Congress kills North Dakota land-use plan—but what was in it?
H.J.Res. 105 — Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to "North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan". · Filed by Julie Fedorchak (R-ND) · Introduced Jul 10, 2025 · Signed
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This is a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution that kills a Bureau of Land Management resource management plan for North Dakota issued in January 2025. Congress is voting to reject the BLM's land-use decisions for that field office, rendering the plan void.
Why we flagged it
This is a procedural CRA resolution under 5 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., which allows Congress to disapprove and nullify agency rules within 60 legislative days. It does exactly one thing: reject a specific BLM resource management plan.
What the text implies
- Disapproving the plan does not automatically restore prior management rules — it creates a regulatory vacuum that may require BLM to revert to an earlier plan or issue a new one, potentially triggering additional environmental review.
- The GAO opinion (June 25, 2025) classified the RMP as a 'rule' under the CRA, which is a legal determination that may be contested; if overturned, the disapproval could be challenged as procedurally invalid.
- Rejection of the plan may affect pending permits, leases, or development projects that relied on the approved RMP's terms, creating litigation risk for both industry and conservation groups.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The civic effect depends entirely on what the rejected BLM plan contained — whether it protected public lands and resources or opened them to extraction. The resolution itself is procedurally transparent but the underlying policy trade-off (conservation vs. development) is not resolved by the text alone.
Who stands to gain
- oil and gas extraction companies (if the rejected plan restricted drilling)
- mining operators (if the plan restricted mineral leasing)
- renewable energy developers (if the plan favored wind/solar siting)
Named in the bill
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), North Dakota Field Office, Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress, 119th Congress
Where it stands
- Jul 10, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Jul 10, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Natural Resources · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources”
- Sep 3, 2025 — Passed the House · Congress.gov: “On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 215 - 211 (Roll no. 226). (text: CR H3791)”
- Oct 8, 2025 — Passed both chambers · Congress.gov: “Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 50 - 45. Record Vote Number: 556”
- Dec 1, 2025 — Sent to president · Congress.gov: “Presented to President”
- Dec 11, 2025 — Signed into law · Congress.gov: “Became Public Law No: 119-49”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
3 lobbying clients named this bill on 4 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $453,600 in lobbying spend. A filing names 21 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 61% of bills with at least one filing.
Julie Fedorchak, the sponsor, reported $1,042,850 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Americans for Prosperity — $390,000 on 1 filing
- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership — $50,000 on 1 filing
- The Conservation Alliance — $13,600 on 2 filings
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (1,440 characters) on Jul 10, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress kills North Dakota land-use plan—but what was in it?” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hjres105 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.