S-5101-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Michael Bennet (D-CO)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from processing or approving any application to expand the Mid-Continent Limestone Quarry on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land near Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The prohibition would apply to applications filed under the general mining laws, the Materials Act of 1947, and the Surface Resources Act of 1955. It covers a specific set of land parcels in Garfield County, Colorado, defined by legal survey coordinates.
Who benefits
Residents of Glenwood Springs and surrounding Garfield County communities who may be concerned about noise, dust, truck traffic, and visual impacts from quarry expansion. Visitors and businesses that depend on the Glenwood Hot Springs resort and tourism economy, which could be affected by nearby industrial activity. Environmental and conservation groups seeking to protect the local landscape and water resources. Property owners near the quarry whose land values or quality of life could be affected by expansion. State and local governments that rely on tourism tax revenue in the area.
Who is hurt
The current operator(s) of the Mid-Continent Limestone Quarry, who would lose the ability to expand operations on BLM land. Limestone buyers — including construction, agriculture, and industrial sectors — who source material from this quarry and could face reduced supply or higher prices if expansion is blocked. Workers employed at the quarry or in related industries who might otherwise benefit from expanded operations and associated jobs. The federal government, which collects royalties and fees from mineral operations on BLM land and would forgo revenue from any blocked expansion. Garfield County, which may receive a share of federal mineral revenues.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Mid-Continent Limestone Quarry sits in close proximity to the Glenwood Hot Springs — one of Colorado's most visited tourist destinations — and that expansion poses a direct threat to the area's water resources, scenic character, and the geothermal systems that feed the springs. They contend that the local tourism economy, which generates far more sustained economic activity than quarry expansion would, deserves protection, and that Congress has both the authority and the responsibility to place limits on BLM mineral operations when local communities and natural resources are at stake.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill singles out one specific quarry operation by name and location, effectively overriding the existing federal permitting process — which already includes environmental review under NEPA — without allowing that process to evaluate the actual impacts of any proposed expansion. They contend that blocking expansion through legislation rather than regulatory review sets a troubling precedent of congressional interference in site-specific land management decisions, and that it denies the quarry operator a fair administrative process while potentially harming workers, limestone supply chains, and federal and county mineral revenues.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority over federal public lands under the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2), which gives it plenary power to manage and dispose of territory belonging to the United States. This bill exercises that authority directly by restricting what the Secretary of the Interior may do on BLM-managed land, which is well within Congress's established power over federal property. No active constitutional tension is implicated.
Checks and balances
Congress gains direct authority over a specific BLM land-use decision, bypassing the executive branch's normal administrative permitting process; the Secretary of the Interior loses discretion to approve expansion applications on the described parcels, with no administrative override available short of new legislation.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used site-specific legislation to withdraw federal lands from mineral entry, such as the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980 and various land withdrawal bills that prohibit mining or extraction on defined BLM or Forest Service parcels.