Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 12, 2026
Bottom line
This bill mandates the issuance of a special use permit for a U.S. flag flagpole on federal land in Utah, streamlining the process by waiving fees and environmental review requirements.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a 10-year special use permit for the placement and maintenance of a U.S. flag flagpole at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point in the Uinta National Forest, Utah. It prioritizes Robert S. Collins for the permit, or a qualified person from Utah County if he declines. The bill also exempts the permit from land use fees and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill ensures the continued display of the U.S. flag at a prominent local landmark, honoring patriotic sentiment and community tradition without imposing federal fees or bureaucratic hurdles. They emphasize the importance of local stewardship for such symbols and the minimal environmental impact of a flagpole.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill sets a precedent for bypassing established land use permit processes and environmental reviews (NEPA) for specific, localized projects, potentially undermining federal land management principles and environmental protections. They might also question the necessity of congressional intervention for a local permit issue that could be handled administratively.
The bill is very short and easy to read, allowing ample time for public review and understanding of its specific provisions.
Section 2(b)
Mandate for Special Use Permit Issuance
This section directs the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Forest Service, to issue a 10-year special use permit within 180 days of the bill's enactment. This permit is specifically for placing and maintaining a U.S. flag flagpole at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point in the Uinta National Forest, Utah. The permit is initially offered to Robert S. Collins of Provo, Utah, and if he declines, it will be offered to a qualified person in accordance with the bill's selection criteria.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures the continued presence of a patriotic symbol at a cherished local landmark, reflecting community values and providing a clear, efficient path for its maintenance. Naming a specific individual or prioritizing local groups ensures dedicated local stewardship.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that mandating a specific permit issuance by Congress, especially naming an individual, bypasses standard administrative processes and could be seen as legislative overreach into local land management decisions. They argue it could set a precedent for similar specific mandates.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between local community desire for a specific patriotic display and the federal agency's standard procedures for managing public lands, which typically involve discretionary review and competitive processes for permits.
Section 2(c)(4) and Section 2(f)
Exemption from Land Use Fees and NEPA
This provision explicitly states that the Secretary shall not assess any land use fees with respect to the special use permit issued under this Act. Furthermore, it declares that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) shall not apply to the issuance, renewal, or administration of this special use permit, including any activities related to the flagpole's placement, maintenance, or removal at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point.
Defines a 'qualified person' as an individual residing in, or a nonprofit or volunteer entity operating in, Utah County, Utah, with experience in placing, maintaining, or caring for a covered flagpole, and any other experience determined relevant by the Secretary.
Section 2(a)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms at the beginning of a section to ensure clarity throughout the text.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures local community involvement and expertise in maintaining the flagpole, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility for a local landmark.
Case against: Critics might argue that the inclusion of 'any other experience determined relevant by the Secretary' grants too much discretion to the Secretary, potentially allowing for arbitrary selection or exclusion of applicants, rather than clear, objective criteria.
Estimated impact: Ensures that if the primary recipient declines, the flagpole's maintenance will remain under local stewardship, with criteria that allow the Forest Service some flexibility in selecting a suitable replacement.