Overview
Title
To ensure that there is no net gain in Federal land ownership in any fiscal year, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to make sure that if the government buys new land, they have to give away the same amount of land so that they don't have more land at the end of the year than they had at the beginning. It also plans to keep track of the land by making a list each year to check how much they own.
Summary AI
H.R. 10089 aims to ensure that the amount of federal land owned by the government does not increase in any fiscal year. It mandates that if the federal government acquires new land, it must dispose of an equal amount of land. The bill requires an annual inventory and report to track land ownership changes, and if an imbalance is found, additional federal land must be given to the states to maintain a net-zero gain. The Act defines what constitutes federal land and outlines the roles of the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior in its administration.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The "No Net Gain in Federal Lands Act of 2024" aims to regulate federal land acquisitions and disposals to ensure that the United States government does not increase its net ownership of land within any state over a fiscal year. This bill requires that the amount of federal land acquired must be offset by an equal amount of land disposed of by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. The act mandates an annual inventory and report on federal land ownership to be submitted to the President and Congress. If the amount of acquired land exceeds the disposed land, the excess is to be conveyed back to the respective state within 24 months.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues are associated with this bill. Firstly, there is ambiguity in the term "No net gain" as it does not clearly define whether it applies annually or cumulatively, which could lead to different interpretations and legal challenges. Additionally, the exemption of certain land conveyances from being deemed major federal actions might raise environmental oversight concerns.
Furthermore, the bill does not specify how the annual inventory process is to be conducted, potentially leading to inconsistencies in tracking federal land ownership changes. The bill also uses vague language such as "sufficient Federal land" without detailing criteria, leading to possible discrepancies or disputes in compliance.
The definition of "Federal land" within the bill includes land overseen by the federal government but does not clarify the extent of such oversight, risking misinterpretation and jurisdictional conflicts. Additionally, the bill requires annual reports by September 30 but lacks enforcement measures for the deadline, possibly undermining transparency. Lastly, exceptions regarding lands held by Indian Tribes or individuals are inadequately addressed, risking jurisdictional ambiguities during disputes or negotiations.
Impact on the Public
The implications of this bill on the general public are varied. On one hand, it attempts to address concerns over the federal government's land acquisition strategies, ensuring that local authorities retain a balance of land control. This might appease those who feel that federal ownership can often overlook regional needs and priorities.
On the other hand, there are significant concerns about the lack of environmental oversight if land transactions are not treated as major federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act. This could lead to environmental degradation if local authorities lack resources or motivation to manage these lands sustainably.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
States and Local Governments: The bill may empower state governments by returning control over lands, potentially leading to more locally focused land-use policies. However, ambiguous criteria for land sufficiency and lack of clarity around federal oversight could lead to disputes between state and federal authorities.
Environmental Groups: These stakeholders might view the bill negatively due to reduced federal oversight in land transactions. The exclusion from environmental policy requirements might lead to potential risks of habitat loss or environmental damage.
Indigenous Communities: While the bill does state exceptions for lands held by Indian Tribes or individuals, the ambiguities in jurisdictional authority concerning disputed lands pose significant legal challenges for these communities, potentially impacting their rights and sovereignty.
Federal Agencies: The requirements for detailed inventories and compliance might increase administrative burdens on the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Nevertheless, the act mandates these agencies to be more accountable and transparent in managing federal lands.
In conclusion, while this bill seeks to align federal land policies more closely with state interests, it presents several potential pitfalls that could provoke legal, environmental, and administrative challenges. Each of these could have varying impacts on different stakeholders, necessitating careful consideration and possible amendments to ensure comprehensive and effective application.
Issues
The definition of 'No net gain' in Section 2(a) is ambiguous as it does not clearly specify the timeframe, which could lead to misinterpretation of whether it applies on an annual basis or over a longer term, creating potential for legal challenges or disputes.
The exclusion of certain conveyances from being considered major Federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act in Section 2(c)(2) could raise concerns about environmental oversight and protection, potentially drawing ethical and legal critique.
The lack of specified methodologies for conducting the 'annual inventory' in Section 2(b)(1) could result in inconsistent or inadequate approaches, affecting data accuracy and accountability in tracking federal land ownership changes.
The vague language 'sufficient Federal land' in Section 2(c)(1) does not provide clear criteria for determining what constitutes 'sufficient' land, potentially leading to discrepancies or disputes over compliance measures.
The definition of 'Federal land' in Section 2(d)(1)(B) includes land 'requiring oversight' by the Federal Government without specifying the extent of oversight needed, which could lead to ambiguous interpretations and jurisdictional conflicts.
The requirement for the Secretary to submit a report by September 30 in Section 2(b)(3) lacks enforcement measures for accountability, minimizing the importance of meeting this deadline and potentially undermining transparency.
The exception for lands 'held by an Indian Tribe or individual Indian' in Section 2(d)(1)(C) is insufficiently addressed in disputes or negotiations concerning such lands, risking unclear jurisdictional authority and potential legal challenges.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the act specifies that the official name of the law is the “No Net Gain in Federal Lands Act of 2024.”
2. No net gain in certain federal land ownership Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section of the bill, it is stated that the United States is required to balance the amount of federal land it acquires with the amount it disposes of in each state within a fiscal year. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior must conduct an annual inventory and report on federal land ownership, and if more land is acquired than disposed of, the excess must be conveyed back to the state within 24 months.