PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 24, 2018
Land Grant and Acequia Traditional Use Recognition and Consultation Act
This bill requires coordination between the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of the Interior, and the governing bodies of certain community land grants made by Spain or Mexico to individuals, groups, and communities to promote the settlement of the southwestern United States (land grant-merceds).
Specifically, the bill directs USDA and Interior, before adopting, amending, or revising a management plan for, or before conducting an action for which an environmental impact statement is required on, federal land that contains a portion of a qualified land grant-merced, or federal land adjacent to or nearby such a land grant-merced, to:
provide for notice and an opportunity for comment for the governing body of the land grant-merced and the relevant state agency that serves as a liaison between the land grant-merced and the federal government,
hold at least two meetings with the governing body, and
notify it before each public meeting.
The bill establishes a process for determining and recognizing historical-traditional use boundaries of qualified land grant-merceds.
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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
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: Aug 11, 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.6487 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.6487 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.6487 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.6487 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.