Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM)
Chama Basin Watershed Protection Act
A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the ``Chama Basin Watershed Protection Act'', aims to withdraw specific Federal land in the Rio Chama Watershed area of New Mexico from mineral entry. The withdrawal covers all forms of location, entry, and patent under mining laws for Federal-owned minerals. However, this withdrawal does not affect mineral interests owned by Indian Tribes or qualified land grant-merced communities. Additionally, the Act protects the rights of these groups and others to continue traditional and customary uses of various materials.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The withdrawal of mineral entry aims to protect the Rio Chama Watershed area.
- Scored +5
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
The bill explicitly protects the mineral interests and rights of Indian Tribes.
- Scored +4
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill provides specific management guidelines for traditional and customary uses of the watershed.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill restricts mining-related business opportunities in the designated area.
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
The federal government is exercising its power to withdraw land from mineral entry.
- Scored -1
Is this likely to grow the economy?
The withdrawal of mineral entry may limit potential economic activity from mining industries in the region.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Traditional and Customary Uses: Section 2(c) ensures that members of a qualified land grant-merced, acequia community, or other individuals can still gather materials like stone, sand, gravel, clay, or adobe for domestic, cultural, religious, or subsistence purposes.
-
Preservation of Existing Mineral Interests: Section 2(b) states that the withdrawal does not affect or diminish the rights, title, or interest in minerals owned by an Indian Tribe or a qualified land grant-merced.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Restriction of Mineral Entry: Section 2(a) withdraws Federal land within the ``Rio Chama Watershed'' area from all forms of location, entry, and patent under the mining laws for minerals owned by the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The withdrawal of mineral entry aims to protect the Rio Chama Watershed area. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill provides specific management guidelines for traditional and customary uses of the watershed. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — By withdrawing land from mineral entry, the bill restricts potential fossil fuel extraction. Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill protects the traditional resource use of rural land grant and acequia communities.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill explicitly protects the mineral interests and rights of Indian Tribes. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill preserves traditional land-use rights crucial to local rural communities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill protects traditional uses relevant to land grant-merced communities often comprising Hispanic populations. Would farmers be better off under this? — The preservation of acequia community rights benefits those involved in traditional agricultural practices. Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill restricts mining-related business opportunities in the designated area.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The federal government is exercising its power to withdraw land from mineral entry.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — The withdrawal of mineral entry may limit potential economic activity from mining industries in the region.
- 8/6/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.