Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 216.
This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the surface estate of two parcels of National Forest System land (about 137.7 acres and about 173 acres) in Franklin County, Mississippi, to the Scenic Rivers Development Alliance (an instrumentality of the State of Mississippi). The conveyance is to be by quitclaim deed for cash equal to fair market value as determined by an appraisal, with proceeds deposited into the Sisk Act fund for future National Forest land acquisition.
NEPA and environmental-law waiver: liberals see this as unacceptable rollback of public environmental review; conservatives see it as necessary deregulation to enable transfer.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory conveyance of specific National Forest System surface land to a named non‑federal instrumentality with well-specified transactional mechanics, legal reservations, and recipient obligations.
This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the surface estate of two parcels of National Forest System land (about 137.7 acres and about 173 acres) in Franklin County, Mississippi, to the Scenic Rivers Development Alliance (an instrumentality of the State of Mississippi).
The conveyance is to be by quitclaim deed for cash equal to fair market value as determined by an appraisal, with proceeds deposited into the Sisk Act fund for future National Forest land acquisition.
The conveyance is subject to reservations (public road/trail easements, retention of mineral/subsurface rights), a right of re-entry if the land is used other than for public recreation and fish and wildlife habitat, restrictions against subdivision into residential lots, and an agreement making the Alliance responsible for upkeep and dam safety compliance for Okhissa Lake Dam.
On content alone, this is a focused, routine land conveyance with cash payment at fair market value, retention of key federal interests (subsurface rights, easements), and explicit obligations placed on the grantee—features that make it administratively straightforward and broadly defensible. The most notable friction points are the statutory waiver of NEPA and the limited CERCLA remediation obligation, which could attract environmental opposition or procedural objections, particularly in the Senate. Overall, narrow scope, local orientation, and built-in protections push likelihood upward, while the environmental-waiver element reduces but does not eliminate feasibility.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory conveyance of specific National Forest System surface land to a named non‑federal instrumentality with well-specified transactional mechanics, legal reservations, and recipient obligations.
NEPA and environmental-law waiver: liberals see this as unacceptable rollback of public environmental review; conservatives see it as necessary deregulation to enable transfer.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
NEPA and environmental-law waiver: liberals see this as unacceptable rollback of public environmental review; conservatives see it as necessary deregulation to enable transfer.
A mainstream liberal would likely view the bill with concern because it transfers public National Forest land out of federal ownership and explicitly waives NEPA and other environmental law review for the conveyance.
They would note protections in the bill (retained subsurface rights, public access easements, right of re-entry, and requirement that the buyer pay fair market value and dam upkeep), but would worry these are insufficient to replace the public oversight and environmental review that NEPA and other laws provide.
They would be particularly concerned about the precedent of selling federal public lands, the limited remediation obligations for hazardous substances, and the potential for future private conversion or restricted public access despite the right of re-entry.
A centrist would view the bill pragmatically: it transfers specific surface parcels to a state instrumentality for local management and economic development, with proceeds returned to a federal land acquisition fund.
They would appreciate built-in protections like fair-market-value appraisal, retention of subsurface rights, public-access easements, a re-entry right, and shifting dam maintenance liability to the Alliance.
However, they would be wary of the explicit waiver of NEPA and other environmental laws, the Secretary's non-obligation to remediate contamination, and the potential for insufficiently detailed enforcement mechanisms.
A mainstream conservative would generally view the bill favorably as returning management of land to a local/state-related entity, promoting rural economic development, and reducing federal responsibilities.
They would highlight that the sale requires fair market value cash payment, that subsurface rights remain with the United States, that public access is preserved by easements, and that the purchaser will assume dam maintenance and liability.
The explicit waiver of NEPA and other environmental laws for the conveyance may be seen as a benefit because it reduces federal red tape and transaction delays.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, this is a focused, routine land conveyance with cash payment at fair market value, retention of key federal interests (subsurface rights, easements), and explicit obligations placed on the grantee—features that make it administratively straightforward and broadly defensible. The most notable friction points are the statutory waiver of NEPA and the limited CERCLA remediation obligation, which could attract environmental opposition or procedural objections, particularly in the Senate. Overall, narrow scope, local orientation, and built-in protections push likelihood upward, while the environmental-waiver element reduces but does not eliminate feasibility.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
NEPA and environmental-law waiver: liberals see this as unacceptable rollback of public environmental review; conservatives see it as neces…
On content alone, this is a focused, routine land conveyance with cash payment at fair market value, retention of key federal interests (su…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory conveyance of specific National Forest System surface land to a named non‑federal instrumentality with well-specified transactional mechanics,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.