S-363-115
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 129.
Sponsored by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
What it does
This bill would amend the National Trails System Act to change the official authorized route of the North Country National Scenic Trail in two ways: it would extend the trail's eastern terminus to connect with the Appalachian Trail in Vermont, and it would modify the trail's path in northeastern Minnesota. No new funding or land acquisition authority is explicitly created by the bill.
Who benefits
Hikers, backpackers, and outdoor recreation enthusiasts who use or plan to use the North Country Trail would gain a longer, more connected route. Residents and businesses in Vermont communities near the new trail extension — such as outfitters, lodging providers, and restaurants — could see increased visitor traffic. Trail advocacy organizations, particularly the North Country Trail Association, would see a long-sought connectivity goal achieved. Northeastern Minnesota communities along the modified route may benefit if the new alignment is more accessible or scenic.
Who is hurt
Landowners in Vermont and northeastern Minnesota whose property lies along the newly authorized route could face pressure for easements or right-of-way negotiations, and in some cases potential land use restrictions. Hikers who prefer the existing trail alignment in northeastern Minnesota may lose access to sections of the current route. Local governments along the current route that have invested in trail infrastructure or tourism tied to the existing alignment could see reduced foot traffic if the route shifts away from their areas.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that connecting the North Country Trail to the Appalachian Trail in Vermont would complete a long-planned vision for a continuous, coast-to-coast hiking corridor across the northern United States, dramatically increasing the trail's recreational and tourism value. They contend that the route adjustment in northeastern Minnesota would improve the trail's quality, safety, or accessibility for users. Proponents also note that the bill makes a targeted, modest statutory change with minimal federal cost, and that connecting national scenic trails strengthens the broader National Trails System, which Congress established to promote outdoor recreation and the conservation of scenic landscapes for all Americans.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that changing the authorized route — particularly the Vermont extension — could trigger lengthy and costly federal land acquisition processes, burdening landowners along the new corridor with unwanted easement negotiations or restrictions on their property. They contend that the route modification in northeastern Minnesota may disrupt communities, businesses, and infrastructure investments that were built around the existing alignment, effectively stranding prior public and private spending. Critics may also argue that such route changes should follow a more thorough public planning and environmental review process before being codified in statute, rather than bypassing that process through direct legislative action.
Constitutional context
The bill rests on Congress's authority under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3) to manage federal lands and the Commerce Clause, which underpins the National Trails System Act. Because the bill makes a direct statutory route change rather than delegating rulemaking authority to an agency, it has limited exposure to post-Loper Bright (2024) or West Virginia v. EPA (2022) major questions challenges. However, if federal land acquisition or easements are pursued along the new route, Takings Clause considerations (Fifth Amendment) would arise for affected private landowners, consistent with the expanded takings framework signaled in Sackett v. EPA (2023).
Checks and balances
Congress directly exercises its legislative authority here by amending a statute to specify a trail route, rather than delegating that decision to the National Park Service or another executive agency. This limits executive branch discretion over the route and places the policy choice squarely with the legislative branch. Any subsequent land acquisition or easement activity would remain with the executive branch (National Park Service / Department of the Interior), subject to existing statutory and appropriations constraints.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously amended the National Trails System Act multiple times to adjust authorized routes of national scenic trails, including prior adjustments to the North Country National Scenic Trail itself and route modifications to trails such as the Pacific Crest Trail and the Potomac Heritage Trail.