HR-1547-115
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 526.
What it does
This bill would direct the Department of the Interior to transfer the federal government's reversionary interest in approximately 172.8 acres of land in Tucson, Arizona to the city of Tucson at no cost. The land is already owned by the city, but the federal government holds a reversionary interest — a legal claim that could return ownership to the federal government under certain conditions. Removing that interest would give Tucson full, unencumbered title to the land, freeing it for economic development.
Who benefits
The city of Tucson, Arizona would gain clear, unrestricted title to approximately 172.8 acres of land, removing a legal encumbrance that limits how the city can use or develop the property. Local developers, businesses, and residents in the Tucson area could benefit if the land is subsequently developed for economic purposes, potentially generating local tax revenue and jobs.
Who is hurt
The federal government — and by extension, U.S. taxpayers — would give up a reversionary property interest at no charge, receiving no financial compensation. If the land has significant market or strategic value, this represents a transfer of a federal asset without monetary return. Neighboring property owners or community members who preferred the land remain undeveloped or in its current use could also be negatively affected by subsequent economic development.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the federal reversionary interest is a legal technicality that serves no practical federal purpose and unfairly restricts Tucson's ability to manage land it already owns and maintains. They contend that clearing the title is a straightforward administrative action that respects local control, allows the city to pursue economic development that benefits Tucson residents, and costs the federal government nothing of real value since the land is already in city hands. They would also note that completing a previously agreed-upon land exchange honors the original intent of the arrangement and removes bureaucratic obstacles to local governance.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that transferring a federal property interest without compensation sets a problematic precedent of giving away public assets — which belong to all Americans — for free, depriving the federal treasury of potential revenue. They contend that the reversionary interest exists for a reason: to ensure the land is used in a manner consistent with the original terms of the federal conveyance, and that removing it eliminates an accountability mechanism. They would further argue that "economic development" is a broad and undefined purpose, and that Congress should require either fair market compensation or explicit use restrictions before permanently relinquishing a federal property right.
Constitutional context
Federal land disposal is governed by the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), which grants Congress broad authority to dispose of property belonging to the United States. The Tenth Amendment is tangentially relevant, as the bill touches on the balance between federal property rights and local land-use authority. Because this bill involves a straightforward statutory directive to a federal agency rather than a broad regulatory scheme, it does not implicate the major questions doctrine from West Virginia v. EPA (2022) or the post-Chevron framework from Loper Bright (2024). No active constitutional tension is present.
Checks and balances
Congress, exercising its authority under the Property Clause, would direct the executive branch (Department of the Interior) to carry out a specific, narrow property transfer. This represents Congress using its constitutional power over federal property to instruct an agency, with no significant shift in the balance of power between branches. The executive branch retains administrative responsibility for executing the transfer.
Historical precedent
Congress regularly passes targeted federal land transfer and exchange bills affecting specific localities. Examples include numerous Public Land Corps and Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act transactions, as well as hundreds of individual land conveyance bills passed in recent decades directing Interior to transfer specific parcels to states, counties, or municipalities.