S. 1860 (119th)Bill Overview

Brian Head Town Land Conveyance Act

Public Lands and Natural Resources|Forests, forestry, treesGeography and mapping
Sponsor
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
May 22, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

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

This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer approximately 24 acres of Dixie National Forest land to Brian Head Town, Utah. The conveyance is to be made without consideration, subject to any terms and conditions the Secretary deems appropriate, for use as a public works facility or other town-determined uses.

Why people may split

Progressives emphasize environmental loss and public-access safeguards.

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped statutory conveyance that identifies the parcel, parties, and primary action but leaves most procedural, fiscal, legal, and oversight specifics to executive discretion.

This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer approximately 24 acres of Dixie National Forest land to Brian Head Town, Utah.

The conveyance is to be made without consideration, subject to any terms and conditions the Secretary deems appropriate, for use as a public works facility or other town-determined uses.

After conveyance, the Secretary must modify the Dixie National Forest boundary to reflect the transfer.

Passage55/100

Very narrow, routine conveyance with limited fiscal impact; usually succeeds if uncontroversial and supported locally, but may need packaging.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped statutory conveyance that identifies the parcel, parties, and primary action but leaves most procedural, fiscal, legal, and oversight specifics to executive discretion.

Contention62/100

Progressives emphasize environmental loss and public-access safeguards.

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 governmentsEnables the town to build or expand public works infrastructure, potentially improving local services and emergency res…
  • Local governmentsTransfers management responsibility to local government, reducing federal administrative oversight and associated costs.
  • Local governmentsMay expedite local economic development and create short-term construction jobs tied to facilities built on the site.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesRemoves approximately 24 acres from the National Forest System, permanently reducing federal public land area.
  • Federal agenciesCould reduce federal environmental protections or public access if town allows more intensive development.
  • Federal agenciesTransfers a federal asset without sale, foregoing potential federal receipts from market-value disposition.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize environmental loss and public-access safeguards.
Progressive45%

Skeptical but not uniformly opposed.

The parcel is small and for a town public purpose, which is potentially defensible, but the unconditional transfer of public forest land raises environmental and public-access concerns.

Support would depend on strong environmental safeguards and public-interest protections.

Split reaction
Centrist75%

Generally favorable if procedural safeguards are followed.

The parcel is small and local governments often need land for public works, but the transfer should include clear terms, environmental review, and protections of federal interests.

Leans supportive
Conservative90%

Supportive.

The bill returns a small parcel of federal land to local control without cost, reducing federal footprint and enabling local decision‑making for public needs.

Terms and conditions are acceptable as usual oversight.

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

Very narrow, routine conveyance with limited fiscal impact; usually succeeds if uncontroversial and supported locally, but may need packaging.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Local stakeholder support or opposition level
  • Whether environmental reviews (NEPA) are required or satisfied
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 emphasize environmental loss and public-access safeguards.

Very narrow, routine conveyance with limited fiscal impact; usually succeeds if uncontroversial and supported locally, but may need packagi…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped statutory conveyance that identifies the parcel, parties, and primary action but leaves most procedural, fiscal, legal, and oversight specifics t…

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