This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to relinquish a federal reversionary interest in a small parcel of Chickasaw State Forest in Chester County, Tennessee, and to transfer any United States mineral interest in that parcel to the State. The change is framed as a localized fix to an encroachment issue involving a nearby church and is limited to the parcel identified on a Forest Service map.
Professionals should care because the measure waives conventional federal procedures (appraisals, environmental review, and regulatory requirements) and conveys mineral rights by quitclaim without warranty. That combination clears title quickly but raises questions about valuation, future resource development, and precedent for bypassing standard conveyance processes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to release the United States’ reversionary interest in a specified State forest parcel and to convey any federal mineral interest in that parcel to the State. Both actions must be done without monetary consideration, without appraisal or environmental review, and the mineral conveyance must be by quitclaim deed and without warranty.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the State of Tennessee (as transferee of surface and subsurface interests), the U.S. Forest Service (as the agency implementing the release and conveyance), and local stakeholders tied to Chickasaw State Forest including the encroaching property owner. Mineral developers and any third parties with future interest in subsurface extraction may also be affected by the transfer of mineral title.
Why It Matters
The bill removes several statutory and regulatory safeguards that normally govern federal land and mineral conveyances, accelerating a localized title correction but doing so at the cost of valuation and environmental vetting. For land managers, attorneys, and resource companies, it signals a narrow but notable instance where Congress overrides routine administration to resolve a specific encumbrance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Congress would direct the Department of Agriculture to clear a federal cloud on title and hand subsurface rights to Tennessee for a particular parcel in Chickasaw State Forest. The parcel is identified on a Forest Service map; the statute defines the parcel, names the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Tennessee, and explains the government’s intent: resolve an encroachment and remove the United States’ contingent interest.
The section sets up simple definitions so the rest of the provision can refer to the parcel, the State, and the Secretary.
On the procedural side, the bill removes the usual prerequisites for federal disposals: it directs the Secretary to release the reversionary interest and to convey the federal mineral interest without payment, appraisal, or environmental or mineral‑character studies. The mineral conveyance is to be a quitclaim deed with no warranty, meaning the United States disclaims guarantees about title or the substance of the rights being transferred.
The only financial obligation placed on Tennessee is to reimburse the United States for any administrative costs the Department incurs carrying out the transaction.Practically, the measure clears U.S. contingent title that would otherwise revert if the land stops being used for public purposes and hands the State control of the subsurface rights. That reduces a technical barrier that has produced a local encroachment dispute, but it also eliminates checks that normally determine fair market value and environmental impacts before federal assets change hands.
The combination of no‑warranty conveyance and waived review concentrates risk with the State and with any future private parties that rely on the newly conveyed mineral title.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The parcel at issue is approximately 0.62 acres in Chickasaw State Forest as identified on a Forest Service map dated December 13, 2019.
The United States’ reversionary interest to be released was created by a deed dated August 12, 1955, recorded on pages 588–591 of book 48 in the Chester County deed records.
The bill directs the Secretary to release the federal reversionary interest and to convey the federal mineral interest to Tennessee without consideration and without any required appraisal or environmental review.
The mineral conveyance must be by quitclaim deed, without warranty, and without prior exploratory, valuation, or development findings regarding the minerals in the parcel.
As a condition of both the release and the conveyance, Tennessee must reimburse the United States for administrative costs the Department of Agriculture incurs in carrying out the transactions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Why Congress says this needs fixing
This short findings section identifies the immediate reason for congressional action: a recent State survey shows a small encroachment (by a church) onto State forest land, and the parcel remains subject to a federal reversionary interest created in 1955. The practical effect is to justify a narrow, transaction‑specific statute rather than a broader policy change; it frames the measure as a fix to a particular title problem rather than a new land‑use policy.
Defines the actors and the mapped parcel
The bill limits its reach by defining ‘‘Secretary’’ as the Secretary of Agriculture, ‘‘State’’ as Tennessee, and ‘‘State forest land’’ as the parcel shown on a specific December 13, 2019 Forest Service map. That tight definitional approach means the statute applies only to the identified parcel and to the named federal actor, reducing ambiguity about what land and which agency are covered, but it also locks the remedy to the exact map and description used.
Relinquishes U.S. reversionary rights without standard procedures
This provision requires the Secretary to release the United States’ reversionary interest in the parcel ‘‘without consideration’’ and explicitly waives requirements that would normally trigger appraisal, title‑valuation, or environmental review (including references to the Bankhead‑Jones Farm Tenant Act). It preserves a single conditional obligation: the State must reimburse the United States for administrative costs incurred in effecting the release. For the Forest Service, this is an instruction to execute a ministerial release rather than to pursue the full statutory disposal process.
Transfers subsurface interests by quitclaim, no warranty, and no study
The bill requires the Secretary to convey any federal mineral interest in the same parcel to the State by quitclaim deed and without warranty and without consideration. It also waives normal regulatory and statutory prerequisites (including FLPMA section 209 and associated BLM regulations) that would require appraisal, exploratory programs, or findings about mineral value. Again, the only financial condition is reimbursement to the United States for administrative costs. That structure moves mineral title quickly but gives the State the burden of title risk and any downstream issues tied to mineral development or remediation.
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
- State of Tennessee — Gains clear surface and subsurface title to the specified parcel, removing a federal encumbrance that interfered with local land management and the encroachment dispute.
- Local landowner (Bethel Baptist Church) and neighboring community — The statute is designed to permit an on‑the‑ground resolution of an encroachment issue that otherwise might persist while title questions remain unresolved.
- Chester County/State forest managers — Eliminates a reversionary cloud that complicates planning, boundary maintenance, and recreational or conservation management for that parcel.
Who Bears the Cost
- State of Tennessee — Accepts mineral title by quitclaim without warranty and must pay administrative costs; the State also assumes the risk of latent defects, unclear subsurface boundaries, or future liabilities tied to the minerals.
- U.S. Forest Service/Department of Agriculture — Congress directs the agency to forgo standard valuation and review, and the United States relinquishes a contingent property interest (and any potential future value) in exchange for only administrative‑cost reimbursement.
- Potential future mineral developers or local taxpayers — By removing appraisal and exploratory findings, the bill increases title uncertainty and development risk; if environmental problems or unexpected liabilities emerge, cleanup or litigation costs could fall to state or local actors rather than the federal government.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between a narrow, speedy fix to a local title problem and the broader public interest in ensuring valuation, environmental protection, and clear warranty when federal property or mineral rights are transferred: resolving an encroachment efficiently shifts risk and potential value away from the federal government and localizes it to Tennessee and future private actors, but it also removes the checks that determine whether the public is being fairly compensated or protected.
The bill resolves a narrow title dispute by stripping away safeguards that normally protect public value and environmental quality. Waiving appraisals and environmental review speeds the transaction but eliminates information about mineral value, contamination risk, and how the federal interest contributes to public objectives.
Those missing data make it difficult to know whether the United States is relinquishing an asset of material value or simply clearing an administrative nuisance.
Conveying mineral rights by quitclaim and without warranty transfers title risk to Tennessee and any successors; the United States explicitly disclaims guarantees about what rights or liabilities pass. That raises practical questions about what ‘‘mineral interest’’ includes (depth limits, adjacent rights, carved‑out easements) and how future disputes over the extent of rights will be resolved.
The statute also creates a narrow legislative bypass of FLPMA and standard disposal regulations, which could invite requests for similarly tailored fixes elsewhere or prompt litigation testing whether Congress may displace administrative processes in this manner without fuller recordkeeping or findings.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.