Overview
Title
To require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain Federal land to the State of Utah for inclusion in certain State parks, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill is about giving some government land to Utah so they can use it for fun places like parks. The idea is to make the parks bigger so more people can enjoy them!
Summary AI
H.R. 7332, known as the “Utah State Parks Adjustment Act,” is a bill that requires the U.S. Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to transfer specific Federal lands to the State of Utah. This transfer involves land that will be added to Antelope Island, Wasatch Mountain, and Fremont Indian State Parks. The land conveyances must occur within 180 days of the bill's enactment and are subject to existing rights, without financial consideration. The bill stipulates that these lands should be used for public purposes, like parks and recreation, and includes conditions such as easement reservations and potential reversion to the federal government if the land is not used as intended.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Utah State Parks Adjustment Act," mandates the transfer of specific federal lands to the State of Utah. This bill requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to convey land to Utah for inclusion in three state parks: Antelope Island State Park, Wasatch Mountain State Park, and Fremont Indian State Park. The transfers are required to occur within 180 days of the bill's passage, following certain existing rights and conditions. The transferred land is primarily intended for public use, including recreation and permitted livestock grazing. Additionally, there are provisions for the land to revert to federal ownership if it ceases to be used for the intended public purposes.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several notable issues arise from the bill's language and provisions:
Vagueness in Terms: The use of the term "minor modifications" regarding changes to land maps is vague. Without clear limits, this could lead to significant, unregulated changes.
Undefined Public Purposes: The bill lacks specificity on what constitutes "public purposes," which could result in varied interpretations and disputes over land use.
Reversionary Interest Ambiguity: The process by which land would revert to federal ownership if not used properly is not clearly outlined, posing potential legal and administrative challenges.
Livestock Grazing as a Public Purpose: Including livestock grazing as a valid public purpose could conflict with typical uses of state park land, prompting questions about aligning with public interests.
Unclear Cost Definitions: The term "reasonable" regarding survey costs for the land is subjective, potentially causing disagreements over expenses.
Impact on the Public
The bill, by transferring federal land to the state, could pave the way for enhanced recreational opportunities for residents and visitors of Utah. Increased parkland could foster environmental preservation, recreational activities, and possibly economic growth from tourism. However, ambiguous definitions and vague terms could lead to misapplications of the law, potentially affecting the public's trust and the integrity of land use.
Impact on Stakeholders
Positive Impacts: The State of Utah and its residents could benefit from increased state park areas, potentially boosting tourism and local economies. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service might see administrative benefits by transferring land responsibilities to the state.
Negative Impacts: Environmental groups might be concerned about the lack of clarity in "public purposes," particularly regarding livestock grazing, as it might not coincide with conservation goals. Additionally, disputes over reasonable survey costs could arise, burdening state resources and taxpayer money.
In conclusion, while the bill presents opportunities for Utah to enhance its state parks, the lack of clarity in certain provisions calls for careful consideration and possibly amendments to ensure that the land transfer process is transparent and aligned with the public interest.
Issues
The term 'minor modifications' in section 2(d) is vague and could allow for significant changes to maps without clear limits or oversight. This raises concerns about transparency and the potential for altering the boundaries of lands transferred without sufficient scrutiny.
The bill lacks clarity in section 2(e)(1) on what constitutes 'public purposes', leading to potential misinterpretation and disputes over the land's intended use. This vagueness could undermine the public interest and the intentions of the land conveyance.
The reversionary interest process in section 2(e)(2) is not elaborated with details on how it would be triggered, managed, or enforced. This omission could result in legal and administrative challenges, complicating the reversion of land to federal control if not used as intended.
The inclusion of 'permitted livestock grazing' as a public purpose in section 2(e)(1) could conflict with typical public uses of state park land, necessitating further justification or clarification to avoid potential public backlash or ethical concerns.
The bill's requirement that the State pay 'reasonable' survey costs in section 2(c)(4)(B) lacks a clear definition of 'reasonable', potentially leading to disputes over the cost which could lead to financial disagreements.
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 opening section of the bill specifies that it may be referred to as the “Utah State Parks Adjustment Act.”
2. Conveyance of certain Federal land to the State of Utah Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates the transfer of specific tracts of federal land to the State of Utah for inclusion in various state parks, including Antelope Island, Wasatch Mountain, and Fremont Indian State Parks, within 180 days of the Act's passage. The land conveyances are subject to existing rights and conditions, and the transferred land must be used for public purposes, with provisions for reversion to federal ownership if not used accordingly.