HR-6869-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM)
What it does
This bill would amend the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act to add a new mechanism allowing the completion deadlines for the Aamodt Regional Water System in northern New Mexico to be extended. Under the new provision, the deadlines could be pushed back if all five parties — the Pueblos, the federal government (through the Secretary of the Interior), the State of New Mexico, the City of Santa Fe, and Santa Fe County — mutually agree that an extension is reasonably necessary.
Who benefits
The four Pueblo tribes involved in the Aamodt settlement (Nambé, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque Pueblos), who would gain flexibility to avoid penalties or forfeiture of water rights if construction is delayed. The federal government, the State of New Mexico, the City of Santa Fe, and Santa Fe County, all of which share responsibility for completing the project and would avoid legal or financial consequences from missed deadlines. Residents of the affected Pueblos who depend on the Regional Water System for safe drinking water access.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers and water ratepayers in Santa Fe who may bear costs if project timelines are extended and overall project expenses increase. Parties who have planned infrastructure or development around the original completion schedule may face uncertainty. There is no direct opposing interest group, but indefinite deadline extensions could reduce accountability for project completion.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that large-scale water infrastructure projects routinely face delays due to factors outside any party's control — including supply chain disruptions, permitting challenges, and environmental reviews — and that the current law's rigid deadline structure creates unnecessary legal risk for all parties. They contend that requiring unanimous agreement among all five parties before any extension is granted provides a strong built-in check against abuse, ensuring extensions are only used when genuinely necessary and broadly agreed upon.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that adding an open-ended extension mechanism weakens the accountability structure that was deliberately built into the original settlement to ensure timely delivery of water infrastructure to the Pueblos. They contend that without a cap on the number or length of extensions, the provision could allow indefinite delays, leaving tribal communities without the water access the settlement promised and potentially increasing total project costs borne by federal and local taxpayers.