Overview

Title

An Act To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the State of Utah certain Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management within the boundaries of Camp Williams, Utah, and for other purposes.

ELI5 AI

The bill wants to give a piece of land from the U.S. government to Utah so they can use it to build roads or for the military, but if Utah uses it differently, it might have to give it back. Utah has to pay what the land is worth, and they have to do all of this pretty quickly.

Summary AI

H.R. 2468, also known as the "Mountain View Corridor Completion Act," requires the Secretary of the Interior to transfer approximately 200.18 acres of federal land in Utah to the state. This land transfer must occur within 90 days and include payment of fair market value by Utah. The land is intended for transportation or defense purposes, and if it is used for other means or sold, the land could revert back to the federal government. The act also involves creating an official map and legal description of the land that will be available for public viewing.

Published

2024-12-20
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: JOINT
Status: Enrolled Bill
Date: 2024-12-20
Package ID: BILLS-118hr2468enr

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
3
Words:
709
Pages:
2
Sentences:
30

Language

Nouns: 203
Verbs: 43
Adjectives: 34
Adverbs: 5
Numbers: 36
Entities: 51

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.05
Average Sentence Length:
23.63
Token Entropy:
4.78
Readability (ARI):
12.91

AnalysisAI

General Summary of the Bill

The legislation titled "Mountain View Corridor Completion Act" mandates the transfer of specific federal land in Utah, administratively overseen by the Bureau of Land Management, to the state's jurisdiction. The land in question comprises approximately 200.18 acres near Camp Williams, Utah. The act requires the Secretary of the Interior to execute this conveyance within 90 days following the enactment of the law. As part of the process, the State of Utah must compensate the federal government at the fair market value of the land. The legislation also stipulates conditions regarding the usage of the land, specifically limiting it to transportation and defense purposes, with a reversionary clause should these conditions be unmet.

Summary of Significant Issues

Several notable issues arise from the bill. First, there is a lack of clear specifications concerning the exact location or size of the land, which can lead to ambiguities and potential disputes. Secondly, the timeline given for the conveyance is a mere 90 days, which may not be sufficient to conduct thorough appraisals and due diligence, risking inaccuracies in the valuation process. Additionally, the bill's definition of "fair market value" is vague, allowing room for disputes or perceived inequities in the appraisal. Furthermore, the criteria for the reversion of land back to federal ownership are not well-defined, providing significant discretion to the Secretary of the Interior without explicit guidelines. The absence of an oversight mechanism to ensure transparency in the conveyance process raises administrative and ethical concerns. Finally, the language specifying where documents are stored and references to existing legal frameworks complicate understanding and accessibility.

Public Impact

For the general public, the bill's impact hinges on its execution and adherence to fairness and transparency principles. Accurate valuation and clear guidelines ensure the federal lands are transferred responsibly, maintaining public trust in government operations. However, should these elements be neglected, it could lead to legal disputes, financial losses, and a public perception of governmental overreach or mismanagement.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For the State of Utah, the bill presents an opportunity to assume full control over a strategically located parcel of land, potentially promoting state-level development aligned with local priorities, particularly in transportation and defense sectors. However, the short 90-day deadline and potential valuation disputes could complicate smooth execution.

Local communities near Camp Williams could benefit from the implementation of transportation and defense projects, potentially spurring economic growth and infrastructure development. Conversely, any disputes or delays arising from the conveyance process, such as disputes over "fair market value" or transparent criteria for land reversion, could hinder these developments and lead to community dissatisfaction.

From a federal perspective, there is an obligation to ensure the fair and accurate valuation of public assets. The lack of specific guidance and oversight mechanisms could pose risks of undervaluation, affecting federal revenue while also impacting accountability and transparency standards expected by the public. By ensuring these are properly addressed, the federal government can maintain trust and uphold its fiduciary responsibilities.

Issues

  • The lack of specificity in Section 3 regarding the exact location and size of the 'covered land' could lead to ambiguities and legal disputes. This is significant as it might affect local stakeholders and the broader community relying on transparent and fair land transactions.

  • The 90-day timeline for the conveyance process in Section 3 might be too short for a thorough appraisal and due diligence, risking hasty decisions that could undervalue or misrepresent the fair market value of the land. This is financially significant as it could lead to economic ramifications for taxpayers and stakeholders.

  • The vague definition of 'fair market value' in Section 3 could lead to disputes during the appraisal process, potentially resulting in legal challenges or perceived injustices among public officials and local communities.

  • Section 3's lack of clear criteria for reversionary interest provides considerable discretion to the Secretary, which might create legal and ethical concerns about potential unchecked power or misuse.

  • The absence of oversight or review mechanisms in Section 3 to ensure transparency and fairness in the land conveyance process might lead to administrative and ethical issues, impacting public trust.

  • The language in Section 3 regarding where the map and legal description are filed ('appropriate office of the Bureau of Land Management') could lead to logistical confusion and barriers to public access.

  • The mention of Executive Order 1922 and the Camp W.G. Williams Land Exchange Act of 1989 in Section 3 requires cross-referencing, which complicates understanding the section without further legal context, affecting legal transparency and accessibility.

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 states that the law will be known as the "Mountain View Corridor Completion Act."

2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section defines several terms used in the Act: "covered land" refers to about 200.18 acres shown on a specific map, "Secretary" refers to the Secretary of the Interior working through the Bureau of Land Management, and "State" refers to the State of Utah.

3. Conveyance of Bureau of Land Management land to State of Utah Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary is required to transfer ownership of certain federal land to the State of Utah within 90 days of a new law being passed, with the state paying the fair market value for the land. If Utah uses the land for purposes other than transportation or defense, the land may revert back to federal control, and an accurate map and description of the land must be publicly available and maintained by the Bureau of Land Management.