This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest Service, to convey a specific Forest Service parcel (about 0.81 acres at 1069 Fourche Avenue, Perryville, Arkansas) to Perry County if the county requests the transfer within 180 days of enactment. The transfer is a quitclaim deed, made without payment, subject to valid existing rights and a reversion clause, and the county must cover all conveyance-related costs, including surveys and any required environmental or historic‑preservation analyses.
Why it matters: the bill is a tightly tailored land-transfer that removes federal covenants (including a CERCLA warranty) and explicitly pushes compliance costs and potential cleanup risk onto the county while restricting the parcel’s future use to public purposes. For local governments, historic‑preservation officers, and land managers, the statute is a simple conveyance mechanism with important cost, liability, and use‑restriction implications.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to convey all U.S. interests in a named 0.81‑acre Forest Service parcel to Perry County if the county requests conveyance within 180 days. The conveyance is by quitclaim deed, without consideration, subject to valid existing rights and a discretionary reversion and other Secretary‑imposed terms.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are Perry County and its local public programs (education and youth development), the Forest Service (property management), and any contractors or nonprofits that would occupy the parcel. State historic‑preservation offices and parties performing environmental reviews will also be involved.
Why It Matters
The measure shifts survey, NEPA/other environmental review, and NHPA compliance costs to the county and removes a federal CERCLA covenant—altering who bears environmental and transactional risk in small parcel transfers and setting a compact model other counties may try to replicate.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is a single-purpose conveyance statute: if Perry County submits a written request within 180 days of enactment, the Secretary must transfer title to a named Forest Service parcel in Perryville to the County. The parcel is identified by county urban records (parcel 850–10555–001) and described as roughly 0.81 acres at 1069 Fourche Avenue; the bill requires a survey acceptable to the Secretary to determine the exact acreage and legal description before closing.
The statute sets out how the transfer happens. The United States conveys via quitclaim deed and does not charge the County for the land; the conveyance is subject to any existing rights (for example, easements) and may include other terms the Secretary finds appropriate to protect federal interests.
The county must pay all transaction costs, including any required survey, environmental analyses under federal law (for example NEPA if triggered), and the studies needed to satisfy the National Historic Preservation Act review process.Crucially for liability allocation, the bill disclaims any requirement that the Secretary provide a CERCLA covenant or warranty for the parcel, meaning the federal government will not provide the cleanup assurances that sometimes accompany federal land transfers. The conveyed land must be used for public purposes (the bill cites education and youth development as examples), and if the County stops using the property consistently with that restriction, the Secretary may require the property to revert to the United States.
The statute also defines ‘‘County’’ and ‘‘Secretary’’ for clarity and leaves the Secretary discretion to add other protective terms.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The County must submit a written request within 180 days of enactment to trigger the required conveyance.
The parcel is identified as approximately 0.81 acres at 1069 Fourche Avenue (parcel 850–10555–001); the exact legal description is set by a Secretary‑approved survey.
The transfer is by quitclaim deed and the United States conveys the property without consideration, subject to valid existing rights and a discretionary reversion provision.
Perry County must pay all conveyance costs, explicitly including surveys, any environmental analyses required by federal law, and studies to satisfy the National Historic Preservation Act.
The Secretary is not required to provide a CERCLA covenant or warranty for the property, and the statute restricts the parcel’s use to public purposes with reversion if that restriction is violated.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Conditional mandatory conveyance on county request
This subsection creates the statutory trigger: a mandatory conveyance obligation for the Secretary, but only if Perry County files a written request within 180 days. Practically, that puts the onus on the county to initiate the process quickly; failure to meet the deadline would leave the United States free to retain the parcel. The provision converts what might otherwise be an administrative disposal into a legislated requirement once the county acts.
Parcel identification and survey requirement
The bill points to the county’s urban property records for a rough identification and fixes the need for a survey to establish the final acreage and legal description. That survey is a gating item for closing: it determines boundaries, resolves overlap with adjacent properties or easements, and provides the legal basis for the quitclaim deed. Because the survey must be satisfactory to the Secretary, the Forest Service retains some technical control over what actually transfers.
Conveyance form, limitations, and Secretary discretion
The statute requires a quitclaim deed, explicit transfer without payment, and makes the conveyance subject to valid existing rights and reversion. The Secretary can add other terms deemed necessary to protect U.S. interests. In practice, those elements preserve federal protections against losing preexisting easements or rights and give the agency room to impose restrictions (for example, conservation easements or access reservations) to manage downstream risks.
County pays all transaction and compliance costs
This subsection shifts all measurable transaction costs to Perry County: survey, environmental reviews (if any are required), and NHPA compliance. That allocation speeds federal administrative closure but places the financial and administrative burden on the recipient, which can influence whether a county accepts a transfer—particularly where environmental or historic‑resource work is likely or costly.
No CERCLA covenant or warranty from the United States
By referencing CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A), the bill removes the Secretary’s obligation to provide the common federal covenant or warranty against hazardous substances. That leaves liability and remediation risk—absent another agreement—outside federal assurance, increasing the buyer’s exposure and affecting due diligence requirements before acceptance.
Use restriction to public purposes
The conveyed property must be used for public purposes, with education and youth development given as examples. This limits the County’s ability to transfer or repurpose the site for private development and creates a compliance hook for reversion. The restriction is programmatic: it preserves public benefit but constrains flexibility for economic or mixed uses.
Reversion authority and definitions
If the county ceases to use the property consistent with the public‑use restriction, the Secretary may require reversion to the United States. The bill also provides short definitions for ‘‘County’’ and ‘‘Secretary’’ to avoid ambiguity. Reversion is discretionary, giving the Secretary enforcement leverage but not an automatic clawback mechanism; the lack of a mandatory reversion pathway gives the agency choice in remedying noncompliance.
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
- Perry County, Arkansas — Gains control of a small urban parcel the county can use for education or youth programs without paying for the land itself, enabling local service expansion if the county accepts the transfer and covers transaction costs.
- Local education and youth organizations — Stand to benefit from an available site dedicated to public uses, which can lower facility costs and create community program space.
- Forest Service — Reduces a minor property management burden and administrative cost for an underused urban parcel by transferring title and associated management responsibilities off the federal balance sheet.
Who Bears the Cost
- Perry County — Must fund surveys, environmental analyses, and NHPA compliance and assumes transactional and potential remediation risk because the United States disclaims a CERCLA covenant.
- Local taxpayers or non‑profit operators — If the county accepts the parcel for public programs, local budgets or partner organizations will absorb the costs of preparing and operating the site under public‑use constraints.
- Potential future occupants or developers — Face use restrictions and possible reversion risk, making long‑term capital investment riskier and complicating financing or partnership structures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is enabling quick, low‑cost transfers of small federal parcels for local public benefit versus protecting federal interests and shifting environmental and financial risk to local governments: the bill accelerates disposals but does so by sacrificing federal covenants and imposing upfront compliance costs on the recipient.
Two implementation frictions stand out. First, shifting all survey, NEPA/NHPA, and related compliance costs to the county makes the transfer administratively simple for the Forest Service but potentially costly for the recipient; that allocation may deter counties from accepting parcels that carry uncertain environmental or historic resources obligations.
Second, disallowing a CERCLA covenant is consequential: quitclaim transfers without federal cleanup assurances frequently leave purchasers exposed to contamination liabilities or require them to secure indemnities, which complicates financing and local planning. Those two design choices trade federal convenience for local risk.
The bill also creates enforcement and certainty questions. The Secretary’s discretion on reversion and the authority to add ‘‘other terms’’ mean outcomes can vary depending on agency practice; the 180‑day request window compresses timeline for local decision‑making and due diligence.
Finally, while the statute is narrowly tailored, it may serve as a model for other small, urban parcel transfers—if other counties try to replicate the arrangement, agencies will face repeated decisions about when to accept cost‑shifting and liability transfer versus retaining federal control.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.