PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 8, 2014
Fort Wingate Land Division Act of 2014 - Declares that all interest of the United States in and to certain lands of the former Fort Wingate Depot Activity in McKinley County, New Mexico, and transferred to the Secretary of the Interior are to be held in trust for the Zuni Tribe as part of the Zuni Reservation, unless the Tribe elects to have specified parcels of those lands conveyed to it in restricted fee status.
Declares that all interest of the United States in and to specified lands of the former Fort Wingate Depot Activity and transferred to the Secretary are to be held in trust for the Navajo Nation as part of the Navajo Reservation, unless the Navajo Nation elects to have specified parcels of those lands conveyed to it in restricted fee status.
Subjects the lands of the former Fort Wingate Depot Activity held in trust or conveyed in restricted fee status to reservation by the United States of such easements as the Secretary of the Army determines are reasonably required to permit access to lands of the Activity for administrative, environmental cleanup, and environmental remediation purposes.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the lands of the former Fort Wingate Depot Activity identified as parcel 1 to be held in trust subject to a shared easement for cultural and religious purposes only.
Declares that the entire access road for the former Fort Wingate Depot Activity shall be held in common by both the Zuni Tribe and the Navajo Nation to provide for equal access to the Activity.
Subjects lands held in trust or conveyed in restricted fee status to such easements as may be reasonably required to permit the Department of Defense (DOD) access to the Missile Defense Agency facility at the former Fort Wingate Depot Activity.
Requires the Zuni Tribe or the Navajo Nation, after a parcel of land has been transferred or conveyed, to notify the Secretary of the Army of the existence or discovery of any contamination or hazardous material on it.
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.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
Re-referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
Re-referred to the Subcommittee Indian and Alaska Native Affairs.
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 9, 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.3822 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.3822 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.3822 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.3822 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.