Price River Lands Conveyance

Full Title:
Upper Price River Watershed Project Act of 2026

Summary#

This bill would have the Interior Department (through the Bureau of Land Management) transfer about 124.23 acres of federal land near Price, Utah to the city of Price. The land must be used by the city for public purposes, as the city defines them. The transfer is made despite two provisions of existing federal land law and is subject to any valid existing rights (for example, existing leases or easements).

  • Main change: Convey about 124.23 acres of BLM land to the city of Price, Utah, for city-defined public purposes.
  • Overrides: The bill says the conveyance happens notwithstanding two named sections of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
  • Map: The land is shown on a BLM map titled “Land Conveyance near Price, Utah” (dated May 8, 2025); the map must be kept on file and the Secretary may fix minor errors.
  • Limits: The conveyance is subject to valid existing rights (legal interests that already exist on the land).
  • Timing/short title: The printed short title inside the bill says “Upper Price River Watershed Project Act of 2025,” while the user-provided title names 2026; the bill text itself uses 2025.

What it means for you#

  • City of Price: The city would receive fee title to the specified federal parcels and could use them for public purposes it defines. This gives the city control over management and uses of that land.
  • Local residents (watershed area): The city could develop, protect, or manage the land for local projects (for example, watershed work or city facilities), depending on the city’s plans. The bill does not list specific projects.
  • Users of current federal land (recreation, grazing, etc.): Any current uses that are covered by “valid existing rights” would continue, but other public uses of that specific federal land could change if the city alters access or management after the transfer.
  • Bureau of Land Management / Interior Department: BLM must process and carry out the conveyance, maintain the map on file, and may correct minor map errors.
  • Owners of existing rights (leaseholders, easement holders): Their rights remain subject to the conveyance (the transfer is “subject to valid existing rights”).

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text does not include a cost estimate or a fiscal note.
  • This could still require administrative work by the Department of the Interior and BLM to complete the transfer (surveys, legal work, record changes).
  • The city would take on costs for managing, developing, or maintaining the land once conveyed.
  • It is unclear whether any payment, appraisal, or compensation is required from the city; the bill text does not say.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to let the city of Price take direct control of specific federal land near the city for local, public projects (for example, watershed protection or community uses).
  • Supporters may see local ownership as allowing faster or more focused action for local needs than federal management.
  • By directing the conveyance and overriding certain provisions of federal land law, the bill could speed up the transfer process.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill removes some protections or review steps in current federal land law by saying the conveyance occurs notwithstanding those provisions.
  • The bill does not say whether the city pays for the land, so it is unclear if the public receives fair compensation or whether federal revenue is lost.
  • The bill does not define “public purposes” beyond saying the city defines them. This raises questions about future uses and accountability.
  • It is unclear whether environmental reviews, public notice, or other procedural steps will be completed before transfer.
  • The exact parcel boundaries depend on the referenced map; while the Secretary may correct minor errors, the bill gives little detail about surveys, reversion clauses, or long-term conditions on the land.