S. 700 (119th)Bill Overview

A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the Pleasant Valley Ranger District Administrative Site to Gila County, Arizona.

Public Lands and Natural Resources|Public Lands and Natural Resources
Cosponsors
Support
Democratic
Introduced
Feb 25, 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 convey approximately 232.9 acres of National Forest System land in the Pleasant Valley Ranger District, Tonto National Forest, to Gila County, Arizona, if the county requests conveyance within 180 days. The conveyance would be by quitclaim deed, without consideration, subject to valid existing rights, county payment of conveyance costs (surveys, environmental and historic analyses), no federal CERCLA covenant, and a use restriction requiring the land be used only to serve and support veterans, with reversion to the United States for inconsistent uses.

Why people may split

Progressives worry about public-land loss and contamination liability

Watch point

Local, narrowly targeted bill with veterans benefit; likely amenable to expedited or voice-vote consideration, subject to committee schedule.

This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey approximately 232.9 acres of National Forest System land in the Pleasant Valley Ranger District, Tonto National Forest, to Gila County, Arizona, if the county requests conveyance within 180 days.

The conveyance would be by quitclaim deed, without consideration, subject to valid existing rights, county payment of conveyance costs (surveys, environmental and historic analyses), no federal CERCLA covenant, and a use restriction requiring the land be used only to serve and support veterans, with reversion to the United States for inconsistent uses.

Passage70/100

Narrow, noncontroversial conveyance for veterans with cost protections aligns with many previously enacted local land-transfer bills; main risks are procedural delays.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention38/100

Progressives worry about public-land loss and contamination liability

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Local governments · Federal agenciesFederal agencies · Counties

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Local governmentsEnables local ownership to develop facilities specifically serving veterans.
  • Federal agenciesTransfers long-term maintenance and management responsibility from federal government to county.
  • Local governmentsMay expedite local projects by removing certain federal administrative hurdles.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesRemoves federal land from National Forest protection and future federal management.
  • CountiesShifts environmental and potential contamination liability and compliance costs to the county.
  • Local governmentsCounty must pay all conveyance and compliance costs, imposing fiscal burden on local government.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives worry about public-land loss and contamination liability
Progressive65%

Generally supportive of projects serving veterans but cautious about transferring public forest land to local governments.

Concerned about environmental, cultural, and public-access implications, and the absence of federal CERCLA warranty.

Split reaction
Centrist75%

Practical approval: transfers surplus federal property to local government for a clear public purpose.

Wants clear surveys, environmental review, and predictable oversight to limit future disputes.

Leans supportive
Conservative90%

Strongly favorable: transfers federal land to local control, supports veterans, and reduces federal management responsibilities.

Views cost-shifting to county as prudent and local governance preferable.

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 likelihood70/100

Narrow, noncontroversial conveyance for veterans with cost protections aligns with many previously enacted local land-transfer bills; main risks are procedural delays.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Absence of a CBO cost estimate in the bill text
  • Whether environmental contamination or liabilities exist on the parcel
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 worry about public-land loss and contamination liability

Narrow, noncontroversial conveyance for veterans with cost protections aligns with many previously enacted local land-transfer bills; main…

Unlocked analysis

Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the P…

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