Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1214

Selling Off Small Plots of National Forest Land

Argument in favor

These are small, remote, and inaccessible parts of National Forests — they won’t be missed, and the funds could be used to maintain the more recreation-friendly land.

···
08/07/2016
The government already owns 75% of the land west of the mississippi let some of it be sold the the public for private
Like (11)
Follow
Share
···
08/07/2016
The federal government shouldn't own as much last as it does.
Like (9)
Follow
Share
BTSundra's Opinion
···
03/03/2016
Completely unused public places should always be able to become private land.
Like (9)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Not requiring a Congressional vote on these transfers could lead to an unwitting transfer of more valuable land that would be better off in federal hands.

Belfordcricker1487's Opinion
···
08/07/2016
National Forests are SANCTUARIES! By no means should they ever be sold or used for anything. These should stay intact for all time.
Like (47)
Follow
Share
DmanDMS's Opinion
···
08/07/2016
America's National Forrest Lands should Never be sold off nor touched! They belong to the People of America!!!!!!...
Like (21)
Follow
Share
AutumnStarlight's Opinion
···
08/07/2016
We need to quit destroying our ecosystem as if we simply have another home world to live on. There is no Planet B.
Like (13)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
  • The house Passed September 16th, 2015
    Roll Call Vote 403 Yea / 0 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Agriculture
      Conservation and Forestry
      National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
      Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedMarch 3rd, 2015

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

What is House Bill H.R. 1214?

This bill would allow for the sale of small, isolated parcels of National Forest lands, including special use land, like cemeteries.

Isolated, inaccessible, and difficult to access parcels under 40 acres would be eligible for purchase at a price determined by the managing agency — but no more than $500,000. These parcels would be transferred over to new owners with long-term special use permits with accompanying potential liability issues covering cemeteries, landfills, and sewage treatment facilities.

This bill would eliminate the need for individual legislative proposals to address these types of land transfers. It would also resolve encroachments of permanent structures that can’t be settled under current laws.

Proceeds from the sale of National Forest lands would be deposited into a Sisk Act account, and those funds could then be used for acquisition of lands for administrative sites or recreation, or to maintain administrative sites, improve recreational access, or cover administrative costs from the sale.

Impact

People who want to buy small parcels of National Forest land, and the National Forest System.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 1214

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sales of National Forest land under this act would be deposited into a Sisk Act account — generally used to purchase similar land in the same state — as the initial transaction.

If this bill were to become law, Congress would no longer have to adopt legislation in order to transfer ownership of things like cemeteries. An example of the bureaucratic delays caused by this, can be seen with Rep. Kristi Noem's (R-SD) Black Hills Cemetery Act introduced in January 2013. Passed the House on a 390-2 vote and in the Senate unanimously, the bill didn’t become law until July 2014.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user Andrew V Kearns)

AKA

National Forest Small Tracts Act Amendments Act of 2015

Official Title

To amend the Small Tracts Act to expand the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange small parcels of National Forest System land to enhance the management of the National Forest System, to resolve minor encroachments, and for other purposes.

    The government already owns 75% of the land west of the mississippi let some of it be sold the the public for private
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    National Forests are SANCTUARIES! By no means should they ever be sold or used for anything. These should stay intact for all time.
    Like (47)
    Follow
    Share
    America's National Forrest Lands should Never be sold off nor touched! They belong to the People of America!!!!!!...
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to quit destroying our ecosystem as if we simply have another home world to live on. There is no Planet B.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Our public lands need to be protected and preserved for future generations. Developers aren't interested in keeping our lands and environment safe; they're interested in making money.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    This reeks of oil/natural gas lobby. It sets a dangerous precedence for selling off land that is considered less "valuable" by some arbitrary standard to the highest special interest bidder. They are protected lands, they are public lands, and they should remain such.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Completely unused public places should always be able to become private land.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    The federal government shouldn't own as much last as it does.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely not. These lands are better off controlled by the government for preservation than sold to private citizens who are just a stones through away from the local hardware stores and "No Trespassing" signs. Sorry the fact of the matter is if it's owned by the Feds we have the ability to control what happens with it. As well as recreate in it. If it's bought up it will get logged or shut off from use. Sorry, no!
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Sounds like a plan, but these small plots could be problematic and should be sanctioned by congress. Today we cannot trust the fed gov. The Feds via Executive Order takes state lands and the when they no longer us it, decides to sell it. Maybe they should give it back to the state they stole it from rather than selling it to Warren Buffet for resale lining his liberal pockets like buying a railroad knowing Obama wouldn't allow Keystone. Cronyism!
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Just no
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    The government owns too much land as it is. It almost owns Nevada as it is.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Return the land to the states. Quit letting foreigners buy our land!
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Hell no. They've exploited enough.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    This would be the beginning of an end.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    This property belongs to the American people. The people should always get a say in when property is going to be sold.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Well let's see. Are those forests in a state? 10th Amendment! Is the federal government a better steward of natural resources than the state in which those resources reside? Is the federal government a better steward of a forest than a private citizen with a vested interest in the long term health of that forest, his investment? So, yeah. The STATES should be able to sell land without asking permission of the fed. In addition the fed owes those states an apology and restitution for industry that was thwarted as a result of the Feds illegal ownership of that land.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely Not. This is not the time period of the 1700s In the western regions of the United States where you had the ability to mark a flag and claim your land without any authority. In other words conducting iconic landmarks to be absurdly divided into the hands of multiple share holders devalues the aspects of what the United States constitution had evidently implied. National Historic landmarks are under the behalf of federal ownership due to its conditional matters and its environmental conditions. Think if the Grand Canyon were to be on the market for property possession in individual sections the purchases would boom and multiple urban like structures will be revisited there devaluing the aspect of NATIONAL LANDMARKS TO ABSURB NATURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT. My point being is increasing the amount of federal lands that are urgent to be at a safe status shall be left to that particular designation as implement. Selling off properties to market buyers and entrepreneurs looking to promote residential properties and urbanization would hinder the factor for environmental preservation and damage the habitats/ecosystems of our crucial wild life community as well. Thank you for your time.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    There's no reason why the federal government needs to own so much land.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolute NOT! Is this even real?!
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE