Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire roughly 6,100 acres adjacent to Big Bend National Park by donation or land exchange, updates the park boundary upon acquisition, and directs administration of the new lands as part of the park. A map showing the proposed adjustment must be kept available for public inspection, and the Secretary is prohibited from using eminent domain or condemnation to acquire the lands.
Liberals emphasize conservation gains; conservatives emphasize federal land expansion risks
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive boundary-adjustment measure that clearly identifies the acreage and map and delegates acquisition authority to the Secretary of the Interior while prohibiting condemnation.
This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire roughly 6,100 acres adjacent to Big Bend National Park by donation or land exchange, updates the park boundary upon acquisition, and directs administration of the new lands as part of the park.
A map showing the proposed adjustment must be kept available for public inspection, and the Secretary is prohibited from using eminent domain or condemnation to acquire the lands.
Small, technical park boundary bill with safeguards and minimal costs typically attracts bipartisan support and often becomes law.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive boundary-adjustment measure that clearly identifies the acreage and map and delegates acquisition authority to the Secretary of the Interior while prohibiting condemnation. It provides basic administrative direction (map availability; administration upon acquisition) but omits fiscal, procedural, and oversight detail that would commonly accompany federal land-acquisition legislation.
Liberals emphasize conservation gains; conservatives emphasize federal land expansion risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize conservation gains; conservatives emphasize federal land expansion risks
This persona is likely to view the bill favorably as a targeted conservation action expanding protected public lands without using eminent domain.
They will see this as strengthening habitat protection, ecological connectivity, and public access to a national park.
They may look for assurances on funding for management and protections for public access.
A pragmatic centrist will generally support the bill because it expands park boundaries through voluntary means and explicitly bans condemnation.
They will weigh modest administration costs against conservation and recreation benefits, and want clarity on long-term management costs and local impacts.
This persona will be cautious or somewhat opposed, concerned about federal expansion of land ownership and potential regulatory impacts.
Because the bill prohibits eminent domain and restricts acquisitions to donation or exchange, some concerns are mitigated; however, skepticism about federal control and impacts on local property rights remains.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Small, technical park boundary bill with safeguards and minimal costs typically attracts bipartisan support and often becomes law.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize conservation gains; conservatives emphasize federal land expansion risks
Small, technical park boundary bill with safeguards and minimal costs typically attracts bipartisan support and often becomes law.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive boundary-adjustment measure that clearly identifies the acreage and map and delegates acquisition authority to the Secretary of the I…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.