HR-1043-119
By Senator Lee from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 119-109.
Sponsored by Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
What it does
This bill would direct the Department of the Interior to sell approximately 3,400 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in La Paz County, Arizona to the county at fair market value, upon the county's request. The conveyance would exclude any parcels containing significant cultural, environmental, wildlife, or recreational resources. As conditions of the sale, the county and any future owner would be required to protect tribal artifacts, coordinate with the Colorado River Indian Tribes Tribal Historic Preservation Office, and allow tribal representatives to rebury unearthed artifacts. The land would also be permanently withdrawn from federal mining and mineral leasing laws.
Who benefits
La Paz County, Arizona, which would gain ownership of federal land it could develop or sell for solar energy or other purposes. Solar energy developers who would gain access to privately held land in a high-solar-resource desert region. Local construction workers and tradespeople who may find employment in solar projects. La Paz County's tax base, which could grow if the land is developed and placed on property tax rolls. The Colorado River Indian Tribes, who gain formal coordination rights and artifact reburial protections they may not currently have over BLM-managed land.
Who is hurt
Existing users of BLM public land — including hikers, off-road vehicle users, hunters, and campers — who may lose access to land currently open to the public. Environmental and conservation groups concerned about desert habitat loss from large-scale solar development. Neighboring landowners who may be affected by industrial-scale energy development. Federal taxpayers who currently hold an ownership interest in the land through the public domain. Wildlife dependent on undisturbed desert habitat, to the extent the exclusion criteria do not fully protect sensitive areas.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that transferring this land to local control would unlock significant solar energy development potential in one of the sunniest regions in the United States, creating construction and operations jobs in a rural county with limited economic opportunities. They contend that local ownership allows more responsive land management than distant federal administration, and that the bill's built-in protections — excluding culturally and environmentally sensitive parcels and requiring tribal coordination — ensure responsible development while generating fair market value revenue for the federal government.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that transferring public land to county or private ownership permanently removes it from the public domain, foreclosing future uses and eliminating public access rights that all Americans currently hold. They contend that BLM's existing right-of-way and leasing processes already allow solar development on federal land without requiring a full conveyance, making the permanent transfer unnecessary and potentially a giveaway of public assets whose long-term value — including mineral rights — may exceed the fair market value assessed at the time of sale.