HB5752, titled the Upper Price River Watershed Project Act of 2025, would direct the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management, to convey approximately 124.23 acres of federal land near Price, Utah, to the city of Price. The bill identifies the land by reference to a specific BLM map dated May 8, 2025, and authorizes the conveyance at the city’s request, subject to valid existing rights.
The transferred land would be used for public purposes as defined by the city. The bill also allows the Secretary to correct minor errors in the map and requires the map to remain available for public inspection in BLM offices. In effect, the measure creates a narrow, site-specific land transfer that overrides the usual land management procedures in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act for the parcels covered by the bill.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would remove the identified Bureau of Land Management parcels from federal ownership and place them under the control of the city of Price, Utah, for public use. It would supersede the normal FLPMA land-use planning and conveyance provisions for these acres, while preserving valid existing rights. The bill would affect federal land management authority, local municipal land use, and any parties holding existing rights or interests in the parcels.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally neutral to favorable sentiment, but there is limited evidence of debate because no committee transcript or recorded votes are provided. The bill appears to be a straightforward local land conveyance measure, which often draws support when tied to municipal or watershed-related public purposes. Its referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources indicates it is still in the early legislative process.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of concern, based on the text alone, could include the bypassing of standard federal land disposal procedures, the scope of the city’s discretion to define “public purposes,” and ensuring that valid existing rights are protected. Any opposition would likely come from those concerned about federal land transfer precedents, land management oversight, or the details of the parcel boundaries and map corrections.