S-1412-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Ben Luján (D-NM)
What it does
This bill would establish a buffer zone around Chaco Culture National Historic Park in New Mexico. Within that buffer zone, it would prohibit the federal government from issuing new leases for oil, gas, mineral, or geothermal energy development on federal land. Any existing oil and gas leases within the buffer zone that are not currently producing would be terminated.
Who benefits
Tribal nations and Indigenous communities — particularly the Navajo Nation and Pueblo peoples — who consider the Chaco Canyon area sacred and have long advocated for its protection. Archaeologists, historians, and cultural preservation organizations with an interest in protecting one of the most significant pre-Columbian archaeological sites in North America. Tourism-dependent local businesses that benefit from the park's draw. Environmental and conservation groups seeking to limit fossil fuel development on federal lands. Future visitors and researchers who would have access to a less industrially developed landscape.
Who is hurt
Oil and gas companies holding nonproducing leases in the buffer zone, which would be terminated without the ability to develop them. Energy companies and investors who had anticipated future leasing opportunities in the area. Holders of existing nonproducing leases who may seek compensation for the loss of their lease rights. Workers in the oil and gas sector in northwestern New Mexico who could lose potential employment from development that would no longer be permitted. State and local governments in New Mexico that receive a share of federal mineral royalties and could see reduced revenue from foregone development. Geothermal energy developers who would be excluded from the buffer zone.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Chaco Culture National Historic Park is a UNESCO World Heritage Site containing irreplaceable archaeological and cultural resources that have already been damaged by nearby oil and gas activity, including road traffic, light pollution, and seismic vibrations from drilling. They contend that the federal government has a trust responsibility to consult with and protect the interests of Indigenous communities who regard the broader Chaco landscape as sacred, and that a buffer zone is a narrowly tailored tool that protects federal land without restricting activity on private or tribal land.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that terminating existing nonproducing leases without compensation amounts to a taking of vested property rights, and that the bill forecloses economically significant energy development in the San Juan Basin — one of the most productive natural gas regions in the United States — based on proximity rather than demonstrated harm. They contend that existing environmental review processes under NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act already require agencies to assess impacts on cultural resources before approving leases, making a blanket statutory prohibition unnecessary and economically costly to the region and to New Mexico's royalty-dependent revenues.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority over federal lands under the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2), which gives it near-plenary power to regulate and dispose of federal property. The termination of existing nonproducing leases could raise a Takings Clause (5th Amendment) question if leaseholders argue they hold a compensable property interest; however, courts have generally held that mineral leases on federal land are subject to modification by Congress. Post-Loper Bright, any agency regulations implementing the buffer zone's boundaries or lease termination procedures would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to restrict executive branch leasing decisions on federal land in the buffer zone; the executive branch (Bureau of Land Management) retains administrative authority to implement terminations, and affected leaseholders may challenge lease terminations in federal court under the Takings Clause or Administrative Procedure Act.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously withdrawn specific federal lands from mineral leasing, including the 2019 withdrawal of lands near Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota and protections enacted around Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, though those actions involved executive proclamations rather than direct statutory lease terminations.