Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill renames Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park to Ocmulgee Mounds National Park, establishes an official map, and directs administration under National Park Service law. It requires fishing to be allowed consistent with federal and state law, authorizes tribal hiring preference and consultation, protects sacred and cultural sites with tribal access, permits agreements with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and other tribes, and requires the Secretary to take about 133.88 acres of Muscogee (Creek) Nation fee land into trust upon request.
Support hinges on land-into-trust: liberals supportive, conservatives wary
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill largely provides clear statutory changes and operational direction for redesignation and administration of the park, including a specific, time-limited trust-taking mandate and references to existing authorities, but it lacks fiscal detail and robust accountability measures.
This bill renames Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park to Ocmulgee Mounds National Park, establishes an official map, and directs administration under National Park Service law.
It requires fishing to be allowed consistent with federal and state law, authorizes tribal hiring preference and consultation, protects sacred and cultural sites with tribal access, permits agreements with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and other tribes, and requires the Secretary to take about 133.88 acres of Muscogee (Creek) Nation fee land into trust upon request.
Land taken into trust becomes part of the Muscogee Creek Indian Reservation and is prohibited from class II or III gaming.
Content is narrow and administratively focused with compromise measures, but land-into-trust element raises potential objections that reduce certainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill largely provides clear statutory changes and operational direction for redesignation and administration of the park, including a specific, time-limited trust-taking mandate and references to existing authorities, but it lacks fiscal detail and robust accountability measures.
Support hinges on land-into-trust: liberals supportive, conservatives wary
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Support hinges on land-into-trust: liberals supportive, conservatives wary
Generally favorable: sees redesignation, land-into-trust, and protections as steps toward tribal recognition and cultural preservation.
Concerned the gaming prohibition limits tribal economic self-determination and wants stronger co-management and funding assurances.
Cautiously supportive: appreciates clearer federal management, tribal consultation, and gaming restriction to limit controversy.
Wants clarity on costs, jurisdictional impacts, and how state and tribal authorities will coordinate.
Skeptical: views redesignation and land-into-trust as federal expansion reducing state and local control.
Acknowledges gaming ban and fishing provisions, but worries about precedent and fiscal impacts on localities.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and administratively focused with compromise measures, but land-into-trust element raises potential objections that reduce certainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Support hinges on land-into-trust: liberals supportive, conservatives wary
Content is narrow and administratively focused with compromise measures, but land-into-trust element raises potential objections that reduc…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill largely provides clear statutory changes and operational direction for redesignation and administration of the park, including a specific, time-limited trust-taking m…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.