Greeley Land Exchange Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
The bill facilitates a specific land exchange in Colorado, consolidating federal land holdings and transferring federal land to the City of Greeley, with all costs borne by the City.
What it actually does
This bill mandates a land exchange between the City of Greeley, Colorado, and the U.S. Forest Service. The City would convey approximately 40 acres of its land (excluding water rights) to the United States, and in return, the Secretary of Agriculture would convey approximately 78 acres of National Forest System land to the City. The exchange is conditioned on equal value, with the City bearing all associated costs and potentially conveying additional land or making a cash payment to equalize values.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this land exchange will benefit both the City of Greeley by providing land for its municipal needs and the Forest Service by consolidating federal land holdings, potentially enhancing conservation efforts, especially if the acquired land falls within designated wilderness or wild and scenic river areas. The requirement for the City to cover all costs ensures the exchange is fiscally neutral for the federal government.
Opponents contend
No organized opposition is typically raised against specific, localized land exchanges that are fiscally neutral to the federal government and involve mutual agreement between the parties. Potential concerns, if any, might revolve around the specific use of the federal land by the City post-exchange, or the adequacy of reserved public access easements, though the bill explicitly addresses the latter.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a reader to understand its provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 2(b)
Mandatory Land Exchange
This provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange land with the City of Greeley. If the City offers to convey its approximately 40 acres of non-Federal land (excluding water rights) to the United States, the Secretary must simultaneously convey approximately 78 acres of Federal land to the City. The Federal land conveyance will include reserved easements for public nonmotorized access over existing trails and for federal administrative access.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision facilitates a mutually beneficial exchange, allowing the City to gain land for its needs while the Forest Service acquires land that can be integrated into the National Forest System, potentially improving management efficiency and conservation.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it outlines a voluntary exchange between willing parties with clear benefits for both. Any concerns would likely be about the specific details of the land parcels or the adequacy of reserved easements.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension involves balancing the City's desire for land with the public's interest in maintaining access to certain areas and the Forest Service's mandate for land management. The bill addresses this by reserving specific easements for public and administrative access.
Section 2(d) and 2(j)
Equalization of Value and Cost Allocation
This provision mandates that the land exchange must be for equal value. If the Federal land is more valuable, the City must either convey up to 40 additional acres of its land (excluding water rights) or make a cash payment to the Secretary to equalize the value. If the non-Federal land is more valuable, the federal government waives any cash payment, treating the surplus as a donation. Crucially, the City of Greeley is required to pay for all costs associated with the exchange, including appraisals, surveys, environmental assessments, and legal fees.
Section 2(g)
Management of Acquired Federal Land
Any land or interest in land acquired by the United States through this exchange will become part of the Roosevelt National Forest. Furthermore, if any of the acquired land falls within the boundaries of the Cache la Poudre Wilderness or the Cache la Poudre Wild and Scenic River, it will automatically become part of those respective designations and be managed according to the Wilderness Act or the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as applicable.
The bill explicitly excludes all water rights owned by the City of Greeley from the non-Federal land conveyed to the United States. This means the City retains ownership of these valuable water rights even after transferring the land.
Section 2(a)(4)(B) and 2(d)(3)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clearly define what is and is not included in a conveyance, especially for valuable assets like water rights in the Western United States. It's not evasive, but critical for understanding the full scope of the exchange.
Case for: Supporters would argue that retaining water rights is essential for the City of Greeley's long-term water security and municipal operations, making the land exchange feasible and attractive for the City.
Case against: Critics might argue that if the federal government is acquiring land for conservation or specific management purposes, the associated water rights could be beneficial for those goals. However, given the context of a mutually agreed exchange, this is unlikely to be a point of contention.
Estimated impact: Ensures the City of Greeley maintains control over a significant and valuable resource (water rights) separate from the land itself, which could represent substantial economic value.