[House Report 119-290]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


119th Congress }                                              { Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session   }                                              { 119-290

=======================================================================



 
                  UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RESEARCH PARK ACT

                            ----------------                               

 September 15, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                            ----------------
                                
        Mr. Westerman, from the Committee on Natural Resources,
                        submitted the following


                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2876]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 2876) to confirm the use of certain non-Federal 
land in Salt Lake City, Utah, for public purposes, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                       PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

    The purpose of H.R. 2876 is to confirm the use of certain 
non-Federal land in Salt Lake City, Utah, for public purposes, 
and for other purposes.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    H.R. 2876 would address an issue related to the federal 
government's reversionary interest in approximately 593 acres 
of non-federal land owned by the University of Utah. The Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) originally issued a patent for this 
land, under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, to the 
University of Utah on October 18, 1968.\1\ The patent specified 
that the land, located in Salt Lake City, could be used only 
for academic expansion, an arboretum, and a highway to access 
facilities used for those purposes.\2\ Failing to adhere to the 
terms of the patent would trigger the reversionary interest, 
transferring the land back to the BLM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\U.S. Department of the Interior, ``Recreation and public 
Purposes Land Patent to the University of Utah'' October 18, 1968, 
https://d182hggomw8pjd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2020/
08/05141720/1968-10th-US-Grant-Land-Patent.pdf.
    \2\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the intervening decades, the University of Utah 
developed the land, now known as Research Park, into a research 
and development center that serves both the university and the 
local workforce.\3\ Research Park has helped over 100 start-
ups, conceived mostly by University of Utah students and 
researchers.\4\ The park currently hosts approximately 50 
companies, 81 university departments, and a workforce of more 
than 14,000 people.\5\ Among these are innovative companies 
specializing in biotechnology, pharmaceutical development, and 
manufacturing, all of which provide opportunities for students 
to learn and work among experts.\6\ This parcel has been used 
in this fashion by the university since the issuance of the 
patent and BLM has not been involved in the management of the 
land for more than 55 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\The Office of Senator Mike Lee, ``University of Utah Research 
Park Act,'' November 2, 2021, https://republicans-
naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/
2021.11.3_Research_Park_continuation.pdf.
    \4\Id.
    \5\Brian Maffly, ``U. has big plans for Research Park, but land 
patent is getting in the way,'' The Salt Lake Tribune, December 15, 
2021, https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2021/12/15/u-has-big-
plans-research/.
    \6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A recent review of Research Park uncovered that the parcel 
was not in compliance with the patent because of the commercial 
nature of the companies currently located there. Unfortunately, 
the restrictive terms of the reversionary clause mean that the 
university cannot continue to host these companies, despite the 
considerable educational and economic benefits they provide to 
students and the broader community.\7\ This restriction also 
prevents the university from further developing Research Park 
to benefit students and the local community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sponsored by Representative Blake Moore (R-UT-01), H.R. 
2876 would confirm that the current uses of Research Park, as 
approved in writing by the Department of the Interior on 
December 10, 1970, are valid public purposes consistent with 
the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. This bill also affirms 
that other university-related purposes, such as student housing 
and a transit hub, are consistent with the Recreation and 
Public Purposes Act. These changes would enable the university 
to move forward with its plans to enhance Research Park further 
by making it more walkable, creating additional residential 
facilities, and bringing in additional laboratories and 
offices.\8\ While the reversionary interest will remain in 
place, H.R. 2876 would bring the university back into 
compliance with the original terms of the deed and remove any 
uncertainty about the land reverting to the federal government 
because of its current use. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is the 
sponsor of the companion legislation in the Senate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Tony Semerad, ``University of Utah plans major revamp of 
research park on Foothill Drive, adding lots of housing,'' The Salt 
Lake Tribune, June 9, 2020, https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/06/09/
dense-walkable-amenity/.
    \9\S. 1453; https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-
bill/1453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 2876 was introduced on April 10, 2025, by 
Representative Blake Moore (R-UT). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands. On April 29, 2025, the 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands held a hearing on the bill. On 
June 25, 2025, the Committee on Natural Resources met to 
consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands was 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2876 by unanimous 
consent. The bill was ordered favorably reported to the House 
of Representatives by unanimous consent.

                                HEARINGS

    For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6) of House rule XIII, the 
following hearing was used to develop or consider this measure: 
hearing by the Subcommittee on Federal Lands held on April 29, 
2025.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 names the legislation the ``University of Utah 
Research Park Act.''

Section 2. Confirmation of use of certain non-Federal land in Salt Lake 
        City, Utah, for valid public purposes

    Section 2 confirms that the University of Utah's current 
use of approximately 593 acres of land as a research park is a 
valid public purpose consistent with the requirements of the 
Recreation and Public Purposes Act.\10\ This section also 
confirms that any other uses of the land as a research park or 
for a related university purpose, including student housing or 
transit hub development, are also valid public purposes 
consistent with the requirements of the Recreation and Public 
Purposes Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

      COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
                                ACT

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. 
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the 
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    H.R. 2876 would confirm the acceptability of the University 
of Utah's ongoing use of a 594-acre parcel of land. In 1968, 
the Department of the Interior conveyed the land to the 
university under the condition that it be used for public 
purposes. The university established and is currently operating 
an academic research park on the land, which houses technology, 
education, and medical facilities. The bill also would allow 
the university to develop student housing and a transit hub on 
the land and to use the area for other purposes related to the 
research park. Because those uses would have no cost to the 
federal government, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2876 would 
have no effect on the federal budget.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Katherine Chou. 
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Director of Budget Analysis.
                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                             Director, Congressional Budget Office.

    2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to confirm the use of certain non-
Federal land in Salt Lake City, Utah, for public purposes, and 
for other purposes.

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                 UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT

    According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 2876 
contains no unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act.

                           EXISTING PROGRAMS

    Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any 
directed rule makings.
    Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not 
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government 
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was 
not included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

    Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or 
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's 
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the 
U.S. Constitution.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    As ordered reported by the Committee on Natural Resources, 
H.R. 2876 would make no changes in existing law.

                                  [all]