Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Countable Is Officially Causes.com

house Bill H.R. 1324

Expanding the Boundaries of the Colorado’s Arapaho National Forest

Argument in favor

Adding more territory to the Arapaho National Forests will help preserve these environments by putting them under federal protection.

pgshpak's Opinion
···
04/27/2015
Until the public is better educated and privately act in a way that is not detrimental to the environment, protecting these places is important. This would add to the Park and is estimated not to require any extra funding. Might as well.
Like (17)
Follow
Share
StratonGarrard's Opinion
···
04/27/2015
National parks were created for the purpose of preserving our nations forest and landscapes. Such actions are within the boundaries of federal authority and must be done to assure that such land will preserved for the pleasure of future generations.
Like (8)
Follow
Share
Jared's Opinion
···
04/28/2015
It is important to recognize that the ecological impact of developments that do currently, and can in the future, expand throughout the forests are intrinsically tied to and affect our economy. We no longer see individual cabins being made here and there but, rather, corporate developers carving out huge swaths and building California style neighborhood developments. Preserving as much area in the mountains as possible is important to the ecology there that affects everything down to the water that eventually gets to California.
Like (4)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

There’s no clear indication that a 93 acre land increase will economically benefit the Arapaho National Forest or Colorado at large.

ThomasParker's Opinion
···
05/23/2015
This should be a decision for the people of Colorado's to make.
Like (12)
Follow
Share
Cary's Opinion
···
05/02/2015
What the heck for? It clearly says to be never used or seen or run naked in.
Like (8)
Follow
Share
Joshua's Opinion
···
04/27/2015
The federal government has neither the money nor resources to manage yet more land. The government needs to get out of the real estate / land ownership business.
Like (8)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 1324?

This bill would incorporate approximately 93 acres into the Arapaho National Forest, located in north-central Colorado.

If passed, the bill would make that designated land fall into the boundary described as the Bowen Gulch Protection Area. If passed, this bill would not allow common adventurers and other people who frequent the area to access those lands by vehicle — unless they own non-federal land within the federally owned area.

Located in the Rocky Mountains, the Arapaho National Forests include 723,744 acres of forest and grasslands. Currently, the public can access camping and research facilities on that land. 

Impact

People who frequent the Arapaho National Forest, Colorado and it's headwaters, Fort Collins, and related federal agencies like the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 1324

$0.00
A CBO cost estimate found that implementing this bill would not impact the federal budget as: "We expect that any additional costs to revise brochures, maps, and signs to reflect the new boundary would not be significant because such revisions would take place in conjunction with scheduled reprinting and routine maintenance."

More Information

In Depth: 

The section of land that this bill is referring to is often called "the wedge" between the Rocky Mountain National Park and the Arapaho National Forest. This bill would bring that wedge under federal protection, and would give the federal government the authority to acquire or at least solicit the land in the wedge from willing landowners.


Sponsoring Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) has noted his interest in this wedge is to prevent any infrastructure projects in that area: 

“This specific area of land is seen by millions of National Park visitors and development of it would not only significantly impact the scenic beauty of Rocky Mountain National Park, but could negatively harm the adjoining Colorado River headwaters.”

Media:

Sponsoring Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) Press Release

CBO Cost Estimate 

United States Department of Agriculture


(Photo Credit: Flickr user MAD Hippies Life)

AKA

Arapaho National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act of 2015

Official Title

To adjust the boundary of the Arapaho National Forest, Colorado, and for other purposes.

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Public Lands, Forests, and Mining Subcommittee
      Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
  • The house Passed April 28th, 2015
    Roll Call Vote 381 Yea / 30 Nay
      house Committees
      National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
      Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedMarch 4th, 2015
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    pgshpak's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    04/27/2015
    Until the public is better educated and privately act in a way that is not detrimental to the environment, protecting these places is important. This would add to the Park and is estimated not to require any extra funding. Might as well.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    ThomasParker's Opinion Against
    ···
    05/23/2015
    This should be a decision for the people of Colorado's to make.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Cary's Opinion Against
    ···
    05/02/2015
    What the heck for? It clearly says to be never used or seen or run naked in.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    StratonGarrard's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    04/27/2015
    National parks were created for the purpose of preserving our nations forest and landscapes. Such actions are within the boundaries of federal authority and must be done to assure that such land will preserved for the pleasure of future generations.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Joshua's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/27/2015
    The federal government has neither the money nor resources to manage yet more land. The government needs to get out of the real estate / land ownership business.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Loraki's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/29/2016
    Sounds like another federal LAND GRAB to me! I wonder how the people of Colorado feel about it! Forests play an important role in our air quality. Is Colorado not doing a good enough job of managing their forests? If passed, this bill would not allow "common adventurers" and other people who frequent the area to access those lands by vehicle — unless they own non-federal land within the federally owned area. This will impact ALL of us, including handicapped people, the elderly, and children who might want to visit this area.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Jared's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    04/28/2015
    It is important to recognize that the ecological impact of developments that do currently, and can in the future, expand throughout the forests are intrinsically tied to and affect our economy. We no longer see individual cabins being made here and there but, rather, corporate developers carving out huge swaths and building California style neighborhood developments. Preserving as much area in the mountains as possible is important to the ecology there that affects everything down to the water that eventually gets to California.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    BTSundra's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/19/2015
    The last thing people in Colorado want is more federal land taken from the state.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    HistoryVet101's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/04/2016
    Our Federal Government, especially the BLM, has not proven itself capable of doing its business in an efficient and even-handed way.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Dennis's Opinion Against
    ···
    05/19/2015
    Leave land to the states to develop if they wish
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    John's Opinion Against
    ···
    05/11/2015
    Leave land to the States. The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to ANY land other than Washington DC.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Melvin's Opinion Against
    ···
    04/29/2015
    The government currently has more than enough property it can't handle.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Thomas's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/02/2016
    If the people of Colorado wanted the land to be a park then the state of Colorado would be making it a park! The federal government has no business running parks! It can't even run an outhouse effectively! They say this will cost nothing but reality is that it will cost Colorado in lost land that has value and it will end up costing many millions because the parks department will now have an excuse to hire more park police, buy more vehicles and anything else they can come up with.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Taret's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    04/28/2015
    As Teddy Roosevelt would agree with, preserving our natural beauty is one of the key features and goals of America.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Loretta's Opinion Against
    ···
    05/07/2015
    The government cant take care of what we have now
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Tuwharetoa7's Opinion Against
    ···
    09/06/2016
    This is a state issue, not a national one. We need to get the national government out of the rights of the states.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    operaman's Opinion Against
    ···
    11/29/2016
    Absolutely not. Our Federal Government keeps adding more state lands under the guise of protecting natural resources. Just a simple unconstitutional executive act.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    a.nash.miller's Opinion Against
    ···
    02/05/2016
    This should be up to Colorado. The gov can not own land 10 square miles outside of dc, unless for bases or ports, and they still need the state's permission. Also, the BLM is an illegal organization and should be scrapped.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    David 's Opinion Against
    ···
    05/01/2016
    State's rights issue
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Mary's Opinion Against
    ···
    10/31/2015
    This would be a call the state, localities and most importantly the land owners, should make
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE