Gabe Evans (R-CO)
Greeley Land Exchange Act
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
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
This bill directs a land exchange between the city of Greeley, Colorado, and the Forest Service. Under the bill, the Forest Service will trade about 78 acres of federal land for about 40 acres of city-owned land, excluding water rights. The exchange requires equal property values, using additional land or cash payments to cover any differences. The United States will keep specific easements for public nonmotorized access and administrative use over certain trails. The city of Greeley is required to pay all costs associated with the exchange, including appraisals, surveys, and environmental assessments. Any land acquired by the United States will become part of the Roosevelt National Forest, with specific portions managed under wilderness and wild and scenic river laws.
Yes
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill ensures federal lands are managed under the Wilderness Act and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
- Scored +5
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The exchange transfers land into the National Forest System for managed public use.
- Scored +3
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The exchange adds land to the National Forest System which benefits local public land access.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Section 2(b)(1)(A): This provision secures a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for public nonmotorized access over the Seaman Reservoir Trail and the Wintersteen Trail to adjacent National Forest System land. This is a positive outcome because it explicitly preserves public access for recreational users consistent with current levels.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(j): This section requires the city of Greeley to pay all costs associated with the exchange, such as appraisals, surveys, mineral examinations, title work, and environmental assessments. This could be viewed as a financial burden on the local level, though the text does not detail impacts beyond the city taking on these expenses.
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.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill ensures federal lands are managed under the Wilderness Act and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The exchange transfers land into the National Forest System for managed public use.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The exchange adds land to the National Forest System which benefits local public land access.
- 9/16/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House