PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 114-400.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 8, 2015
Oregon and California Land Grant Act of 2015 - Amends the O&C Lands Act of 1937 to establish uses and management requirements for the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road grant land and other Oregon land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Forest Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Designates separate portions of the land for conservation and timber harvesting.
Specifies requirements for managing the land, including: prohibiting the harvesting of trees of a specified age in certain areas, stating that Oregon retains jurisdiction over fish and wildlife, restricting the use of pesticides, and authorizing treatment of hazardous fuels on adjacent private lands.
Directs the Department of the Interior to identify projects proposed under this Act, assess implementation, and complete other specified reports and analyses.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Establishes requirements for timber harvests on designated lands, including calculating projected harvests, restricting roads, harvesting timber to reduce the likelihood of wildfires, and prioritizing treatments near communities.
Designates lands for conservation purposes and establishes requirements for management, including restricting timber harvesting, motorized vehicles, and roads.
Sets forth procedures for administrative and judicial review of projects under this Act. Specifies a formula for sharing receipts generated on land between the U.S. Treasury, the BLM, and counties.
Transfers specified BLM-administered lands to be held in trust as reservations for the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians; and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians.
Establishes and modifies specified wilderness areas and designations under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
People & committees
Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 114-400.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S101-102)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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 S.132 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 S.132 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 S.132 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 S.132 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.