H.R. 2944 (119th)Bill Overview

Cerro de la Olla Wilderness Establishment Act

Public Lands and Natural Resources|Public Lands and Natural Resources
Cosponsors
Support
Democratic
Introduced
Apr 17, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This bill amends the John D. Dingell, Jr.

Why people may split

Liberals emphasize conservation value and permanent protection

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive enactment that amends existing statute to create a specific wilderness area, modifies monument boundaries, and integrates with the Wilderness Act and BLM administration, but it omits fiscal acknowledgements, detailed procedural sequencing, and metrics for oversight.

This bill amends the John D.

Dingell, Jr.

Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act to establish the Cerro de la Olla Wilderness, a roughly 12,295-acre BLM-managed area in Taos County, New Mexico.

Passage45/100

Technically modest and administrable; success hinges on local stakeholder support and whether it is folded into larger public-lands legislation.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive enactment that amends existing statute to create a specific wilderness area, modifies monument boundaries, and integrates with the Wilderness Act and BLM administration, but it omits fiscal acknowledgements, detailed procedural sequencing, and metrics for oversight.

Contention62/100

Liberals emphasize conservation value and permanent protection

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Local governmentsLocal governments

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitPermanently protects about 12,295 acres of public land from most development.
  • Potential benefitMaintains and potentially improves wildlife habitat through authorized water development maintenance.
  • Local governmentsMay increase recreational visitation and associated local service-sector employment.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenRestricts new mineral, energy, and certain development activities on designated land.
  • Potential burdenMay limit motorized access and other recreational uses incompatible with wilderness rules.
  • Local governmentsCould reduce potential extractive revenue opportunities for local or state economies.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals emphasize conservation value and permanent protection
Progressive90%

Likely broadly supportive because the bill creates a new wilderness area and strengthens federal land protection.

The allowance to maintain existing wildlife water projects and the required state cooperative agreement may be acceptable tradeoffs to secure permanent protections.

Leans supportive
Centrist75%

Generally favorable but cautious; supports conservation balanced with existing uses.

Will look for clear mapping, durable protections, and timely, well-specified cooperative agreement to prevent management disputes.

Leans supportive
Conservative30%

Likely skeptical or opposed due to expanded federal restrictions on land use and potential limits on local control.

The bill's protections and boundary change may be seen as federal overreach, though retention of grazing references and wildlife maintenance slightly mitigate opposition.

Likely resistant
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood45/100

Technically modest and administrable; success hinges on local stakeholder support and whether it is folded into larger public-lands legislation.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Local stakeholder (ranching/rec recreation) support or opposition
  • Whether committee advances bill or bundles into larger land package
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Liberals emphasize conservation value and permanent protection

Technically modest and administrable; success hinges on local stakeholder support and whether it is folded into larger public-lands legisla…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive enactment that amends existing statute to create a specific wilderness area, modifies monument boundaries, and integrates with the Wilderness…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis