H.R. 1829 (119th)Bill Overview

Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2025

Public Lands and Natural Resources|ArizonaForests, forestry, trees
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Mar 4, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

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

The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey specified small parcels of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest land to Navajo County and Apache County, Arizona, for use as cemeteries. Conveyances are by quitclaim deed, made without monetary consideration, subject to valid existing rights, and include reversion to the United States if not used as a cemetery.

Why people may split

Progressives highlight environmental/CERCLA concerns; others deem them manageable.

Watch point

Very narrow, low-cost local conveyance bills historically move easily in the House.

The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey specified small parcels of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest land to Navajo County and Apache County, Arizona, for use as cemeteries.

Conveyances are by quitclaim deed, made without monetary consideration, subject to valid existing rights, and include reversion to the United States if not used as a cemetery.

Counties must request conveyance within statutory deadlines and pay costs for surveys and any required environmental analyses; the transfers are stated not to be subject to CERCLA section 120(h).

Passage55/100

Narrow, low-cost, locally beneficial conveyances have moderate-to-high chances, but depend on Senate procedure and any local/environmental objections.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention20/100

Progressives highlight environmental/CERCLA concerns; others deem them manageable.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Local governmentsFederal agencies

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

Likely helped
  • Local governmentsProvides counties land for cemetery expansion, addressing local burial space needs.
  • Potential benefitTransfers management responsibility, reducing Forest Service oversight for those specific parcels.
  • Local governmentsEnables quicker local use without a federal sale process or purchase costs.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesRemoves federal lands from the National Forest, reducing public land under federal management.
  • Federal agenciesConveyance without consideration forfeits potential federal revenue from the land's market value.
  • Federal agenciesExcluding CERCLA 120(h) could limit certain federal cleanup obligations or procedural safeguards.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives highlight environmental/CERCLA concerns; others deem them manageable.
Progressive70%

Likely cautiously supportive because the bill secures land for local cemetery needs and includes a reversion clause.

Concerned about the bill's carve-out regarding CERCLA 120(h) and the precedent for disposing National Forest lands without clear environmental safeguards.

Leans supportive
Centrist85%

Pragmatically positive: addresses a local public-need issue with minimal federal cost and clear conditions like surveys and reversion.

Wants clarity about the CERCLA language and confirmation that required federal environmental analyses will be completed before transfer.

Leans supportive
Conservative85%

Generally favorable: transfers small federal land parcels to local control, reduces federal burden, and preserves public use as cemeteries.

May prefer broader federal-land disposal but accepts targeted local conveyances with low cost.

Leans supportive
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 likelihood55/100

Narrow, low-cost, locally beneficial conveyances have moderate-to-high chances, but depend on Senate procedure and any local/environmental objections.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No cost estimate (CBO) provided in text
  • Potential local or environmental objections to transfers
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

Progressives highlight environmental/CERCLA concerns; others deem them manageable.

Narrow, low-cost, locally beneficial conveyances have moderate-to-high chances, but depend on Senate procedure and any local/environmental…

Unlocked analysis

Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2025.

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