Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument Access Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/282
Last Updated: March 23, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

ID: K000383

Follow the money

The bill

Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument Access Act

S. 282, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

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

The money

$87,600 raised

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

The alignment

64% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 575-577 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Subcommittee Hearings Held

February 9, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Joy, another bill that's about as exciting as a lecture on crop rotation. Let me put on my surgical gloves and dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument Access Act (S 282) is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak. The main purpose is to "provide greater regional access" to the national monument in Maine, which sounds like a noble goal until you realize it's just a euphemism for "let's make some land deals and call it conservation."

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill allows the Secretary of the Interior to acquire more land within the authorized acquisition area (because who doesn't love a good land grab?) through purchase, donation, or exchange. It also prohibits the use of eminent domain, because heaven forbid we actually take property from unwilling sellers. The bill also makes some minor adjustments to hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation rules, but let's be real, those are just token gestures.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: environmental groups, local communities, Tribal governments, and logging companies. Oh, and the taxpayers who'll foot the bill for this bureaucratic boondoggle.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "greenwashing" – making something sound environmentally friendly when it's really just a power play. The real impact will be on local landowners who might see their property values decrease or increase, depending on how the land deals shake out. Meanwhile, the logging companies will get to continue their operations with minimal oversight, and the environmental groups will get to pat themselves on the back for "saving" some trees.

The only thing this bill is really accomplishing is providing a nice photo op for politicians who want to pretend they care about conservation. It's a legislative placebo – it might make you feel good, but it won't actually do anything meaningful.

Diagnosis: This bill has a bad case of " Politician-itis" – a disease characterized by an excessive desire for power, money, and re-election. Symptoms include vague language, meaningless provisions, and a complete disregard for the actual needs of the people or the environment. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out the nonsense.

Related Topics

Public Lands & Natural ResourcesState & Local Government AffairsWildlife & Endangered Species
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$87,600
17 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$9,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$77,700

No PAC contributions found

1
THE CHICKASAW NATION
3 transactions
$6,600
2
2120 SEA ISLAND LLC
1 transaction
$3,300

No committee contributions found

1
SMITH, BRAD
2 transactions
$13,200
2
DOWNEY, NANCY A.
2 transactions
$10,000
3
BEKENSTEIN, ANITA
2 transactions
$6,600
4
ANDERSON, KATHLEEN K.
2 transactions
$6,600
5
ANDERSON, PAUL MILTON
2 transactions
$6,600
6
OTTEN, LESLIE B.
1 transaction
$5,000
7
BEKENSTEIN, JOSH
1 transaction
$3,300
8
HULL, BLAIR
1 transaction
$3,300
9
ABRAMS, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$3,300
10
BEEBE, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,300
11
BEEUWKES, NANCY
1 transaction
$3,300
12
BIRD, KRISTEN
1 transaction
$3,300
13
BRIDE, MARJORIE M.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
BUTLER, GILBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
15
KLARMAN, SETH
1 transaction
$3,300

Donor Network - Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 41 nodes and 24 connections (52 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $87,600

Top Donors - Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs15 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 5(a) authorizes acquisition of up to 10 acres for administrative sites and visitor facilities, which may involve construction and engineering work.

  • +Real Estateconfidence 0.70

    Sections 3(b) and 5(a) allow the Secretary to acquire land or interests in land from willing sellers, which involves real estate transactions.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME])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

  • from 4 contributions
    • BRITTINGHAM, BETH$1,500
    • BIRSCHBACH, MARK$500

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate64.2%
Pages: 575-577

— 543 — Department of the Interior 68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily, April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private- property-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www. doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021). 70. Ibid. 71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1, October 13, 2022. 72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinke- monuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43 U.S. Code § 2601. 74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019). 75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188. 76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194. 77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252. 78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150. 79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019). 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/ solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023). 81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/ articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97. 83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killing- jobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzly- endangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023). 85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump- administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette, June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_ d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008. pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87. 90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA. 91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635. 92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20 Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 544 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 94. 32 U.S. Code, ch. 52. 95. Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,” October 19, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential- memorandum-promoting-reliable-supply-delivery-water-west/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 96. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,” https://www.doi.gov/ buybackprogram (accessed March 18, 2023). 97. Great American Outdoors Act, Public Law 116–152.

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills