HR-1829-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 493.
Sponsored by Elijah Crane (R-AZ)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer ownership of approximately 13.17 acres of National Forest System land in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests to two Arizona counties — about 5 acres to Navajo County (for the Pinedale Cemetery and its expansion) and about 8.17 acres to Apache County (for the Alpine Cemetery and its expansion). Both transfers would be made at no cost to the counties, by quitclaim deed, and the land must be used as cemeteries. If either county uses the land for any other purpose, ownership would revert to the federal government at the Secretary's discretion.
Who benefits
Residents of Navajo County and Apache County, Arizona, who need cemetery space for themselves or their families. Local governments in both counties, which would gain clear title to land they currently use or plan to use as cemeteries without paying for it. Families of people already buried at the existing Pinedale and Alpine cemeteries, who would have greater certainty about the long-term status of those burial sites. Local funeral service providers who operate in these communities.
Who is hurt
The federal government and, by extension, the general public would give up ownership of approximately 13.17 acres of National Forest System land at no charge. Taxpayers broadly bear the indirect cost of the no-consideration transfer. Recreational users or wildlife that may use those specific parcels could lose access if cemetery development changes the land's character. Environmental or conservation groups that prefer federal retention of all National Forest land may object to any reduction in the federal forest estate, even at this small scale.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the affected parcels are already functioning as community cemeteries — land that serves a clear public need but is technically still held by the federal government, creating legal uncertainty for the counties and the families of those buried there. They contend that transferring title at no cost is appropriate because the land has no commercial value to the Forest Service, the counties will bear all survey and transaction costs, and the reversion clause protects against misuse. Similar small-acreage conveyances for community infrastructure have a long bipartisan history in federal land management.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that transferring National Forest land at no cost — even a small amount — sets a precedent for giving away public land without fair market compensation, potentially opening the door to larger no-consideration transfers in the future. They contend that the waiver of CERCLA section 120(h) environmental review requirements means the federal government is releasing any liability for contamination without a full accounting, and that the discretionary (rather than mandatory) reversion clause weakens the use restriction, leaving open the possibility that the land could eventually be repurposed without automatic federal recapture.