What This Bill Does
This bill would let the Secretary of the Interior acquire about 6,100 acres of land or land interests for Big Bend National Park in Texas, but only by donation or exchange. If those lands are acquired, the park boundary would be revised to include them and the National Park Service would manage them as part of the park. The bill also bars the use of eminent domain or condemnation, so no one could be forced to sell. It mainly affects nearby landowners, the National Park Service, and visitors to the park.
- Secretary of the Interior may acquire about 6,100 acres or land interests.
- Acquisition is allowed only by donation or exchange.
- Any acquired land must be added to Big Bend National Park.
- The bill prohibits eminent domain or condemnation.
- The boundary map is the November 2022 map numbered 155/167,296.
Who This Bill Affects
For a typical American, this bill has little direct day-to-day effect. If you live near Big Bend National Park or own land in the affected area, it could create new opportunities to donate or exchange land with the federal government, and any acquired land would become part of the park; the bill also protects owners by forbidding eminent domain or condemnation. For most other people, the main effect would be indirect: possible changes to park boundaries, conservation management, and visitor access in southwest Texas.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisOfficial Source & Bill Facts
BillBoard checks this page against public Congress.gov metadata, then adds plain-English analysis where available.
- Bill
- HR 2323
- Congress
- 119th Congress
- Official title
- Big Bend National Park Boundary Adjustment Act
- Policy area
- Environment & Energy
- Latest action
- ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Pfluger asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 2323, a bill originally introduced by Representative Gonzales (TX), for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection. (June 23, 2026)
- Last updated
- June 24, 2026
Who Supports & Opposes This
- National park advocates They would argue the bill helps protect important landscape, habitat, and scenic resources around Big Bend by adding land that is already identified on the official boundary-adjustment map. Because acquisition is limited to donation or exchange, they can support preservation without authorizing forced takings.
- Local tourism businesses Businesses that rely on park visitation may see value in a cleaner, more coherent park boundary if it improves resource protection and visitor experience. A larger or better-protected park can support the area’s appeal as a destination.
- Landowners willing to negotiate Owners who prefer to transfer land voluntarily could benefit from having a clear statutory process for donation or exchange. The bill gives them a path to deal with federal land management on terms that do not involve condemnation.
- Nearby private landowners wary of federal expansion They may worry that even a voluntary boundary adjustment can increase federal influence over the region and affect nearby land use, access, or future land values. Some may also fear that once land is brought into the park, federal management rules will be more restrictive.
- Local development interests They could argue that expanding the park may limit private-sector development options near the boundary and shift land from local control to federal control. That can matter in areas where ranching, access, or infrastructure plans depend on land flexibility.
- Taxpayers concerned about federal land expansion Some opponents may question whether enlarging the park is the best use of federal attention and administrative resources. Even without a purchase price spelled out in the bill, adding acreage can bring long-term management obligations for the National Park Service.
Key Implications
-
““acquire approximately 6,100 acres of land or interests in land””
This is the core expansion authority. It gives the Interior Department room to enlarge the park footprint by a specific amount, but only for the lands shown on the designated map.
-
““by donation or exchange””
The bill limits acquisition methods to voluntary transfers. That means the government cannot buy the land under a general purchase authority here, and it cannot compel a sale.
-
““revise the boundary of the Park to include the acquired land””
Any land acquired under the bill would immediately become part of the park boundary. That matters because it changes how the land is managed and which federal rules apply.
-
““administer the acquired land… as part of the Park””
Once included, the land is not just adjacent property; it is managed under National Park Service rules and regulations. For land users, that can mean a shift from private or other land-use rules to park protections.
-
““may not use eminent domain or condemnation””
This is a strong limitation on federal power. It reassures nearby owners that the boundary adjustment cannot be carried out by forcing property transfers.
Latest Status
June 23, 2026
ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Pfluger asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 2323, a bill originally introduced by Representative Gonzales (TX), for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.