HR-10669-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
What it does
The bill would require express authorization from Congress for any federal land withdrawal of more than 5,000 acres in aggregate carried out by a federal agency. Exceptions apply to temporary public land orders of 5 years or less that are not extended, and to withdrawals the President determines are necessary for national security. It would also amend the Antiquities Act to limit new national monuments to objects of antiquity (such as relics, artifacts, human remains, fossils, and certain older buildings), cap new monuments at 640 acres if within 50 miles of another monument, bar monuments that enclose private property without owner written consent, and bar reserving water rights through a designation. Emergency designations of any size would be allowed to prevent imminent and irreparable harm, but would end after one year and could be used only once per area, and other limits apply.
Who benefits
Ranchers, miners, energy developers, timber operators, and local governments in Western states that may see less land closed to development under the general land laws. Private inholders whose property sits inside proposed monument boundaries and who would gain a consent right. States that would keep control of water rights under state law. Members of Congress who would gain a formal role in large land decisions.
Who is hurt
Conservation groups, tribes, and outdoor recreation businesses that rely on large protected areas and may find new designations harder to obtain. Researchers and communities seeking protection for landscapes, ecosystems, or natural features, which the bill's definition of eligible objects would exclude. Future presidents and agencies such as the Interior Department, which would lose flexibility to act quickly. Existing monument protections for new additions or expansions could also be affected, since expansions count as designations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Constitution's Property Clause gives Congress, not the executive branch, authority over federal lands, and that presidents have used the Antiquities Act to set aside millions of acres despite the law's original wording of "the smallest area compatible" with protecting the objects. They contend the bill restores the original focus on objects of antiquity, gives affected landowners, states, and local communities a voice through Congress, and protects private property and state water rights. They also point to the bill's emergency and national security exceptions as safeguards for urgent cases.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the Antiquities Act has been used by presidents of both parties since 1906 to protect places such as the Grand Canyon, and that courts have upheld large designations, so the bill would remove a flexible conservation tool. They contend that a 640-acre cap, an exclusion of landscapes and ecosystems, and a requirement for congressional approval of withdrawals over 5,000 acres would make timely protection of threatened lands unlikely in a gridlocked Congress. They also argue the narrow emergency exception, limited to one year and one use, would leave sensitive areas exposed.
Constitutional context
The Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2) gives Congress power over federal land, and United States v. Midwest Oil Co. (1915) upheld long-standing executive withdrawals made with congressional acquiescence; Cappaert v. United States (1976) and Cameron v. United States (1920) address monument authority and reserved water rights. Congress may narrow or condition delegations it previously made, while the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 already limits executive withdrawals. Whether the bill's national security exception, which turns on a presidential determination, interacts with executive power is a possible question.
Checks and balances
The bill would shift power from the President and federal land agencies to Congress by requiring express authorization for large withdrawals and narrowing monument authority, while keeping a presidential national security exception and a limited emergency exception.
Historical precedent
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 required congressional notice and allowed a congressional veto for large executive withdrawals, and the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act limited future Alaska withdrawals above 5,000 acres without congressional approval.