The bill authorizes the State of North Dakota (through its Board of University and School Lands and Department of Trust Lands) to relinquish specified State land‑grant parcels and to select unappropriated Federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management as in‑lieu replacements. The Secretary of the Interior must approve or reject selections within 180 days and, if approved, begin conveyance actions within 60 days; concurrent with the federal conveyance the State conveys the relinquished parcel to the United States.
The statute expressly allows portions of relinquished parcels located within reservation boundaries to be taken into trust for the benefit of the affected Indian Tribe on request.
The measure prescribes how value will be determined, including appraisal standards, a mechanism for equalizing value through payments or ledger accounts (with a cap on equalization and deadlines for ledger balancing), and special rules for low‑value parcels and mineral‑bearing lands. It also sets procedures for environmental and hazardous‑materials reviews, continuity of grazing permits, succession of existing rights, and consultation with Tribes prior to transfers—creating a predictable, statutory process for resolving lingering state grant and federal land ownership issues in North Dakota.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill lets North Dakota trade state land‑grant parcels for BLM‑administered unappropriated Federal lands of substantially equivalent value, subject to appraisal, environmental review, and federal approval. If a relinquished parcel lies inside a reservation and a tribe requests it, the Secretary must take that portion into trust and treat it as part of the reservation.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the North Dakota Board of University and School Lands and Department of Trust Lands, the Department of the Interior/BLM, and Indian Tribes with land in North Dakota; it also touches grazing permit holders, holders of mineral leases on conveyed parcels, and state trust beneficiaries (schools and universities).
Why It Matters
It creates a binding framework to finish long‑running state/federal land‑grant issues, enables on‑reservation land restoration to tribes via trust acquisition, and alters how trust revenue and federal landholdings are accounted for—potentially shifting revenue, management responsibility, and liability among state, federal, and tribal parties.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act spells out a three‑step swap process. First, the State may elect to relinquish a state land‑grant parcel that lies wholly or partially within a reservation; the State then selects one or more parcels of BLM‑administered unappropriated Federal land of substantially equivalent value.
The Secretary must approve or reject the selection within 180 days; approved selections trigger Secretary action to convey the selected federal land to the State within 60 days of approval, while the State concurrently conveys the relinquished parcel to the United States.
If the relinquished parcel contains land inside a reservation and the affected Indian Tribe requests it, the Secretary takes that portion into trust immediately on conveyance and treats it as part of the reservation. The statute requires consultation with affected Tribes before conveying any in‑reservation parcels, and it preserves all treaty and other tribal rights and any land already held in trust or allotted to individuals.The bill prescribes valuation mechanics: jointly selected independent appraisers will determine value under federal appraisal standards except that for low‑value parcels (market value under $500,000 and under $500/acre) the parties may use mass appraisals, summary appraisals, or statements of value under USPAP.
Where values differ, the party conveying lesser value must equalize by payment or by a ledger credit, but equalization may not exceed 25 percent of the federal parcel’s value. Ledger accounts are temporary credit mechanisms that must be balanced within 3 years and closed within 5 years.
The statute also reduces assessed value for federal mineral parcels to reflect likely federal revenue‑sharing obligations and allows either party to assume ordinary conveyance costs, with corresponding value adjustments.Operational requirements include environmental review where appropriate, mandatory hazardous materials inspections and certifications by both parties before conveyance, protection of existing leases/rights (including successor obligations), and continuity for grazing permits until their terms expire unless converted to a non‑grazing use. Finally, the Act contains exclusions that narrow which BLM lands are selectable (for example, lands inside certain townships, lands in conservation designations, military reservations, and critical environmental areas) and a savings clause preserving ongoing litigation over ownership.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary must approve or reject a State selection within 180 days of the State’s selection, and if approved must initiate conveyance actions within 60 days after approval.
If a relinquished State land grant parcel lies wholly or partially within a reservation and the Tribe requests it, the Secretary must take the in‑reservation portion into trust on the date of conveyance.
Appraisals are jointly selected and must follow Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, except low‑value parcels (< $500,000 and < $500/acre) may use mass or summary appraisals under USPAP.
If parcels differ in value, equalization by payment or a ledger entry is allowed, but equalization may not exceed 25% of the federal parcel’s total value.
Ledger accounts used to record value imbalances must be balanced within 3 years and closed within 5 years of the last conveyance under the Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope of selectable lands
This section defines key terms that limit who can act and what lands qualify. ‘State land grant parcel’ captures original statehood grants, sections 16 and 36, indemnity selections, and post‑statehood acquisitions; ‘unappropriated Federal land’ is narrowly defined as BLM public land but expressly excludes acquired lands, conservation designations, military reservations, certain townships called out by legal description, and other lands withdrawn from disposal. Practically, those exclusions narrow the pool of BLM parcels the State can select, which will be central to any match‑making effort and to negotiating trades that leave state trust revenue intact.
Relinquishment, selection, conveyance, and tribal trust placement
This section prescribes the operational swap: the State selects federal parcels after electing to relinquish a state parcel; the Secretary has 180 days to act and 60 days after approval to start conveyance. Important mechanics: conveyances are by patent or deed acceptable to both parties and are not treated as standard FLPMA disposals; the State must transfer clear title free of financial encumbrances. For parcels partly within reservations, the Secretary must accept tribal requests to take the in‑reservation portion into trust on conveyance—an immediate mechanism to return land to tribal trust status. The section also requires pre‑conveyance consultation with affected Tribes and preserves existing valid rights and leases by transferring succession to the receiving party.
Valuation, appraisals, and equalization rules
Valuation is the heart of making trades fair. The parties must use jointly selected independent appraisers and federal appraisal standards except for qualifying low‑value parcels, which may use cost‑efficient mass or summary appraisal methods. If parcel values differ, the lesser‑value conveyor may pay cash or record a ledger credit; the statute caps cash/ledger equalization at 25% of the federal parcel’s value. Ledger accounts are temporary accounting tools with strict timing: they must be reconciled within 3 years and closed within 5 years after the last conveyance. The provision also requires discounting federal mineral parcels to account for federal revenue‑sharing obligations under the Mineral Leasing Act, and it permits one party to assume usual conveyancing costs in exchange for a value adjustment.
Operational protections: law, hazards, grazing, and rights
This catchall section imposes operational safeguards. Conveyed land remains subject to applicable federal, state, and tribal law and does not alter treaty or trust statuses unrelated to the Act. Both parties must make hazardous‑materials records available and complete inspections and certifications before conveyance, allocating risk and notice. Existing grazing permits, leases, and contracts continue for their remaining terms under current conditions, though the administering party may cancel or modify if land is converted to non‑grazing use; base‑property status and compensation for range improvements are preserved. The practical effect is to reduce immediate disruption to users and to require the parties to sort out liabilities and operational continuity before transfer.
Savings clause preserving pending litigation
This short section preserves any litigation or disputes over ownership pending on enactment day—meaning the Act is not a vehicle to retroactively resolve contested title claims. Parties and counsel should treat the Act as prospective: it creates a pathway for future conveyances but does not extinguish or override active legal disputes about who owns particular parcels today.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Indigenous Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Indigenous Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Indian Tribes with in‑reservation land claims — they gain a statutory path to have in‑reservation portions of relinquished state parcels taken into trust immediately on conveyance, strengthening tribal land bases and jurisdictional clarity.
- North Dakota schoolchildren and other state trust beneficiaries — by enabling the Board of University and School Lands to consolidate, exchange, or convert scattered, less‑productive state land‑grant parcels into more productive or manageable holdings, the State can potentially improve long‑term trust revenue.
- BLM and federal land managers — the mechanism lets BLM reduce isolated inholdings and rationalize land administration by exchanging federal parcels for state parcels, subject to exclusions, which can simplify management and reduce administrative boundaries.
Who Bears the Cost
- State of North Dakota — the State relinquishes title to state land‑grant parcels and must convey parcels free of encumbrances, complete hazardous‑materials certifications, and may assume costs ordinarily borne by the federal government during conveyance.
- Federal government/Department of the Interior — DOI and BLM must conduct required appraisals, environmental reviews where appropriate, hazardous‑materials inspections, and the administrative conveyance work (including trust acquisitions), creating agency workload and potential expense.
- Grazing permittees and lessees — while existing grazing terms continue, permittees face potential future cancellation or modification if conveyed land is repurposed for non‑grazing uses; they also rely on the State or Secretary to honor base property status and compensation provisions.
- Mineral lease revenue recipients (State and federal revenue‑sharing) — transfers of mineral‑bearing parcels must be discounted to reflect federal revenue‑sharing obligations, which may reduce the apparent value and shift net receipts, creating winners and losers among revenue recipients.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma: the Act seeks to reconcile two legitimate objectives—restoring in‑reservation land to Indian Tribes and finalizing state trust land portfolios—without creating undue cost or liability for federal taxpayers and state trust beneficiaries. Achieving tribal land restoration often requires the State to forgo valuable trust assets or accept ledger credits, which can shrink immediate trust income; conversely, insisting on strict cash equalization can block transfers that would advance tribal restoration and federal land consolidation. There is no single mechanism in the bill that fully satisfies both goals, so implementation will require tradeoffs among equity, fiscal prudence, and administrative practicality.
The bill attempts to thread multiple policy needles but raises practical implementation questions. Valuation and equalization are designed to be flexible (payments or ledger credits), yet the 25% cap on equalization could block otherwise reasonable trades when parcel values are highly asymmetric—especially where a federal parcel contains high‑value minerals or long‑term leases.
Ledger accounts defer settlement but create accounting burdens and potential disputes over crediting, timing, and offsets across multiple transactions.
Hazard and environmental liability allocation is another potential flashpoint. The statute requires inspections and certifications, but it does not create new federal indemnities; parties must negotiate responsibility for latent contamination and cleanup costs, which could chill otherwise desirable trades.
The exclusions that remove conserved lands, military reservations, and specified township blocks from selection narrow the federal supply of selectable parcels and may prolong matching problems. Finally, although the Act preserves pending litigation, it does not establish a dispute resolution mechanism for valuation disagreements or unresolved title claims arising after conveyance, which could leave parties in costly, protracted litigation despite the new statutory swap route.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.