S-3004-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 487.
Sponsored by Mike Lee (R-UT)
What it does
This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer approximately 124.23 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land near Price, Utah, to the city of Price at the city's request. The land would be used for specific public purposes, including construction of a reservoir and related infrastructure, as well as public safety, transportation, and access infrastructure. A reversion clause would return the land to federal ownership if the city uses it for any purpose not authorized by the bill, with procedural protections — including notice, a hearing opportunity, public comment, and a chance to correct the violation — before any reversion takes effect.
Who benefits
Residents of Price, Utah (population approximately 8,000–9,000) who would gain improved water storage and supply infrastructure. Local government officials who would gain control over land for municipal planning. Construction and engineering firms contracted for reservoir and infrastructure work. Downstream water users in Carbon County who may benefit from improved water management. Utah state government, which gains a local partner managing water resources in the region.
Who is hurt
The general public, which currently holds an ownership interest in BLM land, would permanently lose access to 124.23 acres of federal land. Recreational users — hikers, off-road vehicle users, hunters — who currently have access to BLM land in the area may lose that access once the land transfers to municipal ownership. Environmental groups concerned about watershed development and habitat disruption near the Price River. Taxpayers who originally funded federal land management of this parcel. Future generations who would have no recourse if the land is developed beyond the authorized uses, absent a reversion determination.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Price, Utah faces real water supply and infrastructure challenges in an arid region, and that transferring this specific parcel of BLM land — which is already adjacent to the city — is the most practical way to enable a locally managed reservoir. They contend the bill includes meaningful safeguards: the land must be used for defined public purposes, and a reversion clause with due process protections ensures federal accountability if the city misuses the land. Local control over water infrastructure, they argue, is more responsive and efficient than federal management of a small parcel with limited broader public use.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that permanently transferring federal public land to a municipality sets a precedent for piecemeal disposal of BLM holdings, undermining the Federal Land Policy and Management Act's (FLPMA) principle of retaining public lands for broad public benefit. They contend the bill explicitly bypasses FLPMA's standard land disposal process — Sections 202 and 203 — which requires land use planning and competitive processes, and that waiving these protections for a single city creates an inequitable carve-out. Critics may also note that the reversion clause, while procedurally protective of the city, gives the Secretary broad discretion to determine what constitutes an unauthorized use, creating long-term legal uncertainty for municipal planning.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to dispose of federal property under the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2), which grants Congress power to make rules for and dispose of territory or property belonging to the United States. No active constitutional tension exists here — this is a straightforward exercise of Congress's well-established property disposition authority, and no recent Supreme Court decisions have unsettled this doctrine.
Checks and balances
Congress directs the land transfer, reducing executive branch discretion over this specific parcel; the Secretary of the Interior retains limited authority through the reversion clause, subject to procedural requirements including notice, hearing, public comment, and a cure opportunity before reclaiming the land.
Historical precedent
Congress regularly enacts site-specific land transfer bills conveying BLM or Forest Service parcels to local governments for public purposes; for example, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (1998) and numerous individual land conveyance bills have transferred federal land to municipalities for water, recreation, and infrastructure uses.