House Bill 118, described by its sponsor as a measure “to keep Wyoming lands in Wyoming hands,” advanced from the Agriculture, State & Public Lands & Water Resources Committee by an 8–1 roll-call vote.

The bill would amend statutory provisions governing exchanges and transfers of state lands to prohibit transactions that result in a net gain of federal surface or mineral acreage within Wyoming. Sponsor Representative Banks told the committee the measure seeks to prevent further expansion of federal ownership and preserve lands and minerals for state use and revenue.

State Superintendent Megan Degenfelder, who sits on the State Board of Land Commissioners, testified in support. Degenfelder said she backed the bill both to limit federal acreage and to protect the board’s fiduciary duty to maximize long-term returns for the K–12 permanent fund; she noted that federal ownership already accounts for a large proportion of Wyoming surface and mineral acreage and said the Kelly parcel sale highlighted the consequences of losing state control of contiguous parcels.

Office of State Lands interim director Jason Crowder urged caution. Crowder told the committee that state practice and federal law typically use a value-for-value standard, not strict acre-for-acre swaps, in federal land exchanges (citing 43 U.S.C. 1716 as the federal exchange policy). Crowder said some current transactions under negotiation — including a Medicine Bow National Forest exchange tied to the West Fork Reservoir project — rely on value-for-value accounting and would be impossible to complete if federal acreage gains were categorically barred. He said the department’s analysis shows the state currently owns about 3.9 million surface acres (the state was originally granted about 4.2 million at statehood) and that recent exchanges and sales have produced net increases in publicly accessible acreage in specific transactions.

Several witnesses urged refinements rather than an absolute prohibition. Jim McGavin of the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association and others said earlier drafts offering an 85% voluntary-agreement threshold or a requirement that an exchange be accompanied by an offsetting transfer had merit; Senatorial and county participants previously involved in the public-lands initiative were also cited as having discussed alternatives to outright bans. Representative Tarver urged stronger protections for state land and suggested more aggressive odds in the state’s favor for any trade.

Committee members discussed the bill’s constitutional and operational implications. Representative Provenza said he was concerned about private-property effects and constitutional takings issues if the statute limited private landowners’ ability to sell to the federal government. Several committee members, including Representative Eklund and Representative Davis, said they supported the bill’s intent but wanted additional time to consider alignment with the Office of State Lands’ value-for-value practice and the board’s fiduciary responsibilities.

On the roll call motion to advance the bill, the committee recorded ayes from Representatives Banks, Davis, Eklund, Johnson, Otman, Schmidt, Struck, and Chairman John Winter; Representative Provenza voted no. The committee chair announced the vote as 8–1 in favor. The transcript shows committee members agreeing to take further consideration of language (members suggested possible amendments and further discussion) before floor action.

Votes at a glance

- House Bill 118 — Motion: do pass (mover/second not specified in transcript). Roll-call: Banks (Aye), Davis (Aye), Eklund (Aye), Johnson (Aye), Otman (Aye), Provenza (No), Schmidt (Aye), Struck (Aye), Chairman John Winter (Aye). Tally: 8–1 in favor; outcome: passed by committee.