H.R. 10190 (119th)Bill Overview

Pennington County Land Conveyance Act

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Aug 31, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey approximately 8.97 acres of National Forest System land in the Black Hills National Forest to Pennington County, South Dakota. The conveyance is without consideration, may include improvements, and is subject to terms the Secretary deems appropriate.

Why people may split

Progressives emphasize public-land and environmental safeguards.

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a narrow substantive change—conveying a defined parcel of National Forest land to Pennington County and directing a boundary modification—but it relies heavily on executive discretion and omits several implementation, fiscal, legal-integration, and accountability details that are commonly expected in land conveyance statutes.

The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey approximately 8.97 acres of National Forest System land in the Black Hills National Forest to Pennington County, South Dakota.

The conveyance is without consideration, may include improvements, and is subject to terms the Secretary deems appropriate.

The Secretary must modify the National Forest boundary to reflect the conveyance.

Passage70/100

Narrow, low-cost land transfer with administrative safeguards; historically similar local conveyances often enact with limited opposition.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a narrow substantive change—conveying a defined parcel of National Forest land to Pennington County and directing a boundary modification—but it relies heavily on executive discretion and omits several implementation, fiscal, legal-integration, and accountability details that are commonly expected in land conveyance statutes.

Contention65/100

Progressives emphasize public-land and environmental safeguards.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Local governments · Federal agenciesFederal agencies · Local governments

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Local governmentsEnables county to use parcel for a public works facility, facilitating local infrastructure projects.
  • Local governmentsCounty acquires land without purchase cost, reducing immediate local capital expenditures.
  • Federal agenciesTransfer reduces federal management responsibilities and associated administrative costs for the Forest Service.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesThe conveyance reduces federally managed public land acreage in the Black Hills National Forest.
  • Federal agenciesConveying land without consideration foregoes potential federal revenue from a sale.
  • Local governmentsLocal development could reduce habitat protections or ecological values on the parcel.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize public-land and environmental safeguards.
Progressive35%

Skeptical but pragmatic: supports local public services but worries about loss of public land and environmental safeguards.

Concerned that the conveyance is without payment and lacks explicit environmental review or protections.

Likely resistant
Centrist75%

Generally favorable if the transfer serves a clear local public purpose and environmental impacts are minor.

Prefers defined terms, transparency, and limited federal administrative burden.

Leans supportive
Conservative95%

Strongly supportive: favors returning small federal landholdings to local control, lowering federal footprint, and enabling county infrastructure.

Sees no need for onerous federal conditions.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood70/100

Narrow, low-cost land transfer with administrative safeguards; historically similar local conveyances often enact with limited opposition.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No cost estimate or administrative burden analysis provided
  • Potential environmental review (NEPA) or mitigation requirements unclear
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize public-land and environmental safeguards.

Narrow, low-cost land transfer with administrative safeguards; historically similar local conveyances often enact with limited opposition.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a narrow substantive change—conveying a defined parcel of National Forest land to Pennington County and directing a boundary modification—but it…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis