HR-8686-119
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Sponsored by Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
What it does
This bill would amend the Military Land Withdrawals Act of 2013 to withdraw approximately 22,032 acres of federal public land near Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona from mining, mineral leasing, and other public land disposal laws, reserving it for Army use. It sets management rules allowing certain non-military uses (wildlife conservation, recreation, cultural preservation) subject to Army consent, creates a separate process for utility rights-of-way through a designated corridor, and makes the withdrawal indefinite until the Army determines it is no longer needed.
Who benefits
The U.S. Army and Department of Defense, which gain expanded, legally secured land for testing and training activities at Yuma Proving Ground. Utility companies seeking to build regional transmission infrastructure through the Parker-Blaisdell corridor would benefit from a streamlined approval process that does not require Army consent. Local communities and businesses tied to the military installation's continued operation and expansion may see indirect economic benefits.
Who is hurt
Mining and mineral or geothermal leasing interests would lose access to the withdrawn acreage, including the approximately 800 acres of subsurface estate owned by Arizona that remains excluded but surrounded by federal restrictions. Recreational users, hunters, and off-road vehicle users could face new restrictions since nondefense uses are subject to Army-approved conditions. The State of Arizona and local governments lose some land-use authority over the area, and any private parties with valid existing rights in the withdrawal area may face new regulatory constraints on those rights.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the withdrawal is necessary to secure long-term, uninterrupted use of land the Army has relied on for testing and training since 1952, preventing mining claims or land disposals that could conflict with military operations. They contend the bill preserves multiple non-military uses like wildlife conservation and recreation where compatible, and that the separate utility-corridor provision protects the ability to build critical regional-grid infrastructure without imposing military veto power over energy projects.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that indefinite land withdrawals lock up public resources for decades with no legislative review point, ceding effective control over multi-use public land management decisions to the Secretary of the Army rather than elected representatives. They contend that subjecting nondefense uses like recreation and hunting to Army-approved conditions and giving the Army consent authority over most rights-of-way could limit public access and state economic development, particularly around mineral and geothermal resources that would otherwise be available for leasing.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to withdraw and manage federal public land derives from the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2), which gives Congress broad power to dispose of and make rules for federal territory and property; courts have consistently upheld such withdrawals, including for military purposes, as within this power. This bill does not raise a Commerce Clause or takings issue since it involves federally owned land and excludes Arizona's subsurface estate from the withdrawal.
Checks and balances
Congress authorizes the withdrawal by statute, but delegates ongoing management and the decision of when the land is no longer militarily needed to the Secretary of the Army and Secretary of the Interior, with no built-in congressional review point given the indefinite duration.
Historical precedent
The Military Land Withdrawals Act of 2013 itself withdrew land for several military installations nationwide, and this bill follows that same legislative pattern by adding a new subtitle for Yuma Proving Ground.