S. 1674 (119th)Bill Overview

Mammoth Cave National Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 2025

Public Lands and Natural Resources|Public Lands and Natural Resources
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
May 8, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

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.

Passage35/100

Very narrow, low-cost boundary adjustment has modest odds of enactment but depends on local owner cooperation and absence of procedural objections.

CredibilityPartially aligned

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.

Contention60/100

Conservation value versus federal land expansion concerns

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Federal agencies · Local governmentsLocal governments · Federal agencies
Likely helped
  • 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.
Likely burdened
  • 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.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Conservation value versus federal land expansion concerns
Progressive90%

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.

Leans supportive
Centrist70%

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.

Leans supportive
Conservative30%

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.

Likely resistant
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 likelihood35/100

Very narrow, low-cost boundary adjustment has modest odds of enactment but depends on local owner cooperation and absence of procedural objections.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether funding is explicitly authorized or requires appropriations
  • Local landowner willingness to sell or donate parcels
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

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…

Unlocked analysis

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.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis