nation's Water Rights**: The bill confirms the Navajo Nation's water rights in the Rio San Jose Stream System, including the right to use a specified amount of water for various purposes. 3. **Trust Fund Establishment**: A trust fund is established to manage and distribute funds provided by the federal government to implement the agreement. 4. **Funding Authorization**: The bill authorizes funding necessary for implementing the agreement.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Navajo Nation**: As a federally recognized Indian nation, the Navajo Nation will benefit from the settlement of its water rights claims. 2. **State of New Mexico**: The state is a party to the agreement and will be affected by the settlement of water rights claims in the Rio San Jose Stream System. 3. **Acequias and Community Ditches**: These entities are parties to the agreement and will be impacted by the settlement of water rights claims. 4. **Individual Allottees**: Individual Indians holding allotments within the Rio Puerco Basin or the Rio San Jose Stream System may be affected by the settlement.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Resolution of Water Rights Claims**: The bill provides a final and equitable resolution to long-standing water rights claims, promoting stability and certainty in the region. 2. **Improved Water Management**: The agreement establishes a framework for managing water resources in the Rio San Jose Stream System, which may lead to more efficient use of water. 3. **Economic Benefits**: The settlement may generate economic benefits for the Navajo Nation and other affected parties through increased access to water resources. 4. **Environmental Implications**: The bill's provisions may have environmental implications, such as changes in water quality or quantity, which will need to be monitored and addressed.

Overall, this bill aims to provide a comprehensive solution to long-standing water rights claims in the Rio San Jose Stream System, promoting stability, certainty, and cooperation among affected parties.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, S 565, the Navajo Nation Rio San José Stream System Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is all about settlin' a long-standing water rights dispute between the Navajo Nation and other parties in New Mexico. The main goal is to achieve a fair and final settlement of all claims to water rights in the Rio San José Stream System. It's like catchin' a gnarly wave, bro – we're talkin' about bringin' closure to a decades-old issue.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill does several key things:

* Approves and ratifies an agreement between the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico, and other parties to settle water rights claims. * Defines terms like "Acequia" (which refers to specific irrigation districts) and "Allotment" (land held in trust by the US for individual Indians or tribes). * Establishes a Navajo Nation Rio San José Settlement Trust Fund to implement the agreement. * Authorizes funding for the implementation of the agreement.

It's like addin' some fresh wax to your surfboard, bro – these provisions help smooth out the process and make sure everyone's on the same page.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects several parties, including:

* The Navajo Nation: They're the main beneficiary of this settlement, as it resolves their water rights claims. * The State of New Mexico: They're a key player in the agreement and will work with the Navajo Nation to implement it. * Acequias (irrigation districts): These groups are impacted by the settlement, as they'll need to adjust to new water management arrangements. * Allottees (individual Indians or tribes holding land in trust): They might be affected by changes to land use and water rights.

It's like a big ol' beach party, bro – everyone's gotta work together to make this settlement happen.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill has some significant implications:

* It brings closure to a long-standing dispute, which is a major win for the Navajo Nation. * It sets a precedent for future water rights settlements in New Mexico and beyond. * It could impact the way water is managed in the Rio San José Stream System, potentially affecting agriculture, industry, and other stakeholders.

It's like catchin' a wave at sunset, bro – this bill has the potential to bring some much-needed clarity and resolution to a complex issue.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Summary: S 565 - Navajo Nation Rio San José Stream System Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to settle water rights claims of the Navajo Nation in the Rio San Jose Stream System, New Mexico. The legislation seeks to achieve a fair and final settlement of all claims, authorize the implementation of an agreement between the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico, and other parties, and provide funding for the settlement.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Ratification of Agreement:** The bill ratifies the Rio San Jose Stream System Water Rights Local Settlement Agreement, which was signed by the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico, and other parties. 2. **Navajo Nation's Water Rights:** The legislation confirms the Navajo Nation's water rights in the Rio San Jose Stream System and establishes a framework for the nation to manage its water resources. 3. **Settlement Trust Fund:** The bill creates a trust fund to support the implementation of the settlement agreement, including funding for water infrastructure projects and other activities. 4. **Funding:** The legislation authorizes appropriations to support the settlement agreement, including $10 million for fiscal year 2025.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Navajo Nation:** The bill directly affects the Navajo Nation, which will gain control over its water resources in the Rio San Jose Stream System. 2. **State of New Mexico:** The state is a party to the settlement agreement and will be involved in implementing the legislation. 3. **Acequias and Community Ditches:** The bill impacts acequias (irrigation districts) and community ditches that rely on the Rio San Jose Stream System for water. 4. **Allottees:** Individual Indians holding allotments within the Rio Puerco Basin or the Rio San Jose Stream System may be affected by the legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Water Management:** The bill will enable the Navajo Nation to manage its water resources more effectively, which could lead to improved agricultural productivity and economic development. 2. **Environmental Concerns:** The settlement agreement includes provisions for environmental protection and conservation, which may mitigate potential negative impacts on the Rio San Jose Stream System ecosystem. 3. **Funding:** The authorized appropriations will support the implementation of the settlement agreement, but the long-term funding implications are unclear.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there is no explicit evidence of monied interests driving this legislation, it's worth noting that:

1. **Navajo Nation PACs:** The Navajo Nation has a political action committee (PAC) that may have contributed to the campaigns of Senators Heinrich and Lujan, who introduced the bill. 2. **New Mexico Energy Industry:** Companies involved in energy production, such as oil and gas extraction, may have an interest in the water resources managed by this legislation.

However

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 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. Lujan, 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 78 nodes and 33 connections (85 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $134,862

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(h)(1)(B) authorizes use of funds for installing groundwater wells and associated infrastructure on Navajo Lands, which benefits construction and engineering firms involved in water infrastructure projects.
+Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.80
Section 6(h)(1)(B) funds water infrastructure that may support municipal and industrial water uses, which could benefit electric utilities that rely on water for cooling or other operations, though the connection is indirect.
+Agribusinessconfidence 0.70
Section 6(h)(1)(D) includes support for agriculture as a permitted use of the Navajo Nation Water Rights Settlement Account, which could benefit agribusinesses operating on or near Navajo Lands.

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.

Department of the Interior

Moderate

Vector: 54%

Pages: 569-571AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on fulfilling federal trust responsibilities to American Indians by settling Navajo Nation water rights, though it does not address the specific water infrastructure or monitoring reforms outlined in the DOI section."

Key themes:tribal trust responsibilitywater rights settlementfederal-tribal agreement

— 536 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 2. Engaging in real-time monitoring of operations. l Reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies by consolidating federal water working groups. l Implement actions identified in the Federal Action Plan for Improving Fore- casts of Water Availability,93 especially by adopting improvements related to: 1. Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations; and 2. Arial Snow Observation Systems. l Clarify the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act94 to ensure consistent application with other federal infrastructure loan programs under the Federal Credit Reform Act. This should be done to foster opportunities for locally led investment in water infrastructure. l Reinstate Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West.95 AMERICAN INDIANS AND U.S. TRUST RESPONSIBILITY The Biden Administration has breached its federal trust responsibilities to American Indians. This is unconscionable. Specifically, the Biden Administra- tion’s war on domestically available fossil fuels and mineral sources has been devastating. To wit: l The ability of American Indians and tribal governments to develop their abundant oil and gas resources has been severely hampered, depriving them of the revenue and profits to which they are entitled during a time of increasing worldwide energy prices, forcing American Indians—who are among the poorest Americans—to choose between food and fuel. l Indian nations with significant coal resources have some of the highest quality and cleanest-burning coal in the world, but the Biden Administration has sought to destroy the market for their coal by eliminating coal-fired electricity in the country and to prevent the transport of their coal for sale internationally. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration, at great public expense, artificially boosted the demand for electric vehicles, which, because of their remote locations, the absence of increased electricity demands for charging electric vehicles nearby, and the distances to be traveled, are not a choice for Indian communities. — 537 — Department of the Interior l A significant percentage of critical minerals needed by the United States is on Indian lands, but the Biden Administration has actively discouraged development of critical mineral mining projects on Indian lands rather than assisting in their advancement. l Despite Indian nations having primary responsibility for their lands and environment and responsibility for the safety of their communities, the Biden Administration is reversing efforts to put Indian nations in charge of environmental regulation on their own lands. Moreover, Biden Administration policies, including those of the DOI, have dis- proportionately impacted American Indians and Indian nations. l By its failure to secure the border, the Biden Administration has robbed Indian nations on or near the Mexican border of safe and secure communities while permitting them to be swamped by a tide of illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl. l When ending COVID protocols at Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, Biden’s DOI failed to ensure an accurate accounting of students returning from school shutdowns, which presents a significant danger to the families that trust their children to that federal agency. l The BIE is not reporting student academic assessment data to ensure parents and the larger tribal communities know their children are learning and are receiving a quality education. The new Administration must take the following actions to fulfill the nation’s trust responsibilities to American Indians and Indian nations: l End the war on fossil fuels and domestically available minerals and facilitate their development on lands owned by Indians and Indian nations. l End federal mandates and subsidies of electric vehicles. l Restore the right of tribal governments to enforce environmental regulation on their lands. l Secure the nation’s border to protect the sovereignty and safety of tribal lands.

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on settling water rights for the Navajo Nation in New Mexico, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy's emphasis on streamlining oil and gas leasing, reducing environmental review burdens, and expanding energy development on federal lands. There is no direct thematic or policy overlap between water rights settlement and the energy leasing priorities outlined in the cited Project 2025 section."

Key themes:Department of the Interiorfederal land managementnatural resources

— 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).

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 56%

Pages: 461-463AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on settling tribal water rights and providing funding for a specific stream system, while the Project 2025 EPA section emphasizes regulatory reforms, deadline compliance, WOTUS definitions, CWA processes, and workforce changes. There is only tangential overlap concerning water management and funding."

Key themes:water rightswater managementtribal waterfunding

— 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

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 55%

Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses a specific tribal water rights settlement in New Mexico, while the Project 2025 DOI section focuses on Alaska wildlife/water management, reversing federal land policies, and the 30 by 30 initiative. Both involve Department of the Interior water issues, but their objectives and geographic scopes differ significantly, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:water rightsDepartment of the Interiortribal-federal-state cooperationwater managementsettlement agreements

— 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

Department of Agriculture

Minimal

Vector: 55%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on settling water rights for the Navajo Nation in New Mexico, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 policy section on the Department of Agriculture that discusses school meal programs, conservation compliance, and food production initiatives. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 315 — Department of Agriculture 79. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “WIC Data Tables,” December 9, 2022, https:// www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wic-program (accessed December 16, 2022). 80. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Regulations and Information on the Manufacture and Distribution of Infant Formula,” May 16, 2022, https://www.fda.gov/food/infant-formula-guidance-documents-regulatory- information/regulations-and-information-manufacture-and-distribution-infant-formula (accessed December 14, 2022). 81. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program,” January 17, 2008, https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022). 82. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “School Breakfast Program History,” July 24, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp/program-history (accessed December 14, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “History of the National School Lunch Program.” 83. Crystal FitzSimons, “Free School Meals for All Is the Key to Supporting Education and Health Outcomes,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol 41, No. 1 (2022), pp. 358–364, https://econpapers.repec.org/ article/wlyjpamgt/v_3a41_3ay_3a2022_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a358-364.htm (accessed December 14, 2022). 84. Jonathan Butcher and Vijay Menon, “Returning to the Intent of Government School Meals: Helping Students in Need,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3399, March 22, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/ default/files/2019-03/BG3399.pdf. 85. Daren Bakst and Jonathan Butcher, “A Critical Fix to the Federal Overreach on School Meals,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4976, July 11, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/hunger-and-food-programs/report/ critical-fix-the-federal-overreach-school-meals. 86. Ibid., and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Community Eligibility Provision,” April 19, 2019, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/community-eligibility-provision (accessed December 16, 2022). 87. See Payment Accuracy, https://www.paymentaccuracy.gov/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 88. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard,” https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q3/ FNS%20National%20School%20Lunch%20Program%20(NSLP)%20Payments%20Integrity%20Scorecard%20 FY%202022%20Q3.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 89. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “School Meals Programs: USDA Has Reported Taking Some Steps to Reduce Improper Payments But Should Comprehensively Assess Fraud Risks,” GAO–19–389, May 21, 2022, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389 (accessed December 14, 2022). 90. Payment Accuracy, “Payment Integrity Scorecard.” 91. White House, “Fact Sheet: The American Families Plan,” April 28, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 92. Universal School Meals Program Act of 2021, S. 1530, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/ bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1530 (accessed December 14, 2022). 93. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Find Meals for Kids When Schools Are Closed,” Food and Nutrition Service, September 22, 2022, https://www.fns.usda.gov/meals4kids (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Seamless Summer and Other Options for School,” July 16, 2013, https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/seamless-summer-and-other-options-schools (accessed December 16, 2022). 94. Tom Driscoll, “From the Field: Farmers Are the Original Conservationists,” National Farmers Union, August 30, 2017, https://nfu.org/2017/08/30/from-the-field-farmers-are-the-original-conservationists/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 95. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Programs,” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/ programs-and-services/conservation-programs/index (accessed December 16, 2022), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Programs and Initiatives,” https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ programs-initiatives (accessed December 16, 2022). 96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “Conservation Reserve Program: About the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation- programs/conservation-reserve-program/ (accessed December 16, 2022). — 316 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 97. American Bakers Association et al., letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, March 23, 2022, https://www.dropbox.com/s/yfyv04ilkom11zd/USDA%20Letter%20to%20Secretary%20Vilsack%20on%20 Tools%20to%20Address%20Global%20Commodity%20Supply%20Challenges%203.23.22_.pdf?dl=0 (accessed December 15, 2022). It is also necessary to increase food production to mitigate high food inflation. Approximately 25 percent of idled land is considered prime farmland. Therefore, one-quarter of idled land is merely idling, not producing food—and this does not include other land that may viably be used for food production. The Conservation Reserve Program should be eliminated. There are also two issues connected to property rights and fairness that should be addressed: challenging NRCS determinations and problems with USDA easements. To be eligible for many USDA programs, farmers must comply with certain conservation provisions enforced by NRCS. Conservation compliance of wetlands and highly erodible lands consist of federal restrictions that prevent farmers from using parts of their property. If farmers plant crops or modify the areas federal officials deem protected, farmers can lose all access to USDA programs and support. For farmers, there are real, practical concerns to challenging NRCS determinations, including the time and costs of challenging the federal bureaucracy. NRCS is empowered to declare areas wetlands and highly erodible areas, which are therefore off limits for farming. If these wetland-or-erodible-declared areas are used in a manner deemed unacceptable by federal officials, NRCS may revoke access to federal resources and subsidies by making technical determinations that carry potential penalties. There must be a fair and reasonable process for farmers to challenge such actions. See Daren Bakst, “Food Price Inflation Continues to Worsen. Here’s What Should Be Done About It,” The Daily Signal, April 25, 2022, https:// www.dailysignal.com/2022/04/25/food-price-inflation-continuing-to-worsen-heres-what-should-be-done- about-it/ (accessed December 15, 2022); American Bakers Association et.al., letter to Vilsack; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Conservation Compliance Appeals Process,” https://www. nrcs.usda.gov/getting-assistance/compliance/conservation-compliance-appeals-process (accessed December 15, 2022); and Chris Bennett, “Regulatory Hell: Farmer and Veteran Wins 10-Year Wetlands Fight With Government,” AG Web, August 30, 2021, https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/crop-production/regulatory-hell-farmer-and- veteran-wins-10-year-wetlands-fight (accessed December 15, 2022). 98. Fortunately, there are already resources available to help states establish their own wetlands conservation programs. One particular example, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act model policy, is available for states to define the procedures, guidelines, and administration of wetlands programs. American Legislative Exchange Council, “Wetlands Mapping and Protection Act,” November 16, 2017, https://alec.org/model-policy/wetlands-mapping-and-protection-act/ (accessed December 16, 2022). The new Administration should focus on best practices instead of imposing prescriptive federal practices. It should support the policies contained within the “NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act” and modify NRCS compliance rules to protect farmers and ranchers by adding protections against regulatory overreach—such as banning the practice of re-engaging farmers in new technical determinations appeals processes for the same areas of their farms. See NRCS Wetland Compliance and Appeals Reform Act, S. 4931, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4931?s=1&r=8 (accessed December 15, 2022). 99. Ibid 100. See, for example, Daren Bakst and Jeremy Dalrymple, “Reducing Federal Barriers for the Sale of Meat,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 5078, June 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/ reducing-federal-barriers-the-sale-meat, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “State Inspection Programs,” updated January 12, 2023, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state- inspection-programs (accessed December 15, 2022). 101. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, “Cooperative Interstate Shipping Program,” September 7, 2022, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/state-inspection-programs/cooperative- interstate-shipping-program (accessed December 15, 2022). 102. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “State Inspection Programs.” 103. The Senate bill removes obstacles for both meat and poultry. The House version does not appear to cover poultry. New Markets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2021, S. 107, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/107#:~:text=This%20bill%20allows%20meat%20and,be%20 sold%20in%20interstate%20commerce (accessed December 15, 2022), and Expanding Markets for State- Inspected Meat Processors Act of 2021, H.R. 1998, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th- congress/house-bill/1998 (accessed December 15, 2022).

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

Back to All Bills