To amend the Military Land Withdrawals Act of 2013 to withdraw and reserve certain public land in the vicinity of Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 10, 2026
Bottom line
This bill permanently designates over 22,000 acres of public land in Arizona for military training and operations at Yuma Proving Ground, while establishing specific rules for its management and limited non-military uses.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Military Land Withdrawals Act of 2013 to permanently withdraw and reserve approximately 22,032 acres of public land near Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, for military use by the Secretary of the Army. It establishes a framework for managing this land, allowing for certain non-defense activities under joint Interior-Army conditions, and creates a specific exception for utility rights-of-way in a designated corridor where Army consent is not required.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this land withdrawal is essential for national security and military readiness, providing the Yuma Proving Ground with the necessary space to conduct critical testing and training operations without encroachment. They emphasize that the bill provides long-term stability and certainty for vital defense activities, while also allowing for responsible stewardship through authorized non-defense uses.
Opponents contend
Opponents might express concerns about the permanent alienation of a significant amount of public land from general public use, potential environmental impacts, and the indefinite nature of the withdrawal. They could also question the necessity of removing the Secretary of the Army's consent for utility corridors, arguing it could compromise military mission integrity or set an undesirable precedent.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are straightforward, allowing for a quick understanding of its primary purpose. However, the implications of a permanent land withdrawal warrant careful consideration beyond a cursory read.
Section 1, adding new Section 2999B to the Military Land Withdrawals Act of 2013.
Permanent Land Withdrawal for Yuma Proving Ground
This provision permanently removes approximately 22,032 acres of federal land in two areas (Highway 95 and Howard Cantonment) near Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, from public land laws, mining laws, and mineral/geothermal leasing. This land is then reserved for use by the Secretary of the Army for military purposes, specifically those outlined in Public Land Order No. 848 of July 1, 1952, and authorized under section 2914 of the original Act.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this permanent withdrawal is crucial for ensuring the Yuma Proving Ground can continue its vital role in military testing and training without future land use conflicts or encroachment, thereby safeguarding national security interests.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that a permanent withdrawal is an excessive measure, arguing that it removes a significant amount of public land from potential economic development (e.g., mining) and public recreational use indefinitely, without sufficient justification for such a long duration.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the military's need for secure, unencumbered land for defense operations against the public's interest in access to public lands and potential economic development from natural resources.
Section 1, adding new Section 2999C.
Joint Management Framework and Authorized Non-Defense Activities
This section mandates that the Secretary of the Interior manage the withdrawn land in accordance with existing federal land management laws, while also permitting certain non-defense activities like wildlife conservation, cultural property preservation, wild horse/burro management, predator control, recreation, public access, hunting, and fire prevention. All non-defense uses are subject to conditions jointly determined by the Secretaries of Interior and Army to ensure they don't interfere with defense uses. The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for issuing land use authorizations that traverse both withdrawn and non-withdrawn lands, requiring Army consent for such authorizations.
Section 1, adding new Section 2999D.
Delegation of Management to Secretary of the Army
This section authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assign the management responsibilities for the withdrawn land to the Secretary of the Army. If assigned, the Army would then manage the land under specific federal laws, including the Sikes Act and FLPMA, and any cooperative management arrangements.
Section 1, adding new Section 2999E.
Special Provisions for Parker-Blaisdell Utility Corridor
This section creates an exception for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to issue rights-of-way within the designated Parker-Blaisdell Utility Corridor for critical regional-grid level utility infrastructure (including above-ground transmission lines). Crucially, the Secretary of the Army's consent is not required for these specific rights-of-way, though the BLM must consult with the Army to minimize mission impacts. This authority cannot be delegated below the BLM State Director level and cannot be assigned to the Secretary of the Army.
Section 1, adding new Section 2999F.
Indefinite Duration of Withdrawal
This section stipulates that the land withdrawal and reservation will be in effect for an indefinite period, or until the Secretary of the Army determines there is no longer a military need for it.
Authorizes the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to issue rights-of-way for critical regional-grid level utility infrastructure within the designated Parker-Blaisdell Utility Corridor without the Secretary of the Army's consent, though consultation is required to minimize impacts.
Section 1, adding new Section 2999E.
Why it matters:This provision likely represents a pre-negotiated compromise to address specific, known infrastructure needs that might otherwise be complicated by a broad military land withdrawal. It balances competing federal interests (defense vs. critical infrastructure) in a practical manner.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures essential regional utility infrastructure can be developed and maintained without undue delays or vetoes from the military, safeguarding public services and economic stability for the surrounding region.
Case against: Critics might argue that even with consultation, removing the Army's consent could lead to conflicts if utility projects significantly interfere with military operations, potentially undermining the security purpose of the withdrawal and creating unforeseen operational challenges.
Estimated impact: Facilitates the development and maintenance of critical regional utility infrastructure, potentially affecting energy supply and reliability for a broad population and economic activities in the region.