Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill authorizes a land exchange between Caza Ranches LLC and the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) in Artesia, New Mexico. Each party would convey approximately 160 acres to the other, with costs split equally, titles conforming to federal standards, and the acquired non‑Federal land added to FLETC for training structures.
Liberals stress environmental and cultural review requirements
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive land‑exchange statute that specifies parcels, responsible entity, basic terms, and post‑transfer administrative effects, but omits several executional and oversight details commonly expected for federal land conveyances.
This bill authorizes a land exchange between Caza Ranches LLC and the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) in Artesia, New Mexico.
Each party would convey approximately 160 acres to the other, with costs split equally, titles conforming to federal standards, and the acquired non‑Federal land added to FLETC for training structures.
The exchange requires a written agreement, allows minor map and boundary corrections, and directs the Secretary to file maps for public inspection.
Content is narrow and routine; such land-exchange bills commonly succeed absent local opposition or procedural obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive land‑exchange statute that specifies parcels, responsible entity, basic terms, and post‑transfer administrative effects, but omits several executional and oversight details commonly expected for federal land conveyances.
Liberals stress environmental and cultural review requirements
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals stress environmental and cultural review requirements
Generally pragmatic support for a targeted land exchange that benefits federal training, but cautious about process safeguards.
Concerns focus on environmental review, public transparency, and protecting any affected cultural resources or public interests.
Pragmatic conditional support if the exchange is genuinely equal in value and legally sound.
Wants clear appraisals, transparent cost accounting, and confirmation that the swap serves the public interest without undue cost to taxpayers.
Mixed support: welcomes a negotiated private‑public property exchange and local control, but wary of expanding federal holdings and using taxpayer funds.
Prefers private party to bear more costs and for transactions to be tightly limited.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and routine; such land-exchange bills commonly succeed absent local opposition or procedural obstacles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals stress environmental and cultural review requirements
Content is narrow and routine; such land-exchange bills commonly succeed absent local opposition or procedural obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive land‑exchange statute that specifies parcels, responsible entity, basic terms, and post‑transfer administrative effects, but omits…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.