PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 11, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10261 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10261 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10261 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10261 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Edgely Community Protection and Transparency Act would require federal agencies to disclose how much private property they expect to acquire when an action requires an environmental impact statement, a review of environmental effects. Agencies would estimate property acquisition for the proposed action and each alternative examined. The requirements would also cover eminent domain, the government's power to take private property.
This Act may be cited as the Edgely Community Protection and Transparency Act.
If an agency is required to prepare an environmental impact statement under this Act for a proposed agency action that involves the acquisition (including through the exercise of eminent domain) of private property, the agency shall— (i) identify in the environmental impact statement an estimate of the acreage or other measure of private property anticipated to be acquired for the proposed agency action and each alternative to the proposed agency action analyzed in the environmental impact statement;
Section 2 would amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The new requirements would apply when an agency already must prepare an environmental impact statement for a proposed action involving acquisition of private property; they would not independently require such a statement for every property acquisition.
Section 106(b)(1) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336(b)(1)) is amended—
If an agency is required to prepare an environmental impact statement under this Act for a proposed agency action that involves the acquisition (including through the exercise of eminent domain) of private property, the agency shall—
The agency would have to include estimated acreage, or another measure of private property to be acquired, for both the proposed action and every alternative analyzed in the environmental impact statement.
(i) identify in the environmental impact statement an estimate of the acreage or other measure of private property anticipated to be acquired for the proposed agency action and each alternative to the proposed agency action analyzed in the environmental impact statement;
If the statement identifies a preferred alternative, the agency would have to say whether it acquires the least private property compared with the proposed action and the other alternatives analyzed. This provision requires disclosure of that comparison; it does not require choosing the option that acquires the least property.
(ii) if the environmental impact statement identifies a preferred alternative— (I) identify whether the preferred alternative results in the least amount of acquisition of private property compared to the proposed agency action and the other alternatives to the proposed agency action analyzed in the environmental impact statement;
If the statement identifies a preferred alternative, the agency would also have to explain how it considered public comments about acquiring private property, including through eminent domain, when identifying that alternative.
(ii) if the environmental impact statement identifies a preferred alternative—
(II) include in the environmental impact statement an analysis of how public comments regarding the acquisition (including through the exercise of eminent domain) of private property were taken into account when identifying the preferred alternative.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 11, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on September 3, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-11T16:05:10Z. 2026-09-03: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2026-09-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; member disclosures and committee or conference materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 11, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI