PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 257.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Jan 20, 2010
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, and any amendments executed to make the Agreement consistent with this Act.
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 the 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 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.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2010-FY2016 for the Taos Pueblo Infrastructure and Watershed Fund, for the Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund, and for Mutual-Benefit Projects funding (to minimize adverse impacts on the Pueblo's water resources by moving future non-Indian ground water pumping away from the Pueblo's Buffalo Pasture and to implement the resolution of a dispute over the allocation of certain surface water flows between the Pueblo and non-Indian irrigation water right owners in the community of Arroyo Seco Arriba).
People & committees
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff [D-NM] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 257.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Dorgan with amendments. With written report No. 111-117. Additional views filed.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Dorgan with amendments. With written report No. 111-117. Additional views filed.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5072-5075)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5071-5072)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.965 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 S.965 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 S.965 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 S.965 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.