Overview
Title
To withdraw certain Federal land in the Pecos Watershed area of the State of New Mexico from mineral entry, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The "Pecos Watershed Protection Act" is a plan to keep certain lands in New Mexico safe from mining so that they stay natural and healthy, kind of like making a playground off-limits to construction to keep it nice for playing.
Summary AI
H.R. 2727, titled the "Pecos Watershed Protection Act," seeks to protect certain federal lands within the Pecos Watershed area in New Mexico by withdrawing them from any potential mineral extraction activities. The bill designates approximately 11,599 acres as the Thompson Peak Wilderness Area, adding it to the National Wilderness Preservation System. It ensures existing grazing rights are maintained, permits necessary actions for wildfire, insect, and disease control, and specifies that any new lands within the area acquired by the U.S. will also gain wilderness protection.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The bill, titled the "Pecos Watershed Protection Act," aims to withdraw certain federal lands within the Pecos Watershed area in New Mexico from mineral entry. This withdrawal is designed to prevent any new mining claims or other forms of mineral development on these lands, with exceptions for rights that were existing at the time of the bill's enactment. Furthermore, the bill designates the approximately 11,599-acre Thompson Peak Wilderness Area in New Mexico as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, a move that also restricts certain activities like mining but still allows existing activities such as livestock grazing to continue.
Significant Issues
One issue revolves around the definition of the "Federal land" that the bill refers to for withdrawal from mineral activities. This definition hinges on a map that the public might not have easy access to, causing confusion about what land is precisely affected. Also, the phrase "subject to valid rights in existence on the date of enactment" introduces ambiguity since it does not clarify what these valid rights are, opening the door to potential legal disputes.
The bill's provision for continuing existing livestock grazing raises questions about its alignment with contemporary environmental and conservation goals. Similarly, the discretion granted to the Secretary of Agriculture to manage wildfire, insect, and disease control lacks detailed guidance, potentially leading to actions that could conflict with conservation objectives. There are also concerns regarding the correction of substantive errors in land maps without additional oversight, which could lead to disagreements about land boundaries.
Lastly, the visibility or audibility of non-wilderness activities from within wilderness areas could cause friction between different land users, as the guidelines for how such conflicts might be handled are not detailed in the bill.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The public generally might see positive environmental impacts from this bill, as it fosters conservation by restricting new mineral developments and expanding wilderness protections. Residents in the surrounding areas may appreciate the preservation of natural landscapes and the ecological benefits they bring.
Specific stakeholders, however, could experience varied impacts. Existing mineral rights holders and mining companies could face limitations, seeing the withdrawal of land as a barrier to potential economic activities and development. Grazing permit holders might find comfort in the continuation of their activities, yet they may still be subject to future legal reviews to ensure alignment with environmental goals.
Conversely, environmental groups are likely to advocate for the preservation measures as positive steps toward protecting ecosystems and biodiversity. However, conflicts could arise around how the bill addresses or fails to address other land activities audible or visible from within wilderness areas, needing clear strategies for peaceful coexistence between industrial activities and wilderness preservation efforts.
Issues
The definition of 'Federal land' relies on a map entitled 'Proposed Mineral Withdrawal Legislative Map', which might not be easily accessible to the public. This lack of transparency can lead to confusion about which specific lands are impacted by the withdrawal (Section 2(a)).
The phrase 'subject to valid rights in existence on the date of enactment of this Act' introduces ambiguity, as it does not specify what constitutes a 'valid right'. This could lead to legal disputes over existing claims and rights (Sections 2(b) and 3(d)(1)).
The text uses the term 'withdrawn' repeatedly without explicitly defining what it entails in terms of practical implications, creating uncertainty over the impact on existing and future activities on the land (Sections 2(b) and 3(f)).
The continuation of existing livestock grazing in the Thompson Peak Wilderness Area might not align with current environmental and conservation priorities, which are not addressed in the text. This could lead to environmental and legal challenges (Section 3(d)(4)).
The Secretary's discretion in carrying out measures to control wildfire, insects, or diseases is not clearly defined. This lack of specificity could lead to practices that inadvertently harm the wilderness area or contradict conservation objectives (Section 3(d)(5)).
The potential correction of substantive errors in the map and legal description by the Secretary without further oversight or approval may lead to ambiguity and possible disputes (Section 3(c)(2)).
There is a potential issue with the provision allowing nonwilderness activities to be visible or audible from the wilderness area. Clearer guidelines are necessary to prevent conflicts that may arise from such activities (Section 3(d)(2)(B)).
The withdrawal of areas from various forms of land entry and appropriation could face legal challenges from stakeholders with existing interests or claims, which is not preemptively addressed in the text (Section 3(f)).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill identifies its name, stating that it may be called the "Pecos Watershed Protection Act."
2. Withdrawal of Federal land in Pecos Watershed area, New Mexico Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section discusses the withdrawal of specific Federal land in the Pecos Watershed area of New Mexico from activities like entry and mining. This means that, unless someone already has rights to do so from before this law was made, no new claims or activities like mining or leasing for minerals or geothermal resources can take place on this land.
3. Designation of Thompson Peak Wilderness Area, New Mexico Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section designates the Thompson Peak Wilderness Area in New Mexico, comprising about 11,599 acres, as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. It outlines the responsibilities of the Secretary of Agriculture in managing the area, allows existing activities like grazing to continue, clarifies that there are no buffer zones, and ensures the area is protected from mining and other land appropriations.