Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The 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, Utah. The conveyance is to be made notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and is subject to valid existing rights.
Local control vs federal oversight: conservatives emphasize devolving land to the city; liberals worry about losing FLPMA safeguards.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped statutory conveyance transferring federal land to a municipal entity; it establishes the basic authority for transfer and identifies the land by map but omits many common transactional, fiscal, procedural, and safeguard details.
The 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, Utah.
The conveyance is to be made notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and is subject to valid existing rights.
The transferred land is to be used by the city for public purposes as defined by the city.
Based solely on the bill text, this is a narrowly targeted, administrative conveyance with limited fiscal impact and low ideological salience—characteristics that favor enactment. Many similar single-parcel transfers clear committee and are enacted either standalone or as part of broader public lands packages. Key procedural and stakeholder objections could reduce the likelihood, but the content itself does not present large barriers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped statutory conveyance transferring federal land to a municipal entity; it establishes the basic authority for transfer and identifies the land by map but omits many common transactional, fiscal, procedural, and safeguard details.
Local control vs federal oversight: conservatives emphasize devolving land to the city; liberals worry about losing FLPMA safeguards.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Local control vs federal oversight: conservatives emphasize devolving land to the city; liberals worry about losing FLPMA safeguards.
A mainstream liberal would approach this bill cautiously.
They would acknowledge that local governments can sometimes manage lands well for community benefit, but they would be concerned that the bill bypasses normal FLPMA procedures, lacks explicit environmental review, tribal consultation, or conditions to protect conservation values, and gives the city broad authority to define 'public purposes.' They would want stronger guarantees for public access, environmental protection, and transparency before supporting the conveyance.
A centrist would see the potential pragmatic value of transferring land to local control for efficient municipal use, but would seek clarity on process, costs, and safeguards.
They would note the bill expressly overrides certain FLPMA procedures and would want to know whether standard appraisals, environmental reviews, or tribal consultations will still occur in practice.
If those issues are addressed, they could be cautiously supportive; if not, they would be reluctant.
A mainstream conservative would generally favor the bill because it transfers federal land to local government control, aligns with principles of shrinking federal control, and empowers a city to manage land according to local priorities.
They would view the 'notwithstanding' language as an acceptable way to speed up conveyance and reduce federal bureaucracy.
Concerns would be minimal unless there are hidden costs or unresolved title issues.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Based solely on the bill text, this is a narrowly targeted, administrative conveyance with limited fiscal impact and low ideological salience—characteristics that favor enactment. Many similar single-parcel transfers clear committee and are enacted either standalone or as part of broader public lands packages. Key procedural and stakeholder objections could reduce the likelihood, but the content itself does not present large barriers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Local control vs federal oversight: conservatives emphasize devolving land to the city; liberals worry about losing FLPMA safeguards.
Based solely on the bill text, this is a narrowly targeted, administrative conveyance with limited fiscal impact and low ideological salien…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped statutory conveyance transferring federal land to a municipal entity; it establishes the basic authority for transfer and identifies the land by…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.