Congress Must Sign Off on Big Land Withdrawals

Summary#

The LANDs Act, formally the Legislative Approval for National Designations Act, would create new rules for federal land withdrawals and amend an existing federal law on national monuments. Its stated goal is to require Congress to approve federal land withdrawals of more than 5,000 acres. The bill is not law; it has been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

  • A federal agency could carry out a covered withdrawal of more than 5,000 acres in total only with express congressional approval, unless a narrow exception applies.
  • The exception is for a temporary public land order that lasts no more than five years, has not been extended beyond that period, and is necessary for national security as determined by the President.
  • The bill would limit certain national monuments to 640 acres if they are less than 50 miles from another national monument. The wording makes both conditions apply.
  • It would narrow the objects that can support a monument designation to specified “objects of antiquity,” including relics, artifacts, human remains, fossils other than fossil fuels, and certain older buildings.
  • An emergency monument designation could cover any acreage to prevent imminent and irreparable harm to such objects, but would end after one year, could be used only once for the land, and could not become a permanent designation under this provision.
  • Monument boundaries could not include non-federally owned property without the owners’ express written consent. The bill also bars reserving water rights through a designation and limits any acquisition of those rights to state law.

What it means for you#

  • Federal agencies and Congress: Agencies would need express congressional approval for covered withdrawals over 5,000 acres, unless the national-security exception applies. The bill does not set out a request or approval process.
  • People using federal lands: The bill could limit some future withdrawals or monument designations, but it does not spell out how particular existing uses or land users would be affected. Emergency designations must preserve valid existing rights and uses allowed under the applicable plan on the day before designation.
  • Owners of non-federal property: Their express written consent would be required before a monument boundary could include their property. The bill does not require payment or create a process for seeking consent.
  • Taxpayers: The bill does not create a tax, fee, benefit, or fine. It says a monument designation cannot be treated as increasing the amount of federal funds authorized for any fiscal year.
  • Current law: The bill amends the existing monument provision in title 54 of the U.S. Code. The supplied materials do not include the full current provision, so a complete comparison with current law cannot be verified.

Money#

No cost estimate is available in the supplied materials.

  • The bill makes no appropriation and gives no estimate of administrative or other costs.
  • It does not set fees or fines. It says monument designations do not increase the amount of federal funds authorized for a fiscal year.

What is unclear#

  • The bill defines a covered withdrawal as more than 5,000 acres “in aggregate,” but does not explain how separate withdrawals would be counted together.
  • It does not set out how an agency would seek congressional approval, how quickly Congress would have to act, or what happens while approval is pending.
  • The monument-size rule says it does not apply as provided by subsections (g) and (h), but those subsections concern private property and federal funding. The emergency-designation rule is in subsection (f), which is not named there. The text does not explain this mismatch.
  • The bill uses “certain buildings” without saying which buildings qualify.
  • The effects of the withdrawal-approval rule on monument designations are not explained.
  • The materials do not include a fiscal estimate or the full existing monument law.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that Congress, rather than a federal agency acting alone, should approve withdrawals affecting more than 5,000 acres.
  • Limiting monument designations to specified objects and, in some cases, 640 acres could be seen as setting clearer boundaries on presidential designation power.
  • Requiring owners’ written consent could protect non-federal property from being included within a monument boundary without their agreement.
  • The one-year emergency limit could allow temporary protection of specific objects while preventing an emergency designation from becoming permanent under this provision.

Case against#

  • One concern is that the bill could make large withdrawals harder to carry out by requiring express congressional approval, without providing a timeline or approval process.
  • The narrow definition of “objects of antiquity” excludes natural geographic features, landscapes, ecosystems, and values. That could rule out some reasons for designating a monument.
  • The 640-acre limit applies only when a proposed monument is also less than 50 miles from another monument. The bill does not explain why those two conditions determine the limit.
  • It is unclear how agencies should apply the emergency exception, especially given the mismatch in the size rule’s cross-reference to other subsections.
  • The bill provides no estimate of the staff or administrative resources needed to apply its rules.