This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest Service, to convey the Pleasant Valley Ranger District Administrative Site in the Tonto National Forest to Gila County, Arizona, if the county requests the transfer within a statutory window. The transfer covers approximately 232.9 acres and is subject to a survey, valid existing rights, and such other terms the Secretary considers appropriate.
The conveyance is made without monetary consideration, by quitclaim deed, and places the costs of surveying, environmental review, and historic-preservation compliance on the county. The property must be used only to serve and support veterans; otherwise title can revert to the United States at the Secretary’s discretion.
The bill removes the Secretary’s obligation to provide certain environmental covenants or warranties under CERCLA for the conveyed land.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the Forest Service to transfer a specified parcel of National Forest System land to Gila County upon the county’s written request, subject to survey, valid existing rights, and use restrictions. The statute makes the conveyance without consideration and by quitclaim deed.
Who It Affects
Directly affects Gila County (as transferee), the U.S. Forest Service (as transferor), local veterans who would use the site, and private firms who would perform surveys and environmental analyses. It could also affect other public-land users near the parcel.
Why It Matters
The bill converts federal forest land to a local veterans-use facility, shifting environmental and transactional costs to the county while limiting future uses of the land and preserving a federal reversion right. It sets a concrete example of targeted NFS land conveyance for social-service purposes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a narrowly focused conveyance mechanism: if Gila County submits a written request within the statutory timeframe, the Forest Service must transfer title in the parcel generally shown on a named map to the county. The parcel is described as a National Forest System parcel in the Tonto National Forest and the bill requires a survey to establish exact acreage and legal description before closing.
The statute makes the map available for inspection and allows the Secretary to correct minor map errors.
The transfer is structured to be administratively simple for the federal side: it must be made without consideration and by quitclaim deed, and it remains subject to ‘‘valid existing rights’’ and any additional terms the Secretary deems necessary to protect U.S. interests. Practically, that means the Forest Service does not promise title warranties and can impose conditions (easements, reservations, or other protective measures) to address existing third-party rights or federal management concerns.All transactional and compliance costs fall to the county.
The bill explicitly requires the county to pay for a survey (if needed), any environmental analyses required by federal law, and any studies or consultations needed to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. The statute also says the Secretary is not required to provide any covenant or warranty under the cited CERCLA provision, so the county takes on the practical responsibility for site condition issues unless the Secretary negotiates otherwise.Use of the parcel is limited: the county must use the land only ‘‘for the purposes of serving and supporting veterans of the Armed Forces.’’ The bill gives the Secretary discretionary authority to reclaim title if the county deviates from that use.
That creates an enforcement lever for the federal government but leaves the timing and process for a reversion largely unarticulated in the text. Practically, the county will need to secure the necessary permitting, complete environmental and historic-preservation requirements, and design a veterans-serving program that fits within both federal conditions and local code before or after conveyance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The county must submit a written request for conveyance no later than 180 days after the bill’s enactment.
The parcel to be conveyed is approximately 232.9 acres of National Forest System land generally depicted as the ‘‘Gila County Area’’ on a map dated September 23, 2021.
The conveyance is to be made without consideration, by quitclaim deed, and remains subject to valid existing rights and any other terms the Secretary considers appropriate.
Gila County must pay all costs related to the conveyance, including any required survey, environmental analyses under federal law, and National Historic Preservation Act compliance.
The Secretary is not required to provide any covenant or warranty for the land under section 120(h)(3)(A) of CERCLA, and the land must be used only to serve and support veterans or revert to the United States at the Secretary’s discretion.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and map reference
This subsection defines key terms used by the statute: County (Gila County, Arizona), map (the named map dated September 23, 2021), and Secretary (Secretary of Agriculture through the Chief of the Forest Service). For implementers, the definition anchors the legal parcel to a specific working map and identifies the actor responsible for the conveyance. The presence of an official map and a map-availability clause means stakeholders can inspect the proposal before the county files its request.
Trigger and mandatory conveyance
If Gila County files a written request within the deadline, the Secretary is required to convey all right, title, and interest in the described property. The requirement is conditional on the county’s timely request and on meeting the other statutory conditions (survey, costs, and acceptable terms). The mandatory language reduces discretionary delay by the agency, but the transfer still depends on completion of pre-closing steps the Secretary may demand.
Property description, map corrections, and survey
The statute specifies the parcel as the area shown on the named map (about 232.9 acres) and authorizes the Secretary to correct minor map errors. It also requires a survey satisfactory to the Secretary to fix the exact acreage and legal description. For the county, this means final boundaries may shift after a field survey; for third parties, the survey is the document that will resolve boundary disputes and identify encumbrances or overlaps with other federal uses.
Form of conveyance and protective terms
The bill mandates conveyance by quitclaim deed without consideration, subjects the transfer to valid existing rights, and allows the Secretary to add terms needed to protect federal interests. A quitclaim deed transfers whatever interest the United States has without promising clear title; combined with the ‘‘no consideration’’ requirement, this provision streamlines the transfer while preserving tools (like reservations or easements) for the Forest Service to protect access, utilities, or natural-resource values.
County pays all conveyance-related costs
As a condition of transfer, Gila County must bear costs tied to the survey, any environmental analyses required by federal law (for example, NEPA-related work), and compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. This shifts the direct fiscal burden to the local government and requires the county to contract or coordinate for technical studies before conveyance can close.
No federal covenant or warranty under CERCLA
The bill explicitly states that the Secretary is not required to provide any covenant or warranty under CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A). In practice, that removes a common federal assurance that land being transferred does not carry undisbursed environmental liabilities or at least that the federal government will stand behind certain statements about site condition; instead, environmental risk allocation is left to the parties or to existing law.
Use restriction and reversion authority
The statute limits post-transfer use to activities that serve and support veterans of the Armed Forces and gives the Secretary discretionary reversion authority if the county uses the land for other purposes. This creates a durable programmatic restriction on the parcel and a clawback mechanism for the federal government, but the statute does not establish a detailed procedure or timeline for enforcing reversion, leaving practical implementation questions for the agencies and the county to resolve.
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
- Gila County — gains control of a sizeable parcel that it can develop for veterans services, potentially expanding local capacity for housing, medical support, or veterans’ programming without paying purchase price.
- Local veterans and veterans’ service organizations — receive a dedicated site for facilities or programs tailored to veterans’ needs, assuming the county develops the property accordingly.
- Local economy and service contractors — firms that provide surveying, environmental consulting, construction, and facility operations may see new contracting opportunities tied to the conveyance and subsequent development.
- U.S. Forest Service — may benefit administratively by reducing stewardship responsibilities and constraints associated with managing an administrative site no longer needed for federal use.
Who Bears the Cost
- Gila County taxpayers — must pay all conveyance-related costs, including surveys, NEPA-level environmental studies, and NHPA compliance, plus long-term maintenance and program costs for any veterans facilities.
- The county’s legal and planning teams — will carry the burden of resolving title questions, negotiating any protective terms the Secretary requires, and ensuring compliance with federal and local permitting regimes.
- Potential future claimants (adjacent land users, tribal interests, environmental groups) — could bear indirect costs if the transfer reduces federal oversight or access to remedies for environmental or cultural-resource concerns.
- Forest Service staff — may carry short-term administrative and legal workloads to negotiate terms, correct the map, and administer any reversion or monitoring responsibilities created by the conveyance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between enabling a local government to rapidly repurpose federal land for a targeted social purpose (veterans services) and preserving federal stewardship and environmental protections: the bill lowers federal barriers to transfer by shifting costs and legal risk to the county, which accelerates repurposing but leaves unanswered who will manage environmental liabilities, define permissible uses, and enforce the reversion if the county’s plans change.
The bill hands most transactional and environmental responsibilities to the county while offering only limited protections to the United States. Removing the Secretary’s obligation to provide CERCLA-related covenants or warranties increases the county’s exposure to pre-existing contamination risks; the statute does not specify how liability for any discovered contamination would be allocated beyond standard law.
That creates uncertainty for lenders, insurers, and contractors who typically underwrite redevelopment projects on formerly federal land.
The Veterans-only use restriction is programmatically narrow but legally vague: the statute does not define what activities ‘‘serving and supporting veterans’’ include, nor does it describe a timeline or process for determining noncompliance and initiating reversion. This vagueness raises enforcement questions and could produce disputes if the county seeks to use the site for mixed uses (for example, veterans housing that includes public commercial space) or if the county transfers the property further to a third party.
Finally, the bill requires the county to fund NEPA and NHPA compliance but leaves coordination roles, decision points, and dispute resolution between the county and Forest Service largely unspecified, which may produce delays or litigation in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.