PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3] · R–CO
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: May 6, 2025. 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.1125 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.1125 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.1125 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.1125 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 · 2025-02-07 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 Local Opportunities, Conservation, and American Lands Act, or LOCAL Act, would require the Bureau of Land Management’s headquarters to be in Grand Junction, Colorado. Positions stationed there when the bill becomes law would have to stay there. It would also require a study of moving additional existing positions to Grand Junction or a western state specified by the Secretary of the Interior.
This Act may be cited as the Local Opportunities, Conservation, and American Lands Act or the LOCAL Act.
The headquarters for the Bureau of Land Management shall be located in Grand Junction, Colorado.
All Bureau of Land Management employee positions stationed in Grand Junction, Colorado on the date of the enactment of this Act shall remain stationed in Grand Junction, Colorado.
The term Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior.
The Secretary shall conduct a study on the feasibility of relocating more existing Bureau of Land Management employee positions to the headquarters in Grand Junction, Colorado or a western State specified by the Secretary
Section 3 would make Grand Junction, Colorado, the required location of the Bureau of Land Management’s headquarters.
The headquarters for the Bureau of Land Management shall be located in Grand Junction, Colorado.
All Bureau of Land Management positions stationed in Grand Junction on the enactment date would have to remain stationed there. The requirement concerns the location of positions; it does not promise continued employment to particular people.
All Bureau of Land Management employee positions stationed in Grand Junction, Colorado on the date of the enactment of this Act shall remain stationed in Grand Junction, Colorado.
The Secretary of the Interior would have to study whether moving additional existing Bureau of Land Management positions to Grand Junction or a western state selected by the Secretary is feasible. This provision requires a study, rather than directing those additional moves.
The term Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior.
The Secretary shall conduct a study on the feasibility of relocating more existing Bureau of Land Management employee positions to the headquarters in Grand Junction, Colorado or a western State specified by the Secretary
For this bill, the eligible western states would be Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
The term western State means any of the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, or Wyoming.
The study would assess, among other things, whether relocation would improve federal land management, increase coordination with local communities, and strengthen tourism, conservation, outdoor recreation, grazing, responsible energy production, or other multiple uses. These are questions the study must investigate, not established benefits of relocation.
determine amongst other things whether such relocation will improve management of Federal lands, increase coordination with local communities, and strengthen tourism, conservation, outdoor recreation, grazing, responsible energy production, or other multiple uses.
Within 365 days after enactment, the Secretary would have to submit the study report to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Not later than 365 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the study required under subsection (a).
The supplied actions snapshot, updated May 6, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on February 7, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-05-06T12:40:22Z. 2025-02-07: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2025-02-07: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-07. 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 a particular recipient or place 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. Formal earmark status cannot be established without the relevant accompanying evidence.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains a narrow geographic preference integral to the bill’s main policy. This classification does not establish economic effects or improper purpose.
Grand Junction, Colorado, receives preferential geographic treatment: the bill mandates that the Bureau of Land Management’s headquarters be located there and requires all Bureau positions stationed there at enactment to remain there. The combination reserves the headquarters location and protects existing position stationing for a specifically named city. This treatment is part of the bill’s central agency-location policy.
The headquarters for the Bureau of Land Management shall be located in Grand Junction, Colorado.
All Bureau of Land Management employee positions stationed in Grand Junction, Colorado on the date of the enactment of this Act shall remain stationed in Grand Junction, Colorado.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: May 6, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI