Overview
Title
To prohibit natural asset companies from entering into any agreement with respect to land in the State of Utah or natural assets on or in such land.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 7006 is a rule that wants to stop certain companies from making deals about land or nature in Utah. It tries to make sure these companies, which are linked to how a big stock market works, don't make plans for Utah's land or nature without rules.
Summary AI
H. R. 7006 is a bill that aims to stop natural asset companies from making agreements involving land or natural resources located in the State of Utah. A "natural asset company" is defined as either a company recognized by a specific Securities and Exchange Commission notice related to New York Stock Exchange listing standards or any company that is similar to those described in the notice. The bill was introduced by Mr. Curtis and referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 7006 is a legislative bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives with the aim to restrict natural asset companies from making any agreements concerning land or natural resources located in the State of Utah. The bill defines a "natural asset company" based on a classification by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and extends this definition to entities similar in nature.
Significant Issues
One of the main issues with this bill is its reliance on an external SEC document to define what constitutes a "natural asset company." This adds complexity, as stakeholders must consult and interpret additional materials, potentially leading to confusion. Furthermore, the bill's wording around companies "substantially similar" to those defined by the SEC is vague. This ambiguity could give rise to legal disputes about what exactly qualifies as a similar company.
The bill's focus solely on Utah may also raise questions. It does not provide clarity on why Utah is singled out, which might lead to concerns about whether the bill aims to target or favor specific entities or interests more than others. Additionally, the bill lacks explicit enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance. This absence might undermine the bill's intended effect, as there are no outlined consequences for violations.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the bill could influence how natural resources in Utah are managed and what economic activities are allowed. If successfully enacted and enforced, it may protect Utah's land and natural assets from exploitation by companies that might not prioritize environmental conservation or public interest. However, without clear enforcement mechanics, the actual impact might be limited.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For natural asset companies, particularly those defined or similar to those described by the SEC, this bill represents a significant restriction. These companies might see Utah as off-limits, potentially affecting their business strategies and financial interests. Conversely, for environmental groups and local stakeholders in Utah who prioritize conservation, this bill could be seen as a potential positive step towards protecting the region's ecological integrity.
The ambiguity in the bill might also notably affect legal professionals and courts, potentially creating a demand for interpretations of the terms and definitions within the bill. This could lead to prolonged legal battles to clarify the bill's reach and application.
Overall, while H.R. 7006 aims to protect Utah's natural assets, its effectiveness hinges on clarifying these significant ambiguities and ensuring robust enforcement measures.
Issues
The definition of 'natural asset company' in Section 1 relies on an external document from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This could complicate understanding and implementation, as stakeholders would need to reference and interpret additional documentation, possibly leading to confusion or misinterpretation.
The clause 'substantially similar to a company described under paragraph (1)' in Section 1(b)(2) is vague and could lead to legal ambiguities or disputes. The lack of clear criteria for what constitutes 'substantially similar' might result in inconsistent applications or legal challenges.
The geographic limitation of the prohibition to the State of Utah in Section 1(a) might lead to questions about the rationale behind this focus. This raises possible concerns about the bill's broader implications or intentions and whether it might unjustly target or benefit specific interests.
The absence of addressed enforcement mechanisms or penalties for violations in Section 1 could weaken the bill's effectiveness. Without clear consequences for non-compliance, the prohibition might lack the necessary deterrent effect to prevent agreements by natural asset companies in Utah.
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. Prohibition Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
A natural asset company is not allowed to make any agreements about land or natural resources in Utah. The term "natural asset company" refers to a definition by the Securities and Exchange Commission and includes similar companies.