- Federal agenciesAdds about 551 acres to federal protection, conserving cave and karst resources.
- Local governmentsMay increase park visitation and related local tourism spending.
- Targeted stakeholdersCreates short-term administrative and possible construction or operations jobs.
Mammoth Cave National Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The bill amends the Mammoth Cave National Park statute to (1) insert a $350,000 figure (adjusted for inflation) into an existing paragraph, and (2) authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire approximately 551.14 acres (and interests in land) shown on a May 2025 map for inclusion in Mammoth Cave National Park, expanding the park boundary in Edmonson and Barren Counties, Kentucky.
Very narrow, low-cost boundary adjustment has modest odds of enactment but depends on local owner cooperation and absence of procedural objections.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a concise statutory amendment to expand Mammoth Cave National Park by identifying acreage and a map and by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the land, but it provides only minimal procedural, fiscal, and accountability detail.
Conservation value versus federal land expansion concerns
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
- Local governmentsConverting private land to federal ownership may reduce local property tax revenues.
- Federal agenciesAdds ongoing National Park Service operating and maintenance costs funded from federal budgets.
- Targeted stakeholdersAcquisition authority may raise eminent domain or property-rights concerns for landowners.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Conservation value versus federal land expansion concerns
Generally supportive because the bill expands protected public land and can safeguard cave ecosystems and surrounding habitat.
They will note the modest acreage and likely see this as a worthwhile, targeted conservation action, while seeking clarity on funding and management commitments.
Cautiously favorable if acquisition is voluntary, cost-effective, and supported locally.
Wants clarity on the $350,000 insertion, funding sources, and any expected costs to taxpayers or local governments.
Skeptical of expanding federal land ownership and potential impacts on private property rights and local control.
May accept the bill if acquisitions are strictly voluntary and genuinely locally supported, with minimal taxpayer cost.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow, low-cost boundary adjustment has modest odds of enactment but depends on local owner cooperation and absence of procedural objections.
- Whether funding is explicitly authorized or requires appropriations
- Local landowner willingness to sell or donate parcels
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Conservation value versus federal land expansion concerns
Very narrow, low-cost boundary adjustment has modest odds of enactment but depends on local owner cooperation and absence of procedural obj…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a concise statutory amendment to expand Mammoth Cave National Park by identifying acreage and a map and by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to a…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.