PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 106.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Jul 20, 2011
Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange Act - Requires the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA), if the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District of Boulder, Colorado, offers to convey non-federal land in unincorporated Boulder County and the offer is acceptable to the Secretary, to accept the offer and to convey federal land in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests in Colorado.
Applies provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 relating to the exchange of public lands and interests within the National Forest System to the land exchange authorized under this Act, except that: (1) the Secretary may accept a cash equalization payment in excess of 25% of the value of the federal land; and (2) the District shall pay costs relating to any land surveys and appraisals of the federal and non-federal lands and enter into an agreement that allocates any other administrative costs between the Secretary and the District.
Expresses the intent of Congress that such land exchange be completed within one year of enactment of this Act. Authorizes the Secretary to offer to sell the federal land to the District if the exchange is not completed by such deadline. Permits the Secretary to offer to sell such land to the District for its fair market value.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the acquired non-federal land to become part of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.
Revokes any public orders withdrawing the federal land from entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws to the extent necessary to permit the conveyance of the federal land to the District.
Withdraws such land on the date of enactment, if it is not already withdrawn or segregated from entry and appropriation under the public land laws and the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, until it is conveyed to the District.
People & committees
Rep. Polis, Jared [D-CO-2] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 106.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-161.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-161.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public 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 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.643 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.643 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.643 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.643 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.