Technical corrections only. The two versions of H.R. 2252 are substantively identical, with v4 reflecting the bill's procedural status after passing the House and being referred to the Senate. No policy changes were made between v3 and v4.
North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fedorchak, Julie [R-ND-At Large]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 20, 2026
Bottom line
This bill facilitates a land exchange process designed to consolidate tribal trust lands within North Dakota's reservations while ensuring the State receives equivalent replacement lands, addressing historical land fragmentation issues.
What it actually does
This bill authorizes the State of North Dakota to exchange its state land grant parcels located within the boundaries of any Indian reservation for unappropriated Federal land of substantially equivalent value elsewhere in the state. The relinquished state land within reservations would then be taken into trust by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of the applicable Indian Tribe, thereby consolidating tribal land bases.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this legislation is a crucial step towards rectifying historical land ownership fragmentation within tribal reservations, which has long hindered tribal self-determination and economic development. By consolidating trust lands, the bill promotes more efficient land management for Tribes and provides the State of North Dakota with replacement lands to maintain its land grant purposes, creating a mutually beneficial outcome.
Opponents contend
While direct opposition to the core intent of the bill is not widely documented, potential critics might raise concerns about the specific valuation methods used for land and mineral rights, the potential impact on existing users of the unappropriated federal land selected by the State, or the administrative complexities and potential delays inherent in large-scale land exchanges.
The bill is moderately complex due to its technical provisions on land exchange and valuation, but its relatively short length allows for a thorough review within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3(a)
State Relinquishment and Federal Land Selection Authority
This provision empowers the State of North Dakota to voluntarily give up its right, title, and interest in land grant parcels that are located entirely or partly within the boundaries of any Indian reservation. In exchange, the Secretary of the Interior is mandated to authorize the State to select one or more parcels of unappropriated Federal land of substantially equivalent value. These selected federal lands must be located within North Dakota but outside of specifically excluded areas like existing reservations or designated conservation sites. The exchange process can be carried out in multiple phases, allowing for flexibility.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this authority is essential for resolving the long-standing issue of checkerboard land ownership within reservations, which complicates governance and economic development. It offers a practical mechanism for the State to manage its assets while facilitating tribal land consolidation.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the general concept of voluntary land exchanges for consolidation, though details of specific land selections or the process itself could be contested by local stakeholders.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the State's interest in maintaining its land grant assets with the federal and tribal interest in consolidating reservation lands, aiming for a mutually beneficial outcome through a structured exchange process.
Section 3(b), 3(d)
Conveyance of Lands and Restoration to Tribal Trust
Following the Secretary's approval of the State's selected federal lands, the Secretary is required to convey these lands to North Dakota. Concurrently, the State must relinquish and convey its identified land grant parcels to the Secretary, ensuring clear title. Critically, if a State land grant parcel relinquished by North Dakota is located within an Indian reservation, that portion of the land will be taken into trust by the Secretary on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the applicable Indian Tribe, upon the Tribe's request. These lands will then be considered part of that Indian Tribe's reservation, directly contributing to the consolidation of tribal land bases.
Section 4
Equal Value and Appraisal Requirements
This section establishes the financial framework for the land exchanges, mandating that the overall value of the State land grant parcels and the selected unappropriated Federal land must be substantially equal. If values are not precisely equal, the party conveying the lesser-valued parcel must either make an equalization payment or record the imbalance in a ledger account for future reconciliation. The valuation process requires appraisals conducted by one or more independent appraisers, jointly selected by the Secretary and the State, adhering to federal appraisal standards. For low-value parcels (under $500,000 and $500 per acre), simplified appraisal methods may be used with mutual consent.
Section 5(b), 5(d)
Safeguards for Tribal Rights and Existing Grazing Permits
The Act explicitly states that nothing within its provisions modifies, limits, expands, or otherwise affects any treaty-reserved rights or other recognized rights of any Indian Tribe, nor does it impact existing lands or minerals held in trust for Tribes or individual Indian allotments. Furthermore, if land conveyed under this Act is subject to a grazing lease, permit, or contract, the new owner (either the Secretary or the State) must allow the grazing to continue for the remainder of the term, adhering to the original terms and conditions. This includes provisions for compensation for range improvements if a permit is canceled.
This subsection defines 'unappropriated Federal land' by listing specific exclusions from what the State of North Dakota can select. These exclusions include areas of critical environmental concern, components of the National Landscape Conservation System, Research Natural Areas, any land within an Indian reservation, specific townships (T. 147 N., R. 95 W.; T. 148 N., R. 95 W.; T. 148 N., R. 96 W.; T. 149 N., R. 95 W.), United States military reservations, and land designated by Congress or the President for conservation purposes.
Section 2(6)(B)
Why it matters:Defining terms precisely at the beginning of an act is standard legislative practice. The specific townships might be excluded due to existing or planned federal projects, environmental sensitivities, or other specific local considerations that are not immediately apparent from the bill text.
Case for: Supporters would argue these exclusions are vital for protecting environmentally sensitive areas, preserving existing conservation designations, and safeguarding lands already committed to specific federal or tribal uses. This ensures the land exchange does not inadvertently undermine other important public interests or federal responsibilities.
Case against: Critics might contend that these numerous exclusions significantly limit the pool of federal lands available for selection by the State, potentially making it more challenging for North Dakota to find parcels of equivalent value or suitable for its land grant purposes. The specific township exclusions could be viewed as carve-outs for particular, undisclosed interests.
Estimated impact: These exclusions significantly reduce the total acreage of federal land available for selection by the State, potentially impacting thousands of acres and influencing the feasibility and scope of the land exchanges.
This subsection allows the Secretary and the State to use a 'ledger account' to track imbalances in value between exchanged parcels, rather than requiring immediate equalization payments for every discrepancy. These ledger accounts are intended to be reconciled in subsequent transactions, with a requirement that each account be balanced not later than 3 years after establishment and closed not later than 5 years after the date of the last conveyance under the Act.
Section 4(e)
Why it matters:The use of ledger accounts is a common, practical mechanism in complex, multi-phase land exchanges. It provides administrative flexibility, allowing the process to move forward without being stalled by minor value discrepancies that can be resolved over time, thus expediting the overall land consolidation.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this mechanism provides essential flexibility for multi-phase land exchanges, allowing the process to move forward without being stalled by minor value discrepancies that can be resolved later. This significantly expedites the overall land consolidation effort and reduces administrative burden by avoiding numerous small cash transfers.
Case against: Critics might express concern that ledger accounts could lead to prolonged financial obligations or create administrative complexities if not managed diligently. There is a potential for delays in final reconciliation if subsequent transactions do not occur as anticipated or if the balancing process becomes contentious, potentially leaving outstanding financial liabilities.
Estimated impact: This provision facilitates the exchange of potentially large numbers of parcels over time by simplifying the financial balancing act, enabling more efficient and timely land transfers that might otherwise be bogged down by constant, immediate value equalization requirements.