HR-8257-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Jeff Hurd (R-CO)
What it does
This bill would modify the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program's payment formula to provide more equitable payments to small counties that contain federal land. PILT payments compensate local governments for tax revenue they cannot collect on federally owned land within their borders. The bill's title suggests it would adjust the formula so that small counties receive payments more comparable — on a per-acre or per-resident basis — to what larger counties receive.
Who benefits
Small, rural counties with significant federal land holdings that currently receive lower per-unit PILT payments under the existing formula. Local governments in these counties that fund schools, roads, emergency services, and other public infrastructure. Residents of small rural counties who depend on locally funded services. Western states, where federal land ownership is disproportionately concentrated, would likely see the most benefit.
Who is hurt
Larger counties that currently receive a greater share of total PILT appropriations could see their relative share reduced if the formula is rebalanced. Federal taxpayers broadly, if the bill increases total PILT outlays without a corresponding offset. Counties in states with little federal land ownership, which do not participate in PILT, would receive no benefit while potentially bearing a share of any increased federal spending.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current PILT formula systematically underpays small counties, leaving them unable to fund basic public services on a tax base artificially reduced by federal land ownership — land that generates no local property tax revenue. They contend that parity in per-acre or per-capita payments is a matter of basic fiscal fairness, since small counties often bear the same infrastructure and service burdens relative to federal land as larger ones, but receive disproportionately less compensation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the existing PILT formula already accounts for population and acreage, and that restructuring it to favor small counties would redirect limited federal dollars away from larger counties that may serve more total residents affected by federal land. They contend that without additional appropriations, a formula change is a zero-sum redistribution, and that increasing total PILT outlays adds to federal spending without a clear offset or demonstrated gap in service delivery specific to small counties.