Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill designates dozens of federal land units across Utah’s red rock canyons, plateaus, and ranges as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System. It establishes administrative rules: BLM management under the Wilderness Act and FLPMA, state trust land exchange procedures, reserved federal water rights, road‑setback mapping rules, continued regulated grazing, tribal-rights protections, and withdrawal from most mineral and geothermal leasing and mining claims.
Conservation and climate benefits versus lost extractive opportunities
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and structured substantive statute to designate many Federal land units as wilderness.
This bill designates dozens of federal land units across Utah’s red rock canyons, plateaus, and ranges as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
It establishes administrative rules: BLM management under the Wilderness Act and FLPMA, state trust land exchange procedures, reserved federal water rights, road‑setback mapping rules, continued regulated grazing, tribal-rights protections, and withdrawal from most mineral and geothermal leasing and mining claims.
Ambitious, high-profile land protections increase opposition from local/state extractive stakeholders; some compromise provisions help but unlikely to clear Senate without broad coalition or package vehicle.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and structured substantive statute to designate many Federal land units as wilderness. It provides explicit unit listings, statutory integration, and several operational provisions, while delegating a number of implementation specifics to the Secretary and omitting fiscal and explicit accountability detail.
Conservation and climate benefits versus lost extractive opportunities
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Conservation and climate benefits versus lost extractive opportunities
Generally strongly supportive: views the bill as a major conservation victory that preserves biodiversity, cultural sites, and climate‑resilient landscapes.
Sees explicit tribal protections and recreation access as positive, though may press for stronger tribal co‑management and enforcement funding.
Cautiously supportive but pragmatic: appreciates conservation, recreation, and cultural protections, while worrying about impacts on local economies, clear mapping, costs, and legal disputes.
Would favor amendments ensuring transparent land‑exchange valuation and funding for management.
Likely opposed: views the bill as expansive federal land control restricting resource development, reducing state and local authority, and harming jobs tied to mining, energy, and some land uses.
May accept limited scenic protections but seeks major carve‑outs.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Ambitious, high-profile land protections increase opposition from local/state extractive stakeholders; some compromise provisions help but unlikely to clear Senate without broad coalition or package vehicle.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Conservation and climate benefits versus lost extractive opportunities
Ambitious, high-profile land protections increase opposition from local/state extractive stakeholders; some compromise provisions help but…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and structured substantive statute to designate many Federal land units as wilderness. It provides explicit unit listings, statutory integration, and sever…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.