This bill transfers administrative jurisdiction over roughly 25 acres in Harpers Ferry from the Secretary of the Interior to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection so the parcel can be administered as part of CBP’s Advanced Training Center, and simultaneously transfers three parcels totaling about 71.51 acres from CBP to the Secretary to be administered as part of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. Transfers are made without monetary reimbursement and the 25-acre parcel is explicitly excluded from the park boundary.
The bill requires CBP to obtain and fund a final survey of the 25-acre parcel, allows clerical corrections to the referenced map, mandates that CBP provide the survey to the Secretary, and contains a reversion mechanism: if CBP later determines it no longer needs the land, jurisdiction must be returned to the Secretary for inclusion in the park. The bill also exempts the re-inclusion from a statutory acreage limitation under the 1944 Act, raising practical and administrative questions about boundary management, historic-preservation responsibilities, and who pays for long-term stewardship.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill swaps administrative jurisdiction: about 25 acres moves from Interior/NPS to CBP for an Advanced Training Center; roughly 71.51 acres move from CBP to Interior to become part of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. It requires CBP to fund a land survey, share results with the Secretary, and allows clerical fixes to the referenced map.
Who It Affects
The transfers directly affect the National Park Service (Secretary of the Interior), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Commissioner), and local stakeholders in Harpers Ferry such as municipal authorities and preservation interests. Federal program managers responsible for land management, boundary maintenance, and appropriations operations will also be affected.
Why It Matters
The bill reallocates federal land use between a law-enforcement training mission and a national historical park without monetary exchange and waives a statutory acreage cap on park re-inclusion. That combination changes how agencies carry out stewardship, budgeting, and boundary authority while setting a procedural template for future administrative transfers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill operates as a targeted, statutory reallocation of administrative responsibility for specific federal parcels in and around Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. It starts by moving a parcel of roughly 25 acres (as shown on a May 2021 map) out of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park and into CBP’s administrative control so CBP can operate that piece as part of its Advanced Training Center.
The parcel is explicitly excluded from the park boundary once transferred.
In exchange, the bill transfers three parcels totaling about 71.51 acres from CBP to the Secretary to be administered as part of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. Both transfers are expressly made without monetary reimbursement or other consideration — the agencies simply exchange administrative jurisdiction, not title for cash.The bill requires CBP to obtain a formal survey to finalize the exact acreage and legal description of the 25-acre parcel, to fund that survey from CBP appropriations, and to provide the resulting survey to the Secretary.
It also authorizes CBP, in consultation with the Secretary, to correct clerical or typographical errors on the referenced map so the recorded descriptions align with on-the-ground conditions.Finally, the statute builds in a reversion pathway: if CBP later determines it no longer needs the transferred parcel for training, CBP must return administrative jurisdiction to the Secretary in terms acceptable to the Secretary and the land will be included again in Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. The bill removes the acreage limitation in section 1(d) of the Act of June 30, 1944, so that including the reverted land back into the park will not be constrained by that statutory cap.
The net effect is a permanent administrative change for the larger parcels transferred to the park and a conditional arrangement for the parcel given to CBP.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill transfers approximately 25 acres (per a May 2021 map numbered 385/176,677) from the Secretary of the Interior to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and excludes that acreage from Harpers Ferry National Historical Park.
It transfers three CBP-administered parcels totaling about 71.51 acres to the Secretary to be administered as part of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park.
Both transfers are made without monetary reimbursement or additional consideration.
CBP must obtain and pay for a perimeter/legal survey of the 25-acre parcel, may correct clerical or typographical map errors with the Secretary, and must provide the final survey to the Secretary.
If CBP later decides the 25-acre parcel is no longer needed for its training center, CBP must transfer administrative jurisdiction back to the Secretary, and the bill waives the acreage limitation in section 1(d) of the Act of June 30, 1944 for that re-inclusion.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Transfer of ~25 acres to CBP and exclusion from park
This subsection moves administrative jurisdiction over the parcel depicted on the May 2021 map from the Secretary to the CBP Commissioner and directs CBP to administer it as part of its Advanced Training Center. Practically, this removes the parcel from NPS management and park protection regimes and places operational control, permitting, and routine maintenance responsibility with CBP while the land remains federal property.
Transfer of ~71.51 acres to the Secretary for Harpers Ferry NHP
This clause transfers three parcels totaling approximately 71.51 acres from CBP to the Secretary to be administered by the National Park Service as part of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. The language integrates these parcels into the park’s administrative responsibilities, triggering NPS management obligations (visitor access, preservation, interpretive planning) for those tracts subject to applicable federal law.
No monetary reimbursement for transfers
The statute expressly bars monetary reimbursement or additional consideration for either transfer. That means neither agency pays the other for the land; the change is purely administrative. Financially, this shifts costs associated with management and stewardship to the receiving agency without compensatory funding in the transfer text itself.
Survey requirement, clerical corrections, and funding
CBP must obtain a survey to finalize the precise acreage and legal description of the 25-acre parcel, fund that survey from CBP appropriations, and provide the survey to the Secretary when complete. The bill also allows CBP, in consultation with the Secretary, to correct clerical or typographical errors on the referenced map—an administrative shortcut to reconcile mapping errors without new legislative text—but it ties the ultimate legal description to the post-survey record.
Reversion clause and waiver of acreage cap
If CBP later determines it no longer needs the transferred parcel for its Advanced Training Center, the Commissioner must return administrative jurisdiction to the Secretary in terms acceptable to the Secretary and the land will be reincorporated into the park. The bill additionally specifies that the acreage limitation in the 1944 statute (section 1(d) of the Act of June 30, 1944) will not apply to that re-inclusion—removing a potential legal barrier to restoring the parcel to park boundaries.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection — gains administrative control of a parcel for its Advanced Training Center, enabling expanded or consolidated training operations on federally controlled land without acquiring title.
- National Park Service (Secretary of the Interior) and Harpers Ferry NHP — receive about 71.51 acres to manage and interpret as part of the park, expanding the park’s footprint and potential visitor resources.
- Local tourism and heritage economies in Harpers Ferry — stand to benefit from additional park land that could be developed for visitor use, programming, or preservation that supports tourism.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection — must fund and carry out the required land survey from its appropriations and assumes operational responsibilities and maintenance costs for the transferred 25-acre parcel while it remains under CBP control.
- National Park Service — accepts three parcels (71.51 acres) with associated management, preservation, and potential rehabilitation costs but receives no funding through this bill to cover those expenses.
- Federal budget holders and CBP appropriations managers — face competing demands as the survey cost and any incremental operational expenses are absorbed within CBP’s existing appropriations rather than via a dedicated appropriation in this legislation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between operational flexibility for a federal law-enforcement agency (CBP) that needs land for training and the preservation, public-access, and stewardship obligations of the National Park Service: the bill enables immediate operational use by CBP while transferring other acreage to the park, but it shifts fiscal and management responsibilities without allocating funds and leaves procedural and review obligations underspecified.
The bill is narrowly drafted and mechanically effective at reallocating administrative jurisdiction, but it leaves several implementation questions open. It does not address environmental review processes, consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers, or public notice requirements tied to boundary changes and construction for a training center, so agencies will need to determine whether NEPA, NHPA, or other procedural reviews are triggered and how those reviews align with the statutory transfers.
The allowance for clerical and typographical corrections to the map is practical, but without clear standards it could be used to make material adjustments under the rubric of 'clerical' changes.
Financially and administratively, the statute shifts costs without accompanying funding: CBP funds the survey and assumes immediate operational responsibility for the 25-acre parcel while NPS inherits roughly 71.51 acres with no appropriation specified. The reversion mechanism reduces the permanence of CBP’s control but creates uncertainty for long-term stewardship planning since NPS may need to prepare for future re-inclusion yet cannot rely on a guaranteed timeline or funding.
Finally, the waiver of the 1944 Act acreage limitation smooths a legal re-entry for reverted land but sets a precedent allowing statutory caps to be sidestepped in specific exchanges, which may invite similar requests in other jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.