This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to release a federal reversionary interest that currently requires certain Black River State Forest parcels in Millston, Wisconsin, to remain in public use in perpetuity, but only if Wisconsin conveys those forest parcels to Deli, Inc. in a written, reciprocal land‑exchange agreement and the State conveys separate Deli land into the State forest. The release must be delivered as a quitclaim deed conveying any U.S. interest without consideration and provided for recording before the exchange deeds are recorded.
Why it matters: the measure clears a title restriction that blocks a localized land swap between the State and a private sphagnum moss producer, shifting which parcels are managed as state forest and which become privately held. The change affects land management, local economic activity, and establishes a narrowly tailored statutory mechanism for removing a Bankhead‑Jones Act reversionary constraint — a procedural move with possible precedent value for other targeted exchanges.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill conditions the release of a Bankhead‑Jones Act reversionary interest on a written State offer to exchange specified State forest land to Deli, Inc. for two parcels identified as the Deli land. If that offer is made, the Secretary must execute a quitclaim deed conveying any U.S. interest without consideration and provide it for recording before the State and Deli exchange deeds are recorded. The Secretary may correct legal descriptions in consultation with the State.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include Deli, Inc. (a sphagnum moss producer seeking to acquire State forest parcels), the State of Wisconsin (and its agencies that approve and record land transactions), the Department of Agriculture (which holds the reversionary interest and must issue the release), local land‑title examiners and the Jackson County Register of Deeds. Recreational users and conservation stakeholders that use or manage Black River State Forest will see boundary and ownership changes.
Why It Matters
The statute removes a specific perpetual public‑use encumbrance on roughly 31–32 acres, enabling a private developer to acquire land that had been constrained by federal reversionary language. That narrow statutory fix both resolves a title obstacle for a single exchange and signals how Congress can untie Bankhead‑Jones restrictions without a broader policy or valuation framework.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill focuses on a discrete land title problem created by section 32(c) of the Bankhead‑Jones Farm Tenant Act, which subjects certain State forest parcels in Millston, Wisconsin, to a federal reversionary interest requiring perpetual public use. It defines the parties and parcels precisely: Deli, Inc. as the private sphagnum moss operation; the Deli land as two parcels totaling about 37.27 acres (one larger parcel with several mapped exclusions and one smaller lot); and the State forest land as two parcels totaling about 31.83 acres as shown on a June 26, 2023 map.
The statutory release applies only to those described parcels.
The release is expressly conditional. The Secretary must release the federal reversionary interest only if the State makes a written offer to convey the State forest land to Deli, Inc. in exchange for the Deli land being added to the State forest.
The bill does not itself order the State to make that offer, nor does it authorize the Secretary to compel the exchange; it simply removes the federal encumbrance once the State commits to the swap in writing.When conditions are met, the Secretary must provide a recordable quitclaim deed that conveys any U.S. interest in the State forest land "without consideration" and deliver that instrument before the exchange deeds are recorded. The text allows the Secretary, working with the State, to correct legal descriptions in the quitclaim deed to ensure accurate boundaries.
The bill does not appropriate funds, require valuation or compensation, and does not create a new federal easement or oversight mechanism after the release.Practically, the measure is a surgical statutory cure: it clears a federal title cloud so the pre‑agreed exchange can be completed at the county level. It leaves the exchange mechanics, state approvals, and local recording procedures to the parties and does not prescribe environmental review, post‑exchange management obligations, or remedies if the exchange does not close as contemplated.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill targets two sets of parcels: the Deli land (about 37.27 acres across two parcels) and the State forest land (about 31.83 acres across two parcels) as depicted on a June 26, 2023 map.
Release is purely conditional — the Secretary releases the federal reversionary interest only after the State offers in a written agreement to convey the State forest land to Deli, Inc. in exchange for the Deli land.
The Secretary must deliver a recordable quitclaim deed conveying any United States interest in the State forest land "without consideration" and must provide that deed to the State for recording before the exchange deeds are recorded.
The Deli land conveyance to the State is subject to Wisconsin approvals noted in the definitions (including the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Board, and the Governor) and includes mapped exclusions and recorded encumbrances.
The Secretary may make necessary corrections to the legal description of the State forest land in consultation with the State to finalize the quitclaim deed.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Identifies parties, parcels, and authoritative map
This subsection pins down the actors (Deli, Inc.; the State) and the exact parcels by acreage and legal description, and references a June 26, 2023 map. For implementation, these definitions limit the release to a narrowly described set of parcels and import any preexisting recorded easements or exclusions noted in the parcel descriptions. Practically, the definitions serve as the statutory boundary of the relief — if a parcel's legal description differs from the map or recorder's office data, the statutory release won't apply until corrected under the bill's corrections clause.
Records why Congress is acting
Congress states that the listed State forest land is subject to a Bankhead‑Jones Act reversionary interest and that the State and Deli, Inc. have agreed to a reciprocal conveyance. These findings do not create legal obligations but document the factual predicate for the limited statutory release, which can aid county recorders and future title examiners in understanding congressional intent when the quitclaim deed is recorded.
Triggers for releasing the federal reversionary interest
This provision is the operative grant: it conditions the release on a written State offer to convey the specified State forest land to Deli, Inc. in exchange for the Deli land. The conditionality preserves the bilateral swap structure — Congress removes the federal encumbrance only if the State commits to the exchange in writing, not merely if negotiations exist or a closing occurs later. That timing detail shapes how title work and closing documents must be sequenced at the county level.
Form and timing of the federal deed
The Secretary must provide a quitclaim deed conveying any U.S. interest "without consideration" and must supply it to the State for recording before the exchange deeds are recorded. This sequencing is designed to eliminate the federal cloud on title prior to completing the swap, but it shifts the risk of perfecting the exchange onto the parties because the statutory release requires no federal compensation and does not condition the deed on post‑exchange enforcement measures.
Fixing legal descriptions
The Secretary may correct the legal description of the State forest land in consultation with the State to finalize the quitclaim deed. That authority reduces the chance that a drafting error or minor boundary discrepancy will derail the release, but it also creates a process question about how substantial a change the Secretary may permit without reopening substantive approvals or requiring new State action.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture 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
- Deli, Inc.: Gains the ability to acquire and consolidate two State forest parcels it seeks for its sphagnum moss operation, removing a federal perpetual‑use encumbrance that otherwise blocks private acquisition.
- State of Wisconsin and Wisconsin DNR: Can obtain Deli land for addition to Black River State Forest, potentially consolidating holdings and replacing forest acreage with parcels that better fit state management plans.
- Local economy and Jackson County: Benefits from clarified title and the potential for business expansion by Deli, Inc., which may preserve or create local jobs tied to sphagnum moss production.
- Title insurers and county recorders: Receive a clear, congressionally backed quitclaim that simplifies title reporting and county recording for the affected parcels, reducing litigation risk over the federal reversionary clause.
- USDA (administrative benefit): Resolves a discrete encumbrance without protracted litigation or administrative adjudication, clearing an isolated title issue.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal government (USDA): Relinquishes a statutory reversionary control over land required to remain in public use, transferring long‑term public interest in those acres without financial consideration.
- Conservation stakeholders and public‑use constituencies: May lose access or public management of specific State forest acres if the swap results in private ownership and changed land uses.
- State and Deli, Inc. (transactional costs): Must secure approvals, prepare exchange deeds, and coordinate recording; the State bears the political and management risk of changing forest boundaries and accepting other parcels.
- Potential adjacent landowners and easement holders (railroad, public water users): Face boundary shifts and new ownership that could affect access, easement administration, and maintenance obligations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between preserving a statutory guarantee that certain parcels remain in public use forever and facilitating a negotiated, localized land swap that advances a private business and reshapes state forest boundaries; the bill privileges expedient title clearance for a particular exchange at the cost of surrendering a longstanding federal constraint designed to secure perpetual public benefit.
The bill solves a narrow title problem but leaves significant implementation questions unresolved. It authorizes a quitclaim "without consideration" rather than requiring compensation or valuation, which simplifies the federal decision but raises equity and precedent issues: other parties with Bankhead‑Jones encumbrances may seek similar congressional fixes without establishing a valuation standard.
The statute delegates to the Secretary only the mechanical act of issuing a corrected quitclaim deed; it does not require or authorize an environmental or public‑interest finding, and it does not specify remedies if the State offer is withdrawn after the quitclaim is recorded.
Timing and sequencing create risk. The quitclaim must be provided for recording before exchange deeds are recorded, but the bill does not require simultaneous closings, escrow procedures, or escrow protections should one side fail to perform.
That gap can leave the State, Deli, or third parties exposed to title gaps or claims. The corrections clause allows legal‑description tweaks "in consultation" with the State, but it does not set boundaries on how substantive corrections may be, which could invite disputes over whether a corrected description diverges from the parcels Congress intended to release.
Finally, the measure sidesteps broader policy questions about whether removing perpetual public‑use restrictions via targeted statute is consistent with Bankhead‑Jones objectives, and it creates a narrow precedent for using stand‑alone statutory releases rather than a standardized administrative process.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.