Ben Luján (D-NM)
Chama Basin Watershed Protection Act
A Democratic bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 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 minerals owned by the United States. It ensures that the withdrawal does not affect mineral interests owned by Indian Tribes or qualified land grant-merced communities. Additionally, the act protects traditional and customary uses of various materials for specific community purposes.
Yes· 3 of 10
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The withdrawal of land from mineral entry serves to protect the watershed and its environment.
- Scored +5
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
The bill explicitly protects the mineral interests and traditional uses of Indian Tribes.
- Scored +4
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The act provides specific management instructions to protect the Rio Chama Watershed.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
The withdrawal restricts mining and mineral extraction businesses.
- Scored -1
Is this likely to grow the economy?
By withdrawing land from mineral entry, the bill restricts potential economic activity related to mining.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Mineral Interests: The withdrawal applies only to minerals owned by the United States, ensuring that the rights, titles, and interests of Indian Tribes or qualified land grant-merced communities are not diminished or impaired (Section 2(b)).
-
Preservation of Traditional Uses: The act does not prohibit the gathering or collection of materials like stone, sand, gravel, clay, or adobe for domestic, cultural, religious, ceremonial, subsistence, or agricultural purposes by members of a qualified land grant-merced, acequia community, or other individuals (Section 2(c)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Restriction on Federal Mineral Entry: The bill withdraws Federal land within the Rio Chama Watershed area from all forms of location, entry, and patent under the mining laws (Section 2(a)).
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 land from mineral entry serves to protect the watershed and its environment. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The act provides specific management instructions to protect the Rio Chama Watershed. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — The act restricts future mineral entry which may include fossil fuel extraction. Does this invest in rural communities? — Protecting traditional uses of materials can benefit local rural community subsistence and agriculture.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill explicitly protects the mineral interests and traditional uses of Indian Tribes. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill protects traditional land use and access for local communities. Would farmers be better off under this? — The act protects the collection of materials for agricultural purposes. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill protects the interests and traditional uses of qualified land grant-merced communities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill protects access to common materials used for subsistence and domestic purposes. Would business owners be better off under this? — The withdrawal restricts mining and mineral extraction businesses.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The act uses federal authority to withdraw land from commercial use.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — By withdrawing land from mineral entry, the bill restricts potential economic activity related to mining.
- 8/6/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Martin HeinrichDemocrat · New Mexico