Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/564

Last Updated: July 22, 2026

Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025

S. 564, 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

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 429.

June 3, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025, a bill that exemplifies the inefficiencies of democratic processes, has been introduced in Congress. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I shall dissect this legislation through the lens of wealth creation and power dynamics.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to settle water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in the Zuni River Stream System, protecting the Zuni Salt Lake and providing a framework for the management of federal land. The primary objective is to achieve a "fair, equitable, and final settlement" of all claims, which, in my opinion, is a euphemism for consolidating control over valuable resources.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a Settlement Trust Fund, authorizes funding for the implementation of the Agreement, and defines key terms such as "Tribal Water Rights" and "Allotment." It also withdraws certain federal land in New Mexico from mineral leasing and other activities, which could potentially limit opportunities for resource extraction and development. These provisions demonstrate a lack of understanding of market forces and the importance of deregulation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders include the Zuni Indian Tribe, the State of New Mexico, and various federal agencies. However, as a forward-thinking entrepreneur, I recognize that the true beneficiaries of this legislation will be those who can navigate the complex web of regulations and capitalize on the opportunities created by this settlement.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is significant, with projected costs estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. However, as a master of disruption, I see opportunities for innovation and growth in the water management sector. The privatization of water resources could lead to more efficient allocation and management, ultimately benefiting those who are willing to invest in this space.

In conclusion, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 is a prime example of how legislation can be used to consolidate control over valuable resources. As a visionary leader, I will continue to monitor this bill's progress and explore opportunities for strategic investment and growth, always keeping in mind the importance of deregulation and privatization in driving innovation and wealth creation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As I taught you in 8th grade civics, the process of how a bill becomes a law is quite straightforward. A bill is introduced, referred to a committee, and then voted on by both chambers of Congress before being signed into law by the President. It's astonishing that this needs to be reiterated, but apparently, it does.

The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025, S. 564, aims to settle water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in the Zuni River Stream System in New Mexico and protect the Zuni Salt Lake. The main purpose is to achieve a fair and final settlement of all claims to water rights, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to execute an agreement between the Tribe, the State, and other parties.

Key provisions include the ratification of the Agreement, which defines Tribal Water Rights and excludes certain interests in Allotments. The bill also establishes a Settlement Trust Fund and authorizes funding for its implementation. Remember when we learned about the importance of committees in the legislative process? This bill was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, where it was reported without amendment.

The affected parties include the Zuni Indian Tribe, the State of New Mexico, and various other stakeholders involved in the Agreement. As we covered in 8th grade, the system of checks and balances is designed to ensure that power is distributed evenly among the branches of government. However, in practice, this bill's passage may be influenced by political considerations and lobbying efforts.

The potential impact of this bill is significant, as it aims to resolve long-standing water rights claims and protect the Zuni Salt Lake. However, its implications extend beyond the Tribe and the State, potentially affecting other Indian tribes and communities with similar water rights issues. As I emphasized in class, understanding the legislative process and its consequences is crucial for informed citizenship.

In contrast to how the system was supposed to work, where bills are carefully crafted and debated, this bill's passage may be expedited or delayed due to political pressures. Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize the importance of this legislation in addressing the water rights concerns of the Zuni Indian Tribe and promoting a more equitable distribution of resources. As we discussed in middle school, the legislative process is designed to serve the public interest, and it is our responsibility as citizens to hold elected officials accountable for their actions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 - a bill that, on the surface, appears to be a straightforward settlement of water rights claims for the Zuni Indian Tribe in New Mexico. But, my friends, don't be fooled! As I delve deeper into the text, I've uncovered a web of intrigue and hidden agendas that threaten to upend the very fabric of our society.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to settle the Zuni Indian Tribe's water rights claims in the Zuni River Stream System. But what's really going on here? Is this just a benevolent gesture by the government, or is there something more sinister at play? I propose that this settlement is merely a smokescreen for a larger agenda - one that involves the consolidation of power and control over our nation's water resources.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a framework for the settlement of water rights claims, including the creation of a Settlement Trust Fund and the authorization of funding for its implementation. But what about the fine print? Section 102 defines "Adjudication" as the general adjudication of water rights entitled "United States v. A&R Production, et al." - a case that has been pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico since 2001. This raises questions about the government's true intentions and its willingness to manipulate the legal system to achieve its goals.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Zuni Indian Tribe, the State of New Mexico, and various other parties are all stakeholders in this settlement. But what about the broader implications? How will this bill affect the rights of other Native American tribes, or the general public's access to water resources? I argue that this bill is just one piece of a larger puzzle - a puzzle that, when completed, will reveal a disturbing pattern of government control and manipulation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is far-reaching and multifaceted. On the surface, it appears to be a positive step towards resolving the Zuni Indian Tribe's water rights claims. But what about the long-term consequences? Will this settlement set a precedent for future water rights disputes, or will it create a new era of government control over our nation's water resources? I propose that this bill is just the tip of the iceberg - a small part of a larger conspiracy to consolidate power and control over our nation's most valuable resources.

In conclusion, my friends, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 is not what it seems. Beneath its innocuous surface lies a complex web of intrigue and hidden agendas that threaten to upend the very fabric of our society. As we gather around the Thanksgiving table, let us remember to stay vigilant - for in the world of politics, nothing is ever as it seems.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a wink to the camera) Oh, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here - the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025. (pausing for dramatic effect) Now, I know what you're thinking: "Water rights? Sounds like a real thrill-ride!" But bear with me, because this one's got it all: freedom, elites, and even some good old-fashioned bureaucratic red tape! (smirking)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to settle the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in the Zuni River Stream System in New Mexico. (in a mock-serious tone) Yes, because nothing says "freedom" like the federal government getting involved in a water rights dispute! But seriously, folks, the objectives here are to achieve a fair and equitable settlement for all parties involved, including the tribe, the state, and various other stakeholders.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines key terms like "Tribal Water Rights" (because who doesn't love a good definition?), establishes an enforceability date (because deadlines are important, folks!), and authorizes funding for the implementation of the settlement agreement. (winking at the camera) And let's not forget the all-important "Miscellaneous Provisions" section - because what's a bill without a little bit of miscellaneous-ness? The bill also amends existing law by confirming the tribe's water rights in the Zuni River Stream System and providing for the protection of the Zuni Salt Lake.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this one's a real who's who of stakeholders! We've got the Zuni Indian Tribe, the state of New Mexico, various federal agencies (because the deep state is always involved, am I right?), and even some individual allottees (who are just trying to make a living, bless their hearts). And let's not forget the elites - you know, the ones who really run the show around here. (smirking)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, this is where things get really interesting, folks! The potential impact of this bill could be huge - we're talking water rights, land management, and even some good old-fashioned bureaucratic wrangling! (dramatic music plays in the background) But seriously, the implications here are significant. The settlement agreement could provide a framework for resolving similar water rights disputes across the country, and the protection of the Zuni Salt Lake could have important environmental and cultural implications. And let's not forget the potential impact on freedom - because what's more American than fighting over water rights? (winking at the camera)

In conclusion, folks, this bill is a real barn burner! (chuckling) It's got everything: freedom, elites, and even some good old-fashioned bureaucratic

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 is a shining example of how politicians can take a simple issue and turn it into a Byzantine nightmare of bureaucratic jargon and self-serving interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated purpose is to settle the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in the Zuni River Stream System, protect the Zuni Salt Lake, and provide funding for the implementation of the settlement. How noble. In reality, this bill is a vehicle for politicians to grandstand about their commitment to Native American rights while lining the pockets of special interest groups and bureaucrats.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a settlement trust fund, authorizes funding for the implementation of the agreement, and confirms the Tribe's water rights in the Zuni River Stream System. It also defines various terms, such as "Tribal Water Rights" and "Allotment," which will undoubtedly be used to confuse and obfuscate any attempts at genuine understanding. The bill amends existing law by ratifying the Agreement entered into by the Tribe, the State of New Mexico, and other parties, because who needs transparency or accountability when you can just rubber-stamp a pre-cooked deal?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Zuni Indian Tribe, the State of New Mexico, the Secretary of the Interior, and various other parties who will benefit from this settlement. Oh, and let's not forget the lobbyists and special interest groups who will be lining up to feed at the trough of taxpayer-funded largesse.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will likely result in a windfall for lawyers, consultants, and bureaucrats who will be tasked with implementing the settlement. The Zuni Indian Tribe may receive some benefits, but let's not pretend that this is anything more than a token gesture to placate Native American communities. The real winners will be the politicians who get to tout their "commitment to social justice" while ignoring the underlying issues of corruption, incompetence, and bureaucratic bloat.

In conclusion, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a bill that prioritizes special interests over genuine reform, obscures transparency with Byzantine language, and perpetuates the cycle of dependency and corruption that plagues our political system. Bravo, Congress. You've managed to take a simple issue and turn it into a masterpiece of bureaucratic obfuscation. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this train wreck unfold.

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

**Comprehensive Summary of S. 564: Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025**

### 1. Main Purpose & Objectives

The primary purpose of the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 is to approve and implement a settlement agreement regarding the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in the Zuni River Stream System, New Mexico. The main objectives include achieving a fair and final settlement of all water rights claims for the tribe and the United States (acting as trustee for the tribe), authorizing and confirming the settlement agreement, and protecting the Zuni Salt Lake.

### 2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law

Key provisions of the bill include: - **Ratification of Agreement**: The bill ratifies the "Settlement Agreement to Quantify and Protect the Water Rights of the Zuni Indian Tribe in the Zuni River Basin in New Mexico and to Protect the Zuni Salt Lake" dated May 1, 2023. - **Tribal Water Rights**: It confirms the tribe's water rights in the Zuni River Stream System as identified in the agreement and a partial final judgment and decree. - **Settlement Trust Fund**: Establishes a fund for the implementation of the settlement agreement. - **Funding Authorization**: Authorizes necessary funds for implementing the agreement. - **Protection of Zuni Salt Lake**: Includes provisions for the protection of the Zuni Salt Lake through the withdrawal of certain federal lands in New Mexico and their management.

### 3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders

The affected parties and stakeholders include: - **Zuni Indian Tribe**: The primary beneficiary of the settlement, with confirmed water rights and protections for the Zuni Salt Lake. - **United States Government**: Acting as a trustee for the tribe, it is involved in the execution and implementation of the agreement. - **State of New Mexico**: A party to the settlement agreement, with interests in the management and use of water resources within the state. - **Allottees and Individual Indians**: Those holding beneficial interests in allotments may have their rights affected by the definitions and provisions regarding allotments and tribal water rights.

### 4. Potential Impact & Implications

The potential impact and implications of this bill are significant: - **Water Rights Clarification**: Provides clarity and finality to the Zuni Indian Tribe's water rights, which can enhance their ability to manage and protect their resources. - **Environmental Protection**: The protection of the Zuni Salt Lake can have positive environmental impacts, preserving cultural and natural resources important to the tribe and other stakeholders. - **Economic Benefits**: Implementation of the settlement could lead to economic benefits for the tribe through more secure access to water resources, potentially enhancing agricultural, commercial, and residential development. - **Interstate and Federal Relations**: The bill may influence relations between the federal government, the State of New Mexico, and the Zuni Indian Tribe, promoting cooperation in water resource management

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025, bro! This bill is all about settlin' water rights claims for the Zuni Indian Tribe in New Mexico, and it's a pretty big deal.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The main goal of this bill is to achieve a fair and final settlement of all water rights claims in the Zuni River Stream System. It aims to provide a solid foundation for the tribe's water rights, protect the Zuni Salt Lake, and ensure that everyone involved is on the same page. Think of it like catchin' a sick wave - you gotta have the right balance and timing to ride it out.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill introduces some key provisions, bro:

* It defines "Tribal Water Rights" and excludes certain interests in allotments (which are parcels of land held in trust for individual Indians or tribes). * It ratifies the Settlement Agreement between the tribe, the state, and other parties, which outlines the terms of the water rights settlement. * It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to execute the agreement and take necessary actions to carry it out. * It establishes a Settlement Trust Fund to support the implementation of the agreement.

These provisions are like addin' some fresh wax to your surfboard - they help you navigate the complexities of water rights law and ensure that everyone's on board with the settlement.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties include:

* The Zuni Indian Tribe, which will benefit from the settlement of its water rights claims. * The State of New Mexico, which is a party to the Settlement Agreement. * The United States government, which acts as trustee for the tribe and has a role in implementing the agreement. * Individual Indians and tribes holding allotments, who may be impacted by the exclusions in the bill.

It's like when you're out surfing with your buddies - everyone's got their own role to play, and you gotta respect each other's space.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The potential impact of this bill is significant, bro:

* It could provide a model for future water rights settlements between tribes and states. * It may help to reduce conflicts over water rights in the region. * It could have implications for the management of federal lands and the protection of sacred sites like the Zuni Salt Lake.

It's like when you catch a gnarly wave - it can take you on a wild ride, but with the right skills and knowledge, you can navigate the challenges and come out on top. This bill has the potential to make some real waves in the world of water rights law, and it'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

In conclusion, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 is a complex but important piece of legislation that aims to settle water rights claims for the Zuni Indian Tribe. With its key provisions, affected parties,

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Comprehensive Summary of the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025**

The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025, introduced by Senators Heinrich and Lujan, aims to settle the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in the Zuni River Stream System in New Mexico. The bill's main purpose is to achieve a fair and final settlement of all claims to water rights in the region, ensuring the protection of the Zuni Salt Lake and the tribe's interests.

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objectives of this legislation are: * To settle the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in the Zuni River Stream System. * To protect the Zuni Salt Lake and its surrounding environment. * To authorize and ratify the Agreement entered into by the tribe, the State of New Mexico, and other parties.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill includes key provisions such as: * Ratification of the Settlement Agreement, which quantifies and protects the tribe's water rights in the Zuni River Basin. * Establishment of a Settlement Trust Fund to implement the agreement. * Authorization of funds necessary for the implementation of the agreement. * Definitions of key terms, including "Tribal Water Rights," "Allotment," and "Allottee."

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties and stakeholders include: * The Zuni Indian Tribe, which will have its water rights claims settled and protected. * The State of New Mexico, which is a party to the Settlement Agreement. * The United States government, which will act as trustee for the tribe. * Individual Indians holding beneficial interests in allotments. * Industry groups, such as agriculture and mining, that may be impacted by the settlement.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact and implications of this legislation are: * A fair and final settlement of water rights claims, providing certainty for the tribe and other stakeholders. * Protection of the Zuni Salt Lake and its surrounding environment. * Potential economic benefits for the tribe and local communities through the implementation of the Settlement Agreement. * Possible implications for industry groups, such as agriculture and mining, that may need to adapt to new water management practices.

In terms of monied interests, it is worth noting that the bill's sponsors, Senators Heinrich and Lujan, have received donations from various PACs and special interest groups, including those representing Native American tribes and environmental organizations. However, a detailed analysis of these donations and their potential impact on the legislation is not publicly available. The Committee on Indian Affairs, which reported the bill without amendment, may also have been influenced by industry lobby groups or special interest organizations, but this information is not readily accessible. As with any legislation, it is essential to follow the money trail and consider the potential motivations behind the bill's provisions.

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. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]

ID: L000570

Top Contributors

LYTTON BAND OF POMO INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2023

OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Dec 7, 2023

LYTTON BAND OF POMO INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2023

TAOS PUEBLO GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

OrganizationTAOS, NM

$3,300

Dec 2, 2024

OHKAY OWINGEH TRIBE

OrganizationOHKAY OWINGEH, NM

$3,300

Dec 2, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$3,300

Apr 18, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$3,300

May 22, 2024

MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE

OrganizationMESCALERO, NM

$3,300

Sep 25, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

Jun 25, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$2,000

Mar 21, 2024

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

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 74 nodes and 85 connections

Total contributions: $85

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

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC24 Orgs

Industry Impact

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

+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.90
Section 105(h)(1)(A) and (B) authorize funds for planning, permitting, designing, engineering, constructing, reconstructing, replacing, rehabilitating, operating, or repairing water production, treatment, or delivery infrastructure, including for domestic and municipal supply, wastewater infrastructure, irrigation, livestock, and agriculture. This directly benefits construction and engineering firms involved in water infrastructure projects.
+Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.80
Section 105(h)(1)(A) includes funding for water production, treatment, or delivery infrastructure for domestic and municipal supply, which may involve electric utilities that operate water treatment plants or rely on water for cooling in power generation, though the connection is indirect. The bill's focus on water infrastructure could support utilities' water-related operations.
+Agribusinessconfidence 0.70
Section 105(h)(1)(B) explicitly includes 'on-farm improvements for irrigation, livestock, and support of agriculture' as an authorized use of funds from the Zuni Tribe Water Rights Settlement Trust Account, directly benefiting agribusinesses involved in farming and livestock operations that rely on water infrastructure.

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: 57%

Pages: 569-571AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on fulfilling federal trust responsibilities to American Indians by settling water rights and protecting tribal resources, though it does not address energy or mineral development priorities highlighted in the policy."

Key themes:tribal trust responsibilitywater rights settlementresource protectionfederal-tribal cooperation

— 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: 59%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on settling water rights and protecting cultural resources for the Zuni Tribe, which does not directly align with Project 2025's emphasis on expanding energy leasing, streamlining environmental reviews, or reversing Biden-era conservation policies at the Department of the Interior."

Key themes:Department of the Interiorland managementcultural resource protection

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

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 56%

Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on settling the Zuni Tribe's water rights in New Mexico and protecting Zuni Salt Lake, while the Project 2025 Interior section centers on Alaska-specific wildlife, water ownership, roadless rules, and land management policies. Both involve water resource protection, but the geographic and policy contexts differ significantly, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:water rightsfederal-tribal relationsnatural resource protection

— 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

Weak

Vector: 56%

Pages: 347-349AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses tribal water rights settlement and protection of a specific cultural/natural resource, while the Project 2025 USDA section focuses on school meal programs, conservation reserve program reforms, and NRCS compliance issues. There is only a tangential connection through general themes of natural resource conservation and federal land management."

Key themes:water resourcesconservationfederal land management

— 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).

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 56%

Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses tribal water rights settlement and environmental protection, which only tangentially relates to USDA's agricultural focus in Project 2025, without directly implementing or supporting its specific policy objectives."

Key themes:water rightstribal agricultureenvironmental protectionfederal trustresource management

— 311 — Department of Agriculture ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 2. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System,” https://www.usda. gov/fst (accessed December 14, 2022). 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Celebrates 150 Years,” https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/ history (accessed December 16, 2022). 5. The law stated, “[T]here is hereby established at the seat of government of the United States a Department of Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” Gladys L. Baker et al., Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 13, https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4254098&view=1up&seq=33 (accessed December 16, 2022). 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p. 2. 7. Ibid., p. 2. 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, p. 3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 9. News release, “USDA Announces Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply- chain-and-transforming (accessed December 14, 2022). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System.” 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, pp. 1–2. 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Background on the U.S. Approach to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit,” August 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Background-on-US-approach-2021-UN- Food-Systems-Summit.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “UN Food Systems Summit,” https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainability/un- summit (accessed December 14, 2022). 14. Mark Bittman et al., “How a National Food Policy Could Save Millions of American Lives,” The Washington Post, November 7, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could- save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html (accessed December 14, 2022); Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, “No, We Don’t Need to Transform the American Food System,” The Daily Signal, February 26, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/26/ no-we-dont-need-to-transform-the-american-food-system/ (accessed December 14, 2022); and Daren Bakst, “Biden’s Food Conference Should Put People First, Not Environmental Extremism,” The Daily Signal, September 22, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/22/bidens-food-conference-should-put-people- first-not-environmental-extremism/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 15. News release, “USDA to Invest Up to $300 Million in New Organic Transition Initiative,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 22, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/08/22/usda-invest-300- million-new-organic-transition-initiative (accessed December 14, 2022). 16. Gary Baise, “Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal Was a Disaster,” Farm Futures, November 14, 2022, https://www. farmprogress.com/commentary/sri-lankas-green-new-deal-was-disaster (accessed December 16, 2022). 17. See, for example, Catherine Greene et al., “Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 6, 2017, https://www. ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing-organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities- for-many-types-of-producers/#:~:text=ERS%20research%20shows%20that%20many,flavor%20desired%20 by%20the%20consumer (accessed December 14, 2022), and Andrea Carlson, “Investigating Retail Price Premiums for Organic Foods,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2016, https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/ (accessed December 16, 2022). Further, there are many myths, such as those regarding the alleged health benefit of organic food. One — 312 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise meta study found that “[t]he published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” Crystal Smith-Spangler et al., “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 5 (September 4, 2012), pp. 348–366, https:// www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007 (accessed December 16, 2022). 18. Steve Savage, “USDA Data Confirm Organic Yields Significantly Lower Than With Conventional Farming,” Genetic Literacy Project, February 16, 2018, https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/16/usda-data-confirm- organic-yields-dramatically-lower-conventional-farming/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 19. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021, https://www.regulations. gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001 (accessed December 16, 2022). 20. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117–169. 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture (1948–2019),” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-u-s/productivity- growth-in-u-s-agriculture-1948-2019/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Total Food Budget Share Increased from 9.4 Percent of Disposable Income to 10.3 Percent in 2021,” July 15, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967 (accessed December 14, 2022). 23. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Annual Expenditure Means, Shares, and Standard Errors, and Coefficients of Variation, Consumer Expenditure Surveys,” 2021, Table 1101, https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/cu- income-quintiles-before-taxes-2021.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and Daren Bakst and Patrick Tyrrell, “Big Government Policies That Hurt the Poor and How to Address Them,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No.176, April 5, 2017, p. 7, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/SR176.pdf. 24. Daren Bakst and Joshua Sewell, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power and Rein in the USDA Slush Fund,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 6052, February 19, 2021, p. 2, https://www.heritage.org/ budget-and-spending/report/congress-should-stop-abrogating-its-spending-power-and-rein-the-usda. 25. Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948, Public Law 80–806. 26. Bakst and Sewall, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power.” 27. Ibid., p. 3. 28. Daren Bakst, “Comment from Bakst, Darren” on “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021,” November 1, 2021, https://www. regulations.gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001/comment?filter=bakst (accessed December 16, 2022). 29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program.” 30. Megan Stubbs, “The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated January 14, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44606 (accessed December 16, 2022). 31. “Overall, 34 percent of all farms reported receiving some type of Government payment in 2021,” and “[o]verall, 14 percent of U.S. farms participated in Federal crop insurance programs.” Christine Whitt, Noah Miller, and Ryan Olver, “America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance: 2022 Edition,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pp. 24 and 26, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/105388/eib-247. pdf?v=527.4 (accessed March 18, 2023). This data, which apparently does not cover crop insurance, included payments beyond just commodity payments, such as conservation payments. 32. Randy Schnepf, “Farm Safety-Net Payments Under the 2014 Farm Bill: Comparison by Program Crop,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, August 11, 2017, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44914.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 33. Although livestock and specialty crop producers do receive some subsidies, former American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman captured the subsidy issue well. He “dismisse[d] outright the claim that farmers couldn’t survive without subsidy money. ‘Why does the livestock industry survive without subsidies?’ he ask[ed]. ‘Why does the specialty crop [fruit and vegetable] industry survive?’” Tamar Haspel, “Why Do Taxpayers Subsidize Rich Farmers?” The Washington Post, March 15, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost. com/lifestyle/food/why-do-taxpayers-subsidize-rich-farmers/2018/03/15/50e89906-27b6-11e8-b79d- f3d931db7f68_story.html (accessed March 18, 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.

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