H.R. 837House bill · 119th CongressSigned into lawPublic Lands and Natural Resources

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the Pleasant Valley Ranger District Administrative Site to Gila County, Arizona.

Sponsored byElijah CraneR-AZ-2Introduced Jan 31, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 20, 2026) — No: 119-126.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jan 31, 2025

This bill directs the Forest Service to convey specified property to Gila County, Arizona, upon the county's submission of a written request for such conveyance. The property, identified as the Gila County Area, consists of approximately 232.9 acres of National Forest System land located in the Tonto National Forest in Arizona.

The county must use the land for the purposes of serving and supporting veterans. If any land conveyed under this bill ceases to be used for such purpose, all right, title, and interest in and to the land shall revert to the United States, at the discretion of the Forest Service.

The conveyance must be made with a quitclaim deed and without consideration (value, such as payment, provided in exchange for the property).

The Forest Service must not be required to provide any covenant or warranty for the land and improvements conveyed to the county under such conveyance.

As a condition of the conveyance, the county must pay all the costs associated with the conveyance, including any (1) surveys, (2) environmental analysis or resource survey required under federal law, and (3) analysis required to comply with certain provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Face Value

as enrolled
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

3 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
TheLongViewDemoNY-6voted Yea2d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
7
cedarprecinctDemoTX-33voted Yea1d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
4
quietriverbendDemoCA-21voted Nay1d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
Your position on H.R. 837No positions yet