S-4731-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Sponsored by Ben Luján (D-NM)
What it does
This bill would amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to create two new subaccounts within the existing Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund. The first subaccount would deposit $45 million per year from FY2026 through FY2035 (totaling $450 million) to cover ongoing operations, maintenance, and repair obligations for five specific tribal water settlements. The second subaccount would deposit $250 million per year over the same period (totaling $2.5 billion) for new and continuing tribal water rights settlements approved by Congress. The bill would also extend the collection of customs user fees — charged on commercial imports and passengers entering the U.S. — from December 31, 2031 to September 30, 2035, which would serve as the revenue offset for the new spending.
Who benefits
Federally recognized tribes party to the five named settlements: the Ak-Chin Indian Community (Arizona), the Colorado Ute Indian Tribe, the Navajo Nation and related communities under the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act, the Nez Perce Tribe and Idaho water users under the Snake River Water Rights Act, and the Hualapai Tribe (Arizona). Tribal members who rely on water infrastructure for drinking water, agriculture, and economic development. State and local water users who gain legal certainty when tribal water rights are formally quantified and settled. Water infrastructure contractors and engineers hired to build or maintain settlement-related projects. Federal agencies (Interior, Bureau of Reclamation) that gain dedicated, no-further-appropriation funding to fulfill existing legal obligations.
Who is hurt
Importers of goods and international travelers who pay customs user fees, which would be extended nearly four additional years. Domestic industries that compete with imports, who may bear indirect costs if extended fees are passed through supply chains. Taxpayers broadly, as the bill draws $2.95 billion from general Treasury funds over ten years. Other federal programs that compete for discretionary appropriations, since the bill bypasses the annual appropriations process. States or water users in the affected river basins who may have competing claims and whose negotiating leverage could be reduced once federal funding is locked in.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the United States has legally binding obligations under these congressionally ratified water rights settlements, and that chronic underfunding has left tribes without reliable water delivery for decades. They contend that dedicated, mandatory funding — rather than unpredictable annual appropriations — is the only mechanism that can actually complete settlements, pointing to the Ak-Chin settlement (enacted in 1984) as an example of a decades-old obligation still not fully satisfied. They further argue that settled water rights reduce costly litigation, provide legal certainty for all water users in a basin, and fulfill the federal government's trust responsibility to tribal nations.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that routing $2.95 billion through mandatory, no-further-appropriation subaccounts circumvents Congress's annual power of the purse and reduces oversight of how funds are spent across a broad category of future settlements. They contend that extending customs user fees — a cost borne by importers and travelers — is an indirect tax increase that affects a wide population with no direct connection to tribal water policy. Critics may also argue that the broad "New and Continuing Settlements" subaccount gives the Secretary of the Interior wide discretion to direct large sums with limited congressional review, raising separation-of-powers concerns about delegating spending priorities to the executive branch.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to legislate on behalf of federally recognized tribes derives from the Indian Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and the federal trust responsibility, which courts have long recognized as a plenary power. The Equal Protection Clause (14th Amend.) is not implicated here because the Supreme Court has held that federal classifications based on tribal membership are political, not racial, in nature (a doctrine currently under some academic debate but not recently overturned). The customs fee extension is a straightforward exercise of Congress's taxing and spending powers under Art. I, §8.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Secretary of the Interior) gains significant discretionary authority over the sequence and timing of fund transfers, with limited annual congressional oversight since funds are available without further appropriation; the primary check is that eligible settlements must have been previously approved by an Act of Congress.
Historical precedent
The Reclamation Water Settlements Fund, established by the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, used a similar mandatory-funding mechanism to fulfill federal obligations under tribal and non-tribal water rights settlements in the West.