Public Access. High-Value Wildlife Habitat. Protected Open Space. A More Coherent Working Landscape.

OUT OF BOUNDS RANCH | PUBLICATION | SEPTEMBER 2, 2026

A Land Exchange Should Be Judged on the Full Set of Facts

Public-land exchanges deserve careful scrutiny. Out of Bounds Ranch believes the proposed GAME Act should be evaluated on what is actually being exchanged, what the public would receive, what the ranch would receive, what property rights are and are not involved, and what protections would remain on the landscape.

Under the current draft proposal, approximately 2,103 acres of private land at Cow Creek and Timber Valley would become federal public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. In exchange, approximately 2,158 acres of BLM-administered land located within and adjacent to Out of Bounds Ranch would become private land incorporated into the ranch.

The proposal is therefore not exactly acre-for-acre. Approximately 55 more acres would move from federal to private ownership than from private to federal ownership. Acreage alone, however, does not establish either market value or public benefit. Location, access, habitat, terrain, recreation, existing rights, improvements, restrictions and the resulting ownership pattern all matter.

2,103 ACRES OF PRIVATE LAND WOULD BECOME FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND
2,158 ACRES OF BLM LAND WOULD BECOME PART OF OBR
GARFIELD COUNTY SAYS THE EXCHANGE WOULD PROVIDE ACCESS TO APPROXIMATELY 8,900 ACRES OF EXISTING BLM LAND

What the Public Would Receive

The non-federal lands identified in the current draft consist of approximately 1,020 acres at Timber Valley Ranch and approximately 1,083 acres at Cow Creek Ranch, for a total of approximately 2,103 acres.

Garfield County's July 23, 2026 public materials report that Colorado Parks and Wildlife identified the Cow Creek and Timber Valley properties as containing some of the highest-value big-game hunting habitat in the state, supporting elk, deer, turkey and other wildlife. This statement should not be confused with a formal CPW endorsement of the GAME Act; it is the wildlife assessment reported by Garfield County in support of its resolution.

Garfield County also states that the exchange would provide public access to approximately 8,900 acres of existing BLM land northwest of Rifle. The County identifies hunting and other recreation opportunities associated with the lands, including hiking, fishing, mountain biking, ATV and off-road use, snowmobiling and other activities where allowed under federal management.

If the exchange is completed, the approximately 2,103 acres conveyed to the United States would be managed under the laws, rules and regulations applicable to BLM public lands.

What Out of Bounds Ranch Would Receive

Approximately 2,158 acres of BLM-administered land within and adjacent to Out of Bounds Ranch would become private land incorporated into the ranch.

OBR does not claim that these federal lands have no public value. They provide wildlife habitat, open space and hunting opportunity. A credible discussion of the exchange should acknowledge that directly.

The ranch's reason for seeking the exchange is that the BLM lands form part of a fragmented ownership pattern interspersed with and adjacent to private ranch property. Consolidation would allow grazing, fencing, water systems, weed control, forest health, wildlife habitat work and wildfire mitigation to be planned across a more coherent ownership pattern.

The ranch's working relationship with the surrounding federal range also predates this proposal. Recorded Garfield County documents show predecessor ranch property associated with federal grazing rights and privileges by at least 1966. Later federal records identify the Gould Allotment, and current ranch records continue to associate that allotment with OBR. OBR does not claim that this proves continuous use of the exact exchange parcels before 1966.

The Lands Incorporated Into OBR Would Remain Open and Undeveloped

The purpose of the exchange is not residential development.

During Garfield County's consideration of the proposal, Commissioner Perry Will called for a deed restriction preserving the wildlife, agricultural and ranching character of the federal lands that would become private. OBR agreed to that concept and has committed that the lands acquired through the exchange will be subject to a perpetual deed restriction against residential subdivision and residential development.

The intended restriction would preserve the lands as part of an open working landscape while allowing ranching and agriculture, wildlife and conservation work, forest management, wildfire mitigation, water-related operations and improvements reasonably necessary to operate and care for the ranch.

This deed-restriction commitment is an OBR commitment associated with the exchange. It is not stated as a requirement in the March 2026 legislative draft presently under discussion.

What About the Connection to White River National Forest?

At its northern end, the BLM acreage proposed for transfer physically connects to White River National Forest. That public-land ownership connection is real and should be described accurately.

It is not a developed public-access route to the National Forest. There is no public trailhead on the BLM exchange property and no established public trail across that property to the National Forest. The gravel road on the BLM property, built and funded by OBR with zero taxpayer funding, is used for authorized BLM and ranch motorized access; public motorized use on the road or BLM property is not permitted.

Reaching the National Forest through this particular connection therefore requires a long, rough overland trip on foot or horseback. Separate public access to White River National Forest remains available from the Red Canyon Road area nearby.

The exchange would end this particular continuous public-land ownership connection. It would not eliminate public access to White River National Forest. Those are different facts, and both should be part of an accurate discussion.

Water, Consolidated Reservoir and the Exchange

Water is a valuable and sometimes confusing part of western land ownership. The most important point is that ownership of surface land, ownership of a reservoir facility and ownership of water rights are not necessarily the same thing.

Colorado's Legislative Council describes a water right as a property interest separate from the land. Colorado water rights are governed by their own priorities, decrees, ownership records and legal arrangements.

Consolidated Reservoir is privately owned even though it is located on BLM-administered land

Consolidated Reservoir is located on BLM-administered land near OBR. A BLM dam inventory identifies the facility as Consolidated Reservoir, NID No. CO00677, and identifies Consolidated Reservoir Company - not BLM - as the owner. The same federal inventory identifies the State of Colorado as the inspecting agency for the dam.

That arrangement illustrates an important point: the presence of a privately owned reservoir and private water interests on federal surface land does not make those water interests federal property. There are no fish in the Consolidated Reservoir and it is currently completely drained.

OBR's 30% reservoir interest predates the proposed exchange

OBR's reservoir interest is not being created by the GAME Act. A recorded 2006 Garfield County deed conveyed an undivided 30 percent interest in Consolidated Reservoir storage rights to JG Real Property LLC, the ranch's predecessor owner. Consolidated Reservoir corporate minutes from the same period show JG Real Property LLC holding 30 of the company's 100 shares. The 30 percent ranch-side interest continued through the modern ownership chain into OBR.

Other parties hold the remaining reservoir interests. Because the current company stock ledger has not been used as the controlling source for this public page, OBR is not publishing a present-day allocation of every other owner's percentage here.

The GAME Act does not transfer the other reservoir owners' shares to OBR

The current draft GAME Act does not identify the privately held Consolidated Reservoir shares as property to be transferred to OBR. The draft also provides that the federal land exchange is subject to valid existing rights.

Accordingly, the land exchange should not be described as giving OBR ownership of Consolidated Reservoir, all of the water stored in the reservoir, or the other owners' reservoir interests. OBR's existing 30 percent interest remains a separate pre-existing property interest; the other reservoir interests are not conveyed to OBR by the text of the proposed land exchange.

Surface ownership is not a shortcut for valuing water

Water rights can have substantial value in Colorado. That is precisely why the ownership of those rights must be identified correctly rather than inferred from a land-ownership map.

The fact that Consolidated Reservoir sits on BLM-administered land does not mean the federal government owns the privately held Consolidated Reservoir storage interests. Any appraisal of the exchange should value the property interests actually being conveyed and should not confuse privately held water rights with federal surface ownership.

Oil, Gas and Mineral Interests

The current draft should also be described accurately on minerals.

The draft directs each side to convey its right, title and interest in the exchange lands, expressly including mineral rights. It does not say that OBR receives mineral interests the United States does not own, and the exchange remains subject to valid existing rights.

To the extent the United States owns mineral interests in the federal exchange lands, those interests are included in the proposed conveyance. To the extent the private conveying party owns mineral interests in the non-federal exchange lands, those interests are included in the proposed conveyance to the United States.

The draft's independent appraisal requirement applies to the lands and property interests being exchanged. Any mineral value actually included in the interests conveyed should therefore be reflected in the appraisal rather than assumed, ignored or described as a separate undisclosed benefit.

Independent Appraisal and Equal Value

Federal land belongs to the American people, and the financial terms of a completed exchange must protect the public.

The current draft GAME Act requires the exchange to be for equal value or for any difference in value to be equalized. The values are to be determined by one or more independent and qualified appraisers mutually agreed to by the Secretary of the Interior and OBR.

The draft requires appraisals under the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

If the federal land appraises for more than the non-federal land, OBR would be required to make a cash equalization payment to the United States. If the non-federal land appraises for more, the United States would not pay OBR the difference; under the current draft, the excess value would be treated as a donation to the United States.

The draft also requires OBR to pay the administrative costs associated with the exchange.

No final federal appraisal has yet established the value of the two sides of the proposed transaction. Until that process is completed, privately asserted dollar values should not be presented as an official federal valuation.

Congressional Authorization, FLPMA and NEPA

The GAME Act proposes to authorize the exchange through Congress rather than through the ordinary administrative land-exchange route. That procedural difference should be stated plainly.

The current draft expressly waives specified land-use-planning requirements under Title II of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act for this exchange. It does not contain a waiver of the National Environmental Policy Act.

The draft directs the Secretary of the Interior to complete the exchange within 180 days after enactment if OBR offers the non-federal land for conveyance. Garfield County's July 23 public release states that there will be opportunities during the NEPA process for the County to provide comments.

OBR supports accurate public discussion of both parts of that process: Congress would provide the exchange authorization and defined timetable, while the current draft does not waive NEPA.

Garfield County Formally Supports the Exchange

On July 23, 2026, the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners approved a resolution supporting the proposed exchange by a 2-0 vote, with Commissioner Mike Samson excused.

The County's public materials cite the approximately 8,900 acres of public access, the wildlife and recreation value of the Cow Creek and Timber Valley properties, the County's adopted federal-land policies and the importance of protecting the lands near OBR from future residential development.

Commissioner Perry Will summarized his conclusion this way: "The greater public good for the citizens of Garfield County is for this exchange."

Garfield County's support does not substitute for federal authorization, appraisal or environmental review. It is the formal position of the local government in the county where the exchange lands are located.

Current Status

The Greater Access for Multiple-use Experiences Act - the GAME Act - remains proposed legislation. Garfield County's July 23, 2026 public release states that the bill had not yet been introduced in Congress.

The acreages and legislative provisions described on this page reflect the current draft proposal.

The Bottom Line

The proposal does not ask anyone to ignore what the public would give up. Approximately 2,158 acres of existing BLM land would become private, and the public-land ownership connection at the northern end of that acreage would end.

It asks that the entire exchange be evaluated with the same level of accuracy.

• Approximately 2,103 acres of private land would become federal public land.

• Garfield County says those lands would provide public access to approximately 8,900 acres of existing BLM land northwest of Rifle.

• Garfield County reports that Colorado Parks and Wildlife identified the Cow Creek and Timber Valley lands as exceptionally valuable big-game habitat.

• The lands incorporated into OBR would be subject to OBR's commitment to a perpetual restriction against residential subdivision and residential development.

• Consolidated Reservoir is a privately owned reservoir facility located on BLM-administered land; OBR's 30 percent reservoir interest predates the exchange, and the draft does not transfer the other owners' reservoir shares to OBR.

• The draft expressly includes mineral interests to the extent they are actually owned by the conveying party and requires independent appraisal of the interests being exchanged.

• The exchange must be equal in value or equalized as provided in the draft; OBR would pay the exchange's administrative costs.

• The current draft waives specified FLPMA land-use-planning requirements but does not contain a NEPA waiver.

BETTER PUBLIC ACCESS.
HIGH-VALUE WILDLIFE HABITAT.
PROTECTED OPEN SPACE.
A MORE COHERENT WORKING LANDSCAPE.

That is why Out of Bounds Ranch believes the proposed GAME Act land exchange should be judged on the complete record rather than on any single acreage figure, map feature or property-right assumption.

Public Reference Documents

For readers who want to review the public record directly:

• Garfield County, July 23, 2026: “BOCC supports proposed federal land swap.” https://www.garfieldcountyco.gov/news/bocc-supports-proposed-federal-land-swap/

• Bureau of Land Management dam inventory: Consolidated Reservoir, NID CO00677, owner listed as Consolidated Reservoir Company; State of Colorado listed as inspecting agency. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/IM2013-124_att1.pdf

• Colorado Legislative Council, State Water Policy: A Legislator's Guide to Colorado Water Issues - explains that a Colorado water right is a property interest separate from the land. https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2017state_water_policy_handbook_update_to_print.pdf