Technical corrections only. The two versions of the bill, v1 and v2, are substantively identical. The changes reflect only the procedural update from being introduced in the Senate to being reported in the Senate, with no amendments to the bill text.
Ohkay Owingeh Rio Chama Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]
- Committees
- Indian Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 4, 2026
Bottom line
This bill provides a comprehensive, federally-backed settlement for the Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo's water rights in New Mexico, aiming for certainty, resource development, and environmental restoration.
What it actually does
This bill approves a comprehensive settlement of water rights claims for Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo in the Rio Chama Stream System of New Mexico. It ratifies a settlement agreement, confirms the Pueblo's water rights in trust, establishes a federal trust fund of $745 million (subject to adjustments) for water infrastructure and bosque restoration, and outlines significant state contributions. The bill also details extensive waivers of past claims by the Pueblo and the United States, contingent on meeting specific enforceability conditions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill provides a fair, equitable, and final resolution to long-standing water rights disputes, promoting tribal self-determination, economic development, and environmental restoration, while bringing certainty to water management in the Rio Chama Stream System for all parties involved.
Opponents contend
While no specific opposition is detailed in the bill text, critics might raise concerns about the significant federal expenditure, potential impacts on existing water users (even with mitigation measures), or the long-term implications of tribal water rights administration and leasing for regional water resources.
The bill is moderately complex but manageable for an informed reader within a reasonable timeframe, allowing for adequate evaluation of its provisions and implications.
Section 4
Ratification of Ohkay Owingeh Rio Chama Water Rights Settlement Agreement
This section formally authorizes, ratifies, and confirms the 'Ohkay Owingeh Rio Chama Water Rights Settlement' agreement, including any necessary amendments to align it with this Act. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to execute the agreement and comply with environmental laws like NEPA and ESA during implementation, while clarifying that the execution of the agreement itself is not a major federal action under NEPA.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that ratifying the agreement is crucial for achieving a final and equitable resolution to complex, long-standing water rights disputes, providing certainty for all parties and fostering tribal self-determination.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the ratification of a negotiated settlement agreement itself, provided the terms are acceptable. Potential opposition would focus on the terms of the agreement rather than its ratification.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is balancing the need for a final settlement with ensuring consistency with federal law and environmental regulations, which the bill addresses by requiring compliance and allowing for amendments.
Section 5
Trust Status and Administration of Pueblo Water Rights
This section establishes that the Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo Water Rights will be held in trust by the United States, making them immune to loss through non-use, forfeiture, or abandonment. It grants the Pueblo authority to allocate, distribute, and lease these water rights both on and off Pueblo Land, subject to federal approval for off-Pueblo land use and a maximum lease term of 99 years. The Pueblo cannot permanently alienate these rights.
Section 6
Establishment and Management of Ohkay Owingeh Water Rights Settlement Trust Fund
This section establishes the 'Ohkay Owingeh Water Rights Settlement Trust Fund' to be managed by the Secretary of the Interior. It outlines how funds will be deposited, managed, and invested, and specifies that amounts will be available to the Pueblo starting on the Enforceability Date, with an initial $100 million available earlier for critical restoration, infrastructure, and administrative needs. The Pueblo can withdraw funds via a Tribal management plan or an approved expenditure plan, but funds must be used for water-related infrastructure, agriculture, watershed protection, economic development, and water rights management. No per capita distributions are allowed.
Section 7
Federal and State Funding for the Settlement
This section mandates a federal appropriation of $745,000,000 to the Trust Fund, subject to adjustments for inflation and construction cost volatility. It also outlines the State of New Mexico's required contributions: $98,500,000 for Signatory Acequias improvements, $32,000,000 for the City of Espanola's water system, and $500,000 for mitigating groundwater impairment to non-Pueblo domestic and livestock users.
Section 8
Conditions for Enforceability of the Settlement
This section defines the 'Enforceability Date' as the date the Secretary of the Interior publishes a statement of findings confirming that several critical conditions have been met. These conditions include the amendment and execution of the Agreement by all parties, approval by the U.S. District Court, full federal funding of the Trust Fund, fulfillment of State funding obligations, State legislative changes regarding Pueblo water right leases, and the execution of waivers and releases by Ohkay Owingeh and the Secretary.
Section 9
Comprehensive Waivers and Releases of Water Rights Claims
This section details the extensive waivers and releases of claims by Ohkay Owingeh and the United States (as trustee) against the United States and other parties, effective on the Enforceability Date. These waivers cover all past water rights claims in the Rio Chama Stream System, including damages for foregone benefits, injury to land/natural resources due to water loss, and failures related to water infrastructure or aboriginal rights. Importantly, it also specifies retained rights, such as claims for water quality, enforcement of recognized rights, and claims outside the Rio Chama Stream System.
This provision clarifies that costs associated with the Pueblo's environmental compliance and coordination activities for projects under the Act will be paid from the Trust Fund. However, costs for federal approval or review of this work, or for inherently federal functions, remain the Secretary's responsibility, with the specific exception that costs for review of bosque restoration or improvement projects by the Corps of Engineers shall also be paid from the Trust Fund.
Section 4(c)(4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify cost allocation for administrative overhead in complex projects, ensuring that the financial burden for specific reviews is clearly assigned.
Case for: Supporters would argue this ensures the Pueblo has the resources to meet environmental obligations for its projects, while also clarifying that federal agencies are not entirely off the hook for their own review costs. The exception for Corps review ensures comprehensive funding for critical restoration.
Case against: Critics might argue that shifting some federal review costs (like Corps review) to the Trust Fund effectively reduces federal oversight without federal funding, potentially impacting the overall amount available for direct project implementation.
Estimated impact: Potentially millions of dollars over the life of the projects, depending on the number and complexity of environmental reviews and the scope of Corps involvement.
One of the critical conditions for the 'Enforceability Date' (when the settlement fully takes effect) is that the State of New Mexico must have 'enacted legislation to amend State law to provide that the Pueblo Water Rights may be leased for a term not to exceed 99 years, including renewals.'
Section 8(5)(D)
Why it matters:This is a critical condition for the settlement to proceed, ensuring the Pueblo's ability to manage its water rights effectively, but its placement within the enforceability conditions is a common legislative technique for intergovernmental agreements.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is essential for the Pueblo to realize the full economic and management benefits of their water rights, allowing for long-term planning and investment through leasing, which is a common standard in federal Indian leasing law.
Case against: Some state-level actors might express concerns about amending state water law to accommodate specific tribal leasing terms, potentially setting a precedent or impacting existing state water management frameworks.
Estimated impact: Enables long-term economic activity and resource management for the Pueblo, potentially generating significant revenue over decades through water leases.