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) to Gila County, Arizona. The transfer must be requested by the county within 180 days of the law starting. The county would get the land by quitclaim deed, must pay the conveyance costs, and must use the land only to serve and support veterans.
- Main change: The federal government would convey all right, title, and interest in the identified parcel to Gila County, subject to existing rights and other protective terms the Secretary of Agriculture sets.
- Area and map: The parcel is described as about 232.9 acres shown on a map dated September 23, 2021; a survey will fix the exact acreage and legal description.
- Timing: The county must ask for the conveyance within 180 days after the law takes effect.
- Cost and deed: The conveyance would be made without payment to the United States and by quitclaim deed (which transfers whatever interest the U.S. has, with no warranty).
- County responsibilities: Gila County must pay for the survey, any required environmental or resource studies, and any work needed to follow the National Historic Preservation Act.
- Environmental warranty and use limit: The Secretary is not required to give any covenant or warranty about environmental contamination. The county must use the land only for serving and supporting veterans. If the county uses the land for other purposes, the land can revert to the United States at the Secretary’s discretion.
What it means for you#
- Gila County: If the county files the required request in time and completes required surveys and studies, it would receive ownership of the site and could develop it for veterans’ services. The county must pay conveyance-related costs.
- Veterans in the area: The site is required to be used only for programs or facilities that serve and support veterans. This could create local veterans’ services or facilities if the county proceeds.
- Forest Service / Federal government: The Forest Service would lose ownership of the parcel and would transfer it by quitclaim deed, subject to existing rights. The Secretary can set other terms to protect U.S. interests.
- Local taxpayers: The county (and therefore local taxpayers) would bear the costs of surveys, environmental reviews, and compliance with historic-preservation reviews. There is no payment from the county to the federal government for the land under the bill.
- Nearby residents and land users: Existing legal rights (such as rights-of-way) remain subject to the conveyance. The county’s intended veterans use could change local services or access depending on what the county builds.
Expenses#
No publicly available information on a federal cost estimate is included in the bill text or summary.
- Costs the county must pay: survey costs (if needed), any environmental analyses or resource surveys required by federal law, and any analysis required to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act.
- No purchase price: The bill says the land is conveyed “without consideration,” so the county would not pay the U.S. for the land itself.
- Potential federal costs not specified: The bill does not provide a fiscal note showing any federal administrative costs (for preparing the conveyance, reviewing studies, or managing a reversion if needed).
- Unclear costs: The bill does not say who would pay for cleanup if contamination is found later, or how expensive the required studies might be.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to allow local government use of an underused federal property so it can serve veterans.
- Supporters may argue that transferring the site to the county could speed local development of veterans’ services by giving local officials control of the property.
- Conveying the land without a purchase price could lower a financial barrier to creating veterans’ facilities.
- Requiring the county to pay for surveys and studies places the immediate administrative and study costs on the local government rather than the federal government.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the Secretary will not have to provide any environmental covenant or warranty, which could leave the county responsible for unknown contamination or cleanup costs.
- The quitclaim deed gives no guarantee of clear title, which could create legal or financial risk for the county.
- The bill does not include a federal cost estimate, so it is unclear whether there will be federal administrative costs (for example, for processing the conveyance or handling a future reversion).
- The reversion to the United States is discretionary and the bill does not detail how the U.S. would enforce the use restriction or manage a reversion, creating uncertainty about long-term outcomes.
- The exact parcel is not finalized until a survey, and the map is dated 2021; this could raise questions about whether the described boundaries are current or complete.