MAPWaters Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/187
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

ID: M001213

Follow the money

The bill

MAPWaters Act of 2025

HR. 187, 119th Congress — read as touching Telecommunications.

The sponsor

Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

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

The money

$99,500 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 563-565 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Became Public Law No: 119-62.

December 25, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

Passed Congress

Presidential Action

Became Law

📍 Current Status

This bill has become 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 bureaucratic doublespeak, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The MAPWaters Act of 2025 is a regulatory behemoth that promises to "modernize" access to public waters while actually creating a labyrinthine system of restrictions and regulations.

Let's dissect this monstrosity:

**New Regulations:**

* Interagency data standardization (because we all know how well government agencies play together) * Digitization and publication of Federal waterway restrictions, access information, and fishing restrictions * Creation of a public comment process (because the public is just dying to provide feedback on obscure regulations)

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Recreation and tourism (good luck navigating these new restrictions, folks!) * Fishing and boating industries (get ready for more red tape) * Federal land and water management agencies (because they clearly need more work to do)

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

* 30 months to develop interagency data standards (a snail's pace for the digital age) * 5 years to digitize and publish Federal waterway restrictions, access information, and fishing restrictions (plenty of time for bureaucratic foot-dragging) * Bi-annual updates to data (because who needs real-time information, anyway?)

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

* None explicitly stated in the bill (but I'm sure we can count on our trusty friends at the Federal agencies to come up with something "creative")

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* Increased costs for recreation and tourism industries due to new restrictions and regulations * Potential losses for fishing and boating industries as access is limited or restricted * More bureaucratic overhead for Federal agencies, because who doesn't love a good paperwork exercise?

In short, this bill is a classic case of "regulatory capture" – a disease where government agencies and special interest groups collude to create more red tape, ostensibly to "protect the public," but really to consolidate power and control.

The real diagnosis? This bill is suffering from a bad case of "Bureaucratic Bloat-itis," with symptoms including:

* Excessive use of buzzwords like "standardization" and "interoperability" * A complete disregard for the economic and operational impacts on affected industries * A healthy dose of paternalism, assuming that the public needs to be protected from itself

Treatment? A strong dose of transparency, accountability, and a willingness to actually listen to the concerns of those affected. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Related Topics

Water & Air Quality RegulationsWildlife & Endangered SpeciesPublic Lands & Natural Resources
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$99,500
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$18,200
Committees
$0
Individuals
$81,300

No PAC contributions found

1
JLS HOLDINGS LLC
1 transaction
$9,900
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
3
HEMMCO LLC
1 transaction
$2,500
4
R & O CONSTRUCTION
1 transaction
$2,500

No committee contributions found

1
MOORE, BRENT
2 transactions
$12,000
2
LOCKWOOD, DAVID
3 transactions
$9,900
3
PARKER, ALEXANDRA
1 transaction
$6,600
4
PARKER, SEAN
1 transaction
$6,600
5
KAUFMAN, TRENT
1 transaction
$6,600
6
CHANG, JASON
1 transaction
$3,300
7
REHNERT, GEOFFREY
1 transaction
$3,300
8
HALL, JEREMY
1 transaction
$3,300
9
FORREST, CHAD B
1 transaction
$3,300
10
WALKER, TODD
1 transaction
$3,300
11
BAILEY, BRETT M.
1 transaction
$3,300
12
BAILEY, KIM
1 transaction
$3,300
13
FORREST, SHANNON
1 transaction
$3,300
14
DUHAMEL, WILLIAM F.
1 transaction
$3,300
15
SMITH, BURR
1 transaction
$3,300
16
EDWARDS, TAMMY
1 transaction
$3,300
17
FORREST, CLINT
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19]

ID: P000613

Top Contributors

28

1
ACROSS THE AISLE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Jan 12, 2023
2
ACROSS THE AISLE PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Mar 23, 2023
3
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Apr 12, 2023
4
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Apr 12, 2023
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Apr 12, 2023
6
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Oct 16, 2024
7
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$2,500
Nov 9, 2023
8
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,700
Apr 12, 2023
9
CROWN, LESTER
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$6,600
Aug 9, 2024
10
KIM, SOON
IndividualSANTA CRUZ, CA
$4,300
Sep 30, 2024

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

ID: F000469

Top Contributors

20

1
ROBU, ELI
AJ GENERAL CONTRACTORS • CONSTRUCTION
IndividualWORLEY, ID
$3,300
Aug 4, 2024
2
SCOTT, JB
SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER
IndividualBOISE, ID
$3,300
Apr 16, 2024
3
VANDERSLOOT, FRANK
MELALEUCA • CEO
IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID
$3,300
May 1, 2024
4
TURLINGTON, SCOTT
TAMARACK RESORT • HOSPITALITY
IndividualTAMARACK, ID
$3,300
Apr 20, 2024
5
VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID
$3,300
May 1, 2024
6
BENNETT, BRETT
BENNETT LUMBER • PRESIDENT
IndividualMOSCOW, ID
$3,300
Oct 28, 2023
7
WILLIAMS, LARRY
TREE TOP RANCHES • OWNER
IndividualBOISE, ID
$3,300
Feb 13, 2024
8
CENTERS, JAKE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMERIDIAN, ID
$3,300
Feb 15, 2024
9
ROOPE, CALEB
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES • CEO
IndividualEAGLE, ID
$3,300
Mar 4, 2024
10
ROOPE, CALEB
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES • CEO
IndividualEAGLE, ID
$3,300
Mar 4, 2024

Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]

ID: D000624

Top Contributors

23

1
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationDORR, MI
$3,300
Dec 13, 2023
2
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
OrganizationFULTON, MI
$3,300
Mar 28, 2024
3
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationDORR, MI
$3,300
Oct 16, 2024
4
FORD, CYNTHIA
NA • CIVIC PHILANTHROPIST
IndividualGROSSE POINTE FARMS, MI
$3,300
Oct 14, 2024
5
FORD, EDSEL B. II
FORD MOTOR COMPANY • CONSULTANT
IndividualGROSSE POINTE FARMS, MI
$3,300
Oct 14, 2024
6
MEIJER, HENDRIK
MEIJER, INC. • EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
IndividualGRAND RAPIDS, MI
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
7
CARTER ALTMAN, LYNDA
SELF EMPLOYED • MUSICIAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Nov 6, 2023
8
DEBBANE, RAYMOND
THE INVUS GROUP • CEO
IndividualGREENWICH, CT
$3,300
Dec 4, 2023
9
FARES, NIJAD
LINK • INVESTOR
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Nov 30, 2023
10
III, WILLIAM H. GATES
BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY & BILL & MELINDA G • PHILANTHROPIST
IndividualREDMOND, WA
$3,300
Oct 19, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 41 nodes and 46 connections

Total contributions: $46

Top Donors - Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • +Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.80

    Section 5(a)(1)(C) allows coordination with technology companies and geospatial data companies, which could benefit telecommunications firms involved in data transmission or GIS services.

  • Section 5(a)(1)(E) permits partnership with experts in data science, analytics, and operations research, which may benefit AI and cloud infrastructure providers supporting data standardization and publication efforts.

  • Section 5(a)(1)(D) allows coordination with geospatial data companies, which may involve engineering and construction firms in data collection, digitization, and infrastructure development for waterway access.

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

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The MAPWaters Act focuses on standardizing and publishing GIS data for federal waterway and fishing restrictions, while the Project 2025 Interior section emphasizes transferring management authority to Alaska, revoking federal predator‑control rules, and asserting state ownership of navigable waters. Both touch on federal waterway and fishing management, but the bill does not advance the state‑centric authority or deregulatory goals of Project 2025."

Key themes:federal waterway managementfishing restrictionsdata standardizationoutdoor recreation access

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

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The MAPWaters Act focuses on standardizing and publishing GIS data for federal waterway and fishing restrictions to improve outdoor recreation access, while the Project 2025 EPA section aims to curb EPA authority, streamline air quality regulations, and reduce greenhouse gas reporting burdens. There is only a tangential connection through general themes of federal agency coordination and data efficiency, but no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:federal agency coordinationdata transparencyregulatory efficiency

— 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.

Department of the Interior

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The MAPWaters Act focuses on standardizing and publishing GIS data for federal waterway and fishing restrictions to improve outdoor recreation access, while the Project 2025 policy excerpts provided emphasize energy leasing, environmental review streamlining, and resource development priorities within the Department of the Interior. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address oil and gas leasing, NEPA reform, or energy independence goals central to the cited Project 2025 sect"

Key themes:federal land managementdata standardizationagency coordination

— 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