PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 266.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 17, 2009
Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act - Authorizes, ratifies, and confirms the Settlement Agreement of March 31, 2006, between the United States, the Taos Pueblo, New Mexico, the Taos Valley Acequia Association and its 55 member ditches, Taos, the El Prado Water and Sanitation District (EPWSD), and the 12 Taos area Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Associations.
Requires water rights to which the Taos Pueblo is entitled under the Partial Final Decree entered in New Mexico v. Abeyta and New Mexico v. Arellano to be held in trust by the United States.
Directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to provide: (1) grants and technical assistance to the Pueblo to construct, replace, or rehabilitate water infrastructure, to protect the environment associated with the Buffalo Pasture area, and to enhance watershed conditions; and (2) financial assistance to eligible non-Pueblo entities for mutual-benefit projects in accordance with the Agreement.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Establishes in the Treasury a Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund.
Authorizes the Pueblo to market its water rights under the Agreement.
Directs the Secretary to enter into three repayment contracts by December 31, 2009, for the delivery of specified amounts of San Juan-Chama Project water to the Pueblo, the town of Taos, and EPWSD.
Provides for the waiver and release of claims against the parties to New Mexico v. Abeyta and New Mexico v. Arellano in return for recognition of the Pueblo's water rights.
People & committees
Rep. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM-3] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 266.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 254 - 158 (Roll no. 12). (text: CR H272-275)
House roll call 12 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 254 - 158 (Roll no. 12).(text: CR H272-275)
House roll call 12 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H298-299)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 3254, the Chair put the question on passage and by voice vote, announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Rahall demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of passage until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H298)
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1017, the House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 3254.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3254, H.R. 3342 and H.R. 1065. Each bill is allowed 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered, in each instance, without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measures will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order, in each instance. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, in each instance,
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1017. (consideration: CR H272-279)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1017 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3254, H.R. 3342 and H.R. 1065. Each bill is allowed 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered, in each instance, without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measures will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order, in each instance. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, in each instance,
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 232.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-395.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-395.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3254 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3254 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3254 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3254 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.