PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 31, 2008
Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act - Authorizes, ratifies, and confirms the Settlement Agreement dated January 19, 2006, among New Mexico, the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque, the United States, the city of Santa Fe, and Santa Fe County and related agreements.
Directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to plan, design, and construct a Regional Water System to divert and distribute water to the Pueblos in accordance with the Agreement. Directs the Secretary, for the purpose of providing a reliable supply of water from the System for the Pueblos in accordance with the Agreement, to: (1) acquire rights to specified Nambe reserved water and water acquired by the County; (2) make a specified amount of water available to the Pueblos in accordance with the San Juan-Chama Project Act; and (3) obtain approval to divert such water for the System at points consistent with the Agreement.
Establishes in the Treasury the Aamodt Settlement Pueblos Fund.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
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 to provide financial assistance to: (1) 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) eligible non-Pueblo entites for mutual benefits projects in accordance with the Agreement.
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.
People & committees
Rep. Udall, Tom [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 Water and Power.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1672)
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 10, 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.6768 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.6768 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.6768 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.6768 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.