PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 14, 2025
Historic Roadways Protection Act
This bill prohibits the Bureau for Land Management (BLM) from closing historical roads on public lands in certain areas of Utah until the Federal District Court for Utah makes a decision on each of the R.S. 2477 cases, which are cases brought by Utah and counties to keep historical roads on BLM land in Utah open for public use.
By way of background, a provision of the Mining Law of 1866, commonly known as R.S. 2477, granted rights-of-way to states and counties across public lands for the construction of roads for public use in order to promote settlement of the American West. In 1976, Congress repealed R.S. 2477 when it enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), but FLPMA preserved rights-of-way that had been established under R.S. 2477. After the BLM released travel management plans that closed some historical roads, Utah and 22 counties filed lawsuits about their rights-of-way across public lands for historical roads.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Until the BLM certifies that those cases have been decided, the bill prohibits the BLM from obligating or expending federal funds to (1) finalize or implement a new travel management plan for certain travel management areas in Utah; or (2) implement, with respect to land within the boundary of Utah, the Indian Creek (Canyon Rims) Travel Management Plan, the San Rafael Desert Travel Management Plan, the San Rafael Swell Travel Management Plan, or the Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan.
People & committees
Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT] · R–UT
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. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-237.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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.90 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.90 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.90 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.90 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.