Transfer of forest land to county

Full Title:
To require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the Pleasant Valley Ranger District Administrative Site to Gila County, Arizona.

Summary#

This bill would transfer about 232.9 acres of National Forest land in the Tonto National Forest (the Pleasant Valley Ranger District Administrative Site) from the federal government to Gila County, Arizona. The transfer happens if Gila County asks for it within 180 days of the law starting. The land must be used only to serve and support veterans, and it would be conveyed for no money by quitclaim deed (no guarantee of title).

  • Main change: Requires the Secretary of Agriculture (Forest Service) to convey the described parcel to Gila County on request.
  • The conveyance is free to the county, subject to valid existing rights and other protective terms the Secretary sets.
  • The county must pay costs for survey, environmental reviews, and any historic-preservation reviews needed.
  • The Secretary is not required to give any covenant or warranty about the land’s condition (the transfer is “as is”).
  • If the county uses the land for something other than serving veterans, the land can revert to the United States at the Secretary’s discretion.

What it means for you#

  • Gila County: The county can obtain the property if it files a written request within 180 days. It would gain control of the land to use for veteran services, but must pay conveyance-related costs and accept the property without federal guarantees.
  • Veterans in Gila County: The county would be required to use the site only for serving and supporting veterans. This could create new local facilities or services, depending on county plans.
  • U.S. Forest Service / federal government: The Forest Service would transfer title to this parcel, reducing federal land holdings for this site and no longer managing it as National Forest System land.
  • Local public / visitors: Public access, uses, or services formerly provided on that parcel could change depending on the county’s plans. The bill does not describe how public access would be handled.
  • Existing rights holders (e.g., easements): Conveyance is subject to valid existing rights. Those rights would remain in place after transfer.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on a federal cost estimate or fiscal note was included with the bill.

  • The county must pay for: a survey to determine the exact acreage if needed; any environmental analyses or resource surveys required by federal law; and any analyses needed to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act.
  • The conveyance is made without consideration, which could mean lost federal receipts that otherwise might come from a sale or lease. The bill does not quantify that amount.
  • The Forest Service will likely have administrative costs to process and complete the conveyance, but no estimate is provided.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to transfer underused Forest Service property to local government for a public purpose (supporting veterans).
  • Supporters may argue that local control makes it easier to create or expand services for veterans.
  • Conveying the site without federal management could reduce the Forest Service’s responsibilities for maintaining or managing that specific administrative site.
  • The requirement that the county pay conveyance-related costs shifts financial burden for the transfer away from the federal government.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the land is conveyed for no money, which could mean lost federal revenue or loss of public land without financial return.
  • The transfer is by quitclaim deed and the Secretary is not required to give covenants or warranties, so the county accepts the land “as is.” This raises questions about unknown environmental contamination or title issues and who bears future cleanup or legal risks.
  • The bill does not define what specific activities count as “serving and supporting veterans,” so enforcement and allowed uses could be unclear.
  • The reversion provision gives the Secretary discretion to take the land back if the county uses it inconsistently, but the bill does not specify how that would be enforced or how long the Secretary has to act.
  • Important details are left unclear: exact timeline for completing the conveyance after request, what “other terms” the Secretary might impose, and possible effects on public access or existing uses.