HR-558-115
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 86.
Sponsored by Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)
What it does
This bill would expand the boundary of Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park in Georgia by approximately eight acres to include two parcels known as Wallis House and Harriston Hill. The Department of the Interior would be authorized to acquire the land through donation, purchase from willing sellers, or land exchange. Once acquired, the land would be managed as part of the existing national park.
Who benefits
Visitors to Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, who would gain access to historically significant sites. History enthusiasts and Civil War researchers who would benefit from expanded preservation of battlefield terrain. Local and national tourism interests near Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia. Future generations who would have access to preserved historical land. Conservation and historic preservation organizations with an interest in protecting Civil War-era sites.
Who is hurt
Current private landowners or property holders at the Wallis House and Harriston Hill parcels, who may face pressure to sell or donate even though the bill limits acquisition to willing sellers. Local property taxpayers in the surrounding area, as federally owned land is removed from local tax rolls. Nearby private landowners or developers who may have had interest in acquiring or developing the eight-acre parcels. Local governments that would lose any potential property tax revenue from the acquired land.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Wallis House and Harriston Hill are historically significant features of the 1864 Atlanta Campaign battlefield that are currently at risk of being lost to development or deterioration outside federal protection. Bringing these parcels into the park boundary would ensure their permanent preservation for public education and historical interpretation. Because the bill restricts acquisition to willing sellers, donations, or exchanges, it does not force any landowner to give up their property. The cost to taxpayers would be minimal given the small acreage involved, and the addition would meaningfully complete the historical landscape of an existing park that already draws hundreds of thousands of visitors annually.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expanding federal land ownership, even by eight acres, continues a pattern of the federal government accumulating private land and removing it from local tax bases and productive private use. They contend that the National Park Service already manages a large portfolio of properties and that adding parcels incrementally strains an agency that faces a well-documented maintenance backlog. Critics may also question whether the historical significance of these specific parcels justifies federal acquisition when private preservation organizations or state and local governments could protect the sites without federal ownership. Each small boundary expansion, they argue, sets a precedent for further expansions that cumulatively reduce private land availability in the region.
Constitutional context
Federal authority to acquire and manage national park land rests primarily on the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), which grants Congress broad power over federal property. The Commerce Clause provides supplemental authority for federal land management with tourism and interstate economic dimensions. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is relevant but limited here, as the bill explicitly restricts acquisition to willing sellers, donations, and exchanges — avoiding involuntary taking. The Tenth Amendment is a background consideration regarding federal land ownership within state borders, though courts have consistently upheld federal land acquisition authority. No major recent cases such as Sackett v. EPA (2023) or West Virginia v. EPA (2022) directly apply, as this bill does not involve agency regulatory authority but rather a straightforward statutory boundary adjustment.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by setting the new statutory boundary and authorizing acquisition methods. The Executive Branch, through the Department of the Interior, gains operational authority to negotiate and administer the acquired land. No significant shift in the balance of power between branches occurs; this follows the standard model for national park boundary legislation where Congress defines scope and the Executive implements it.
Historical precedent
Congress has passed numerous national park boundary adjustment acts throughout the 20th and 21st centuries using identical acquisition mechanisms (willing seller, donation, exchange), including adjustments to Gettysburg National Military Park and other Civil War battlefield sites.