Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Amendments Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/637
Last Updated: December 9, 2025

Sponsored by

Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]

ID: L000570

Follow the money

The bill

Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Amendments Act of 2025

S. 637, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]

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

The money

$64,400 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

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

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity and see what's really going on.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Amendments Act of 2025 is a bill that claims to "make improvements" to the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act. But don't be fooled – this is just a euphemism for "we're going to throw more money at a problem and hope it goes away."

The real purpose of this bill is to authorize additional funding for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, which has been plagued by delays, cost overruns, and bureaucratic incompetence. It's like trying to put a Band-Aid on a bullet wound – it might look pretty, but it won't fix the underlying problem.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill makes several changes to existing law, including:

* Redefining terms like "Deferred Construction Fund" and "Project Service Area" to make them sound more impressive. * Authorizing the expansion of the project service area to include more communities in New Mexico and Arizona. Because what's a few million dollars more when you're already hemorrhaging cash? * Allowing the Navajo Nation to acquire, construct, and operate additional facilities, because clearly, they've done such a great job so far.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* The Navajo Nation, which will receive more funding for their water supply project. Yay, more money! * The Bureau of Reclamation, which will get to oversee the project and pretend like they're doing something useful. * The taxpayers, who will foot the bill for this boondoggle.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill is:

* More waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars. Because what's a few hundred million more when you're already throwing money at a problem? * Further delays and cost overruns, because that's just how these projects work. * A continued lack of accountability and transparency, because who needs those things when you're dealing with government agencies?

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of the legislative disease known as "Throw-Money-At-The-Problem-itis." It's a symptom of a deeper illness – the inability of our elected officials to make tough decisions and actually solve problems. Instead, they'd rather just throw more money at it and hope it goes away.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of bureaucratic incompetence. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: None, because we're too busy throwing money at the problem to actually fix it.

Related Topics

Water & Air Quality RegulationsFederal Budget & AppropriationsState & Local Government Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$64,400
22 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$47,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$16,500

No PAC contributions found

1
LYTTON BAND OF POMO INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
2
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
3
MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE
2 transactions
$5,000
4
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
3 transactions
$3,900
5
OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
6
TAOS PUEBLO GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
1 transaction
$3,300
7
OHKAY OWINGEH TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
8
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,500
9
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX
2 transactions
$2,400
10
SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE
1 transaction
$2,000
11
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
1 transaction
$2,000
12
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,500
13
MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT
1 transaction
$1,000
14
ZUNI TRIBE
1 transaction
$1,000
15
PUEBLO OF ISLETA
1 transaction
$1,000
16
SKOKOMISH TRIBAL COUNCIL
1 transaction
$1,000
17
ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE
2 transactions
$1,000
18
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
PERALTA, VICTOR
2 transactions
$6,600
2
TALLAJ, RAMON
1 transaction
$3,300
3
NEFF, THOMAS
1 transaction
$3,300
4
ELSHAMI, NADEAM
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]

ID: C001114

Top Contributors

10

1
KELLER INVESTMENTS PROPERTIES
OrganizationCENTERVILLE, UT
$29,800
Dec 31, 2023
2
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationSUQUAMISH, WA
$1,000
Aug 14, 2024
3
TENNIS & SUN LC
OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$1,000
Jun 10, 2024
4
BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LLC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Mar 25, 2024
5
FUGAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES INC
OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$1,000
Sep 13, 2023
6
STEEL, SHAWN
STEEL & EISNER, LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualSURFSIDE, CA
$10,000
Mar 25, 2024
7
STEEL, SHAWN
STEEL & EISNER, LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualSURFSIDE, CA
$10,000
Mar 25, 2024
8
BAKER, PAUL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualTUCSON, AZ
$6,600
Jun 5, 2024
9
BAKER, PAUL
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualTUCSON, AZ
$6,600
Jun 5, 2024
10
BERKLEY, WILLIAM
WRBC • CHAIRMAN
IndividualKEY LARGO, FL
$6,600
Jun 7, 2024

Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

ID: H001046

Top Contributors

10

1
JSTREETPAC
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Apr 19, 2024
2
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$21,600
Oct 5, 2023
3
PUEBLO OF LAGUNA
OrganizationLAGUNA, NM
$5,800
Sep 30, 2024
4
PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO
OrganizationSANTA FE, NM
$5,000
Oct 30, 2024
5
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$5,000
Oct 23, 2024
6
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$5,000
Dec 5, 2023
7
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$5,000
Oct 15, 2024
8
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,962
May 10, 2024
9
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
10
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 74 nodes and 36 connections (85 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $124,600

Top Donors - Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

18 Orgs4 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped, 1 harmed.

  • Section 3(a)(1)(D) authorizes additional service areas for the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, which will require construction of water conveyance and storage facilities, pipelines, pumping plants, and related infrastructure, directly benefiting construction and engineering firms involved in such projects.

  • Section 3(a)(2)(B) authorizes the acquisition and use of water conveyance and storage facilities associated with the San Juan Generating Station, including diversion dam, intake structure, river pumping plant, pipeline, dam, reservoir, and associated land, which involves midstream energy infrastructure like pipelines and storage facilities.

  • +Renewable Energyconfidence 0.85

    Section 3(a)(5)(B) explicitly authorizes the Secretary to use funds for renewable energy development (up to $6,250,000) and hydroelectric power (up to $1,250,000) for Project facilities that lack access to Colorado River Storage Project power, directly benefiting renewable energy companies involved in solar, wind, and hydroelectric projects.

  • +Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.80

    Section 3(a)(5)(B) authorizes the Secretary to use up to $6,250,000 for renewable energy development and up to $1,250,000 for hydroelectric power for Project facilities, which could benefit electric utilities involved in renewable energy generation and distribution.

  • −Coal Miningconfidence 0.70

    Section 3(a)(2)(B) references the San Juan Generating Station, a coal-fired electric power plant, and authorizes the acquisition of its water conveyance and storage facilities. While the bill does not explicitly shut down the plant, facilitating water infrastructure for a coal plant could be seen as supporting coal operations, but given the broader context of water rights and potential transition away from coal, the polarity is assigned as negative with low confidence due to ambiguity. However,

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: 57%
Pages: 461-463AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding water infrastructure for tribal communities, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on improving water systems and regulatory efficiency under the Clean Water Act, though it does not directly address EPA rulemaking, WOTUS definitions, or permitting reforms outlined in the policy."

Key themes:water infrastructureClean Water Acttribal water accessregulatory complianceenvironmental review

— 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

Weak
Vector: 58%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding water infrastructure and includes generic environmental compliance (NEPA) but does not address the specific EPA regulatory reforms, GHG reporting, or air permitting policies outlined in Project 2025."

Key themes:environmental complianceNEPAwater infrastructure

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

Department of the Interior

Weak
Vector: 57%
Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill concerns tribal water infrastructure and NEPA compliance, while the Project 2025 DOI section focuses on streamlining energy leasing, expediting permits for fossil‑fuel development, and reducing regulatory burdens. Both involve the Department of the Interior and NEPA, but their substantive objectives diverge significantly."

Key themes:Department of the InteriorNEPA complianceinfrastructure development

— 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).

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills