Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
Edgely Community Protection and Transparency Act
A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Edgely Community Protection and Transparency Act amends the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It focuses on major Federal actions that require an environmental impact statement and involve acquiring private property, including through eminent domain. Agencies must now estimate the acreage or measure of private property to be acquired for the proposed action and all analyzed alternatives. If a preferred alternative is chosen, the agency must state if it involves the least amount of private property acquisition compared to other options. Additionally, the agency must analyze how public comments about property acquisition influenced the choice of the preferred alternative.
Yes· 3 of 19
- Scored +7
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Requires detailed disclosure of private property acquisition and consideration of public comments.
- Scored +6
Would farmers be better off under this?
Highly beneficial for farmers whose land is often a target for federal infrastructure or environmental projects.
- Scored +5
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Significantly improves protections for rural landowners against eminent domain.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
Places additional constraints and reporting requirements on federal agency actions.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Transparency on Property Loss: Section 2(B)(i) requires agencies to provide an estimate of the acreage or measure of private property they plan to acquire, giving people a clearer idea of how much land is being taken.
-
Preference for Minimal Property Acquisition: Section 2(B)(ii)(I) requires the agency to identify if the preferred alternative results in the least amount of private property acquisition, which may protect more private land from being taken.
-
Accountability for Public Input: Section 2(B)(ii)(II) requires an analysis of how public comments regarding the acquisition of private property were considered when picking the preferred alternative, ensuring officials document how they used public feedback.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for individuals or groups are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would farmers be better off under this? — Highly beneficial for farmers whose land is often a target for federal infrastructure or environmental projects. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Significantly improves protections for rural landowners against eminent domain. Would business owners be better off under this? — Protects business operations from unplanned federal property acquisition. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Provides more transparency in federal land acquisition processes. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Increases transparency and protection for high-value property owners. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Provides more transparency in federal land acquisition processes. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases transparency and protection for homeowners against federal land acquisition. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Provides more transparency in federal land acquisition processes. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provides an extra layer of protection against property seizure for those with limited resources to fight it. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Beneficial for adult property owners who may face land acquisition. Would retired people be better off under this? — Protects long-term home and land ownership for retirees. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Beneficial for senior property owners who may face land acquisition. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Provides more transparency for urban land acquisition projects.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires detailed disclosure of private property acquisition and consideration of public comments. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Enhances the process of public input and justification before the government exercises eminent domain. Does this give the federal government more power? — Places additional constraints and reporting requirements on federal agency actions.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Protects rural landowners by requiring analysis of alternatives to property acquisition. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Increases transparency and limits unnecessary acquisition of private lands for federal use.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Provides more transparency and potential protection for small business land from eminent domain.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — May reduce the loss of residential properties through stricter analysis of eminent domain alternatives.
- 9/3/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Donald DavisDemocrat · North Carolina