Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey approximately 124.23 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land near Price, Utah to the city of Price, at the city's request. The conveyance is to transfer all right, title, and interest of the United States in the identified federal land, subject to valid existing rights, and is undertaken notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Progressives emphasize environmental safeguards, public access, and procedural protections; conservatives emphasize local control and reducing federal holdings.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a narrow substantive objective—authorizing conveyance of a specific parcel of BLM land to the city of Price, Utah, and identifies the responsible official and map—but it provides limited transactional detail, omits fiscal terms and timelines, and lacks oversight and safeguards.
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey approximately 124.23 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land near Price, Utah to the city of Price, at the city's request.
The conveyance is to transfer all right, title, and interest of the United States in the identified federal land, subject to valid existing rights, and is undertaken notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
The bill references a BLM map dated May 8, 2025 for the parcels and requires that map be available for public inspection; the Secretary may correct minor errors in the map.
On substance the bill is a narrow, administrative conveyance with low ideological salience and limited fiscal impact, characteristics that historically increase the chance of enactment—especially when supported by local officials and the relevant delegation. The lack of detail on valuation, transaction terms, and environmental or reversion safeguards introduces procedural questions and potential stakeholder objections that could slow or require amendments. The bill is more likely to succeed if included in a larger lands/omnibus package; standing alone it faces moderate procedural friction in the Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a narrow substantive objective—authorizing conveyance of a specific parcel of BLM land to the city of Price, Utah, and identifies the responsible official and map—but it provides limited transactional detail, omits fiscal terms and timelines, and lacks oversight and safeguards.
Progressives emphasize environmental safeguards, public access, and procedural protections; conservatives emphasize local control and reducing federal holdings.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize environmental safeguards, public access, and procedural protections; conservatives emphasize local control and reducing federal holdings.
A mainstream liberal would view the stated goal of a watershed project and local management positively but be cautious about the lack of explicit environmental or public-access safeguards in the text.
They would note that the bill waives certain FLPMA procedural provisions and allows the city to define “public purposes,” which raises concerns about future uses and protections.
Support would depend on added guarantees for conservation, enforceable public access, and transparency about whether the conveyance is a sale or a no-cost transfer.
A mainstream centrist would generally favor returning land to local governments for clearly articulated public uses, seeing potential efficiency and local responsiveness.
At the same time they would want clarity about the terms of the conveyance (cost, retained rights, mineral interests), protections for public access and environmental values, and assurance that standard legal and fiscal processes are respected.
They would likely support the bill if those procedural and fiscal questions are clarified or addressed in implementing documents.
A mainstream conservative would likely view the bill favorably as a transfer of federal land to local control, reducing federal holdings and empowering municipal decision-making.
The language that conveys title “notwithstanding” certain FLPMA sections would be seen as appropriate to expedite a locally requested conveyance, especially since the bill keeps ‘valid existing rights’ intact.
They would generally support the local government’s discretion to define public purposes and prefer minimal additional federal conditions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On substance the bill is a narrow, administrative conveyance with low ideological salience and limited fiscal impact, characteristics that historically increase the chance of enactment—especially when supported by local officials and the relevant delegation. The lack of detail on valuation, transaction terms, and environmental or reversion safeguards introduces procedural questions and potential stakeholder objections that could slow or require amendments. The bill is more likely to succeed if included in a larger lands/omnibus package; standing alone it faces moderate procedural friction in the Senate.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize environmental safeguards, public access, and procedural protections; conservatives emphasize local control and reduc…
On substance the bill is a narrow, administrative conveyance with low ideological salience and limited fiscal impact, characteristics that…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a narrow substantive objective—authorizing conveyance of a specific parcel of BLM land to the city of Price, Utah, and identifies the responsible…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.