H.R.2063 - To prohibit natural asset companies from entering into any agreement with respect to land in the State of Utah or natural assets on or in land in the State of Utah. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.2063 aims to prohibit natural asset companies from entering into agreements related to land or natural assets within the state of Utah. The bill defines a "natural asset company" as an entity holding rights to ecological performance of an area and managing it for conservation, restoration, or sustainable management.
The bill specifically targets these companies, preventing them from engaging in any agreements concerning land or natural resources in Utah.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Kennedy of Utah and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Expected Effects
If enacted, H.R.2063 would prevent natural asset companies from operating or making agreements related to land and natural assets in Utah. This could impact conservation efforts, land management practices, and potentially economic activities related to natural resources within the state.
The bill could also set a precedent for other states to enact similar legislation, potentially limiting the role of natural asset companies nationwide.
This could lead to legal challenges based on interstate commerce or property rights.
Potential Benefits
- Protection of Local Control: Preserves Utah's control over its land and natural resources.
- Prevention of Unforeseen Environmental Impacts: Prevents potential negative impacts from natural asset companies' management practices.
- Support for Local Businesses: Protects local businesses from competition with large natural asset companies.
- Preservation of Traditional Land Uses: Maintains traditional land uses such as agriculture, ranching, and recreation.
- Reduced Uncertainty: Provides clarity and reduces uncertainty for landowners and businesses in Utah.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced Investment in Conservation: May discourage investment in conservation and sustainable management practices in Utah.
- Limited Access to Expertise: Restricts access to specialized expertise and resources that natural asset companies could provide.
- Potential Economic Losses: Could lead to economic losses if natural asset companies are prevented from developing sustainable projects.
- Missed Opportunities for Innovation: May hinder innovation in land management and natural resource utilization.
- Legal Challenges: The bill could face legal challenges based on the Commerce Clause or other constitutional grounds.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause). However, this bill primarily concerns land and natural resources within a single state, which traditionally falls under state jurisdiction.
The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, suggesting that Utah has the right to regulate land use within its borders. However, if natural asset companies are involved in interstate commerce, the federal government could potentially assert jurisdiction.
The bill's alignment with the Constitution depends on the specific activities of the natural asset companies and the extent to which they impact interstate commerce.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).