PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 16, 2017
This bill prohibits the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from implementing or enforcing: (1) the resource management plans for the Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area or the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area in Utah; or (2) the amendment to the St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan described in the notice of the BLM titled "Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plans for the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas; and Approved Amendment to the St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan in Washington, County, Utah" (published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2016).
In their place the BLM shall issue new resource management plans and a new amendment that are prepared: (1) in accordance with the requirements for comprehensive plans for the long-term management of such conservation areas under the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, and (2) in coordination with affected local governments in accordance with certain criteria for the development and revision of land use plans under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
People & committees
Rep. Stewart, Chris [R-UT-2] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 4, 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.2424 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.2424 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.2424 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.2424 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.