Senate 31 A bill to designate the mountain at the Devils Tower National Monument, Wyoming, as Devils Tower, and for other purposes.

A bill to designate the mountain at the Devils Tower National Monument, Wyoming, as Devils Tower, and for other purposes.

Bill Summary

This bill is a concise, single-purpose measure that formally designates the prominent geologic formation and a nearby associated area within Devils Tower National Monument, Wyoming, as “Devils Tower.” It provides two specific coordinate points—44°35'26"N, 104°42'55"W (the monolith itself) and 44°35'21"N, 104°41'48"W (an associated area within the monument)—and directs that any reference in federal law, maps, regulations, orders, or documents shall be deemed a reference to “Devils Tower.” In effect, the bill codifies in statute the name already widely used by the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN), and the public, thereby standardizing the nomenclature across all federal records going forward.

The operative mechanics are straightforward. Section 1(a) establishes the official name for the feature and a nearby area. Section 1(b) ensures consistency by requiring that all federal references—whether in laws, maps, or administrative materials—use “Devils Tower.” There are no other sections or policy provisions; the bill does not alter monument boundaries, land management authorities, access policies, climbing regulations, or sacred site protections. Nor does it authorize funding or require immediate reprinting of maps; rather, it ensures that the standardized name is used as materials are updated. The phrase “and for other purposes” in the short title is boilerplate and not reflected in any additional mandates in the text.

The practical effect is to lock in the long-standing federal usage of “Devils Tower,” a name familiar to tens of millions of visitors, climbers, and tourists, as well as the surrounding gateway communities whose tourism branding relies on it. The BGN historically disfavors apostrophes in possessive place names, and “Devils Tower” (without an apostrophe) reflects that convention. By elevating the name from administrative usage to statutory law, Congress would supersede or preempt any future administrative renaming efforts by the Department of the Interior or the BGN. Any change thereafter would require new legislation.

Pros

  • Provides administrative clarity and consistency across federal records without changing monument management or access policies.
  • Imposes negligible cost and workload on agencies; updates can be folded into routine map and database cycles.
  • Avoids sudden administrative renaming that could confuse visitors and local businesses mid-season; predictability benefits stakeholders.
  • Coordinates precisely define the covered features, minimizing ambiguity for mapping and legal references.
  • Maintains current visitor familiarity, which can indirectly support local jobs and economic stability while broader naming conversations continue.
  • Protects the long-standing, widely recognized historical name, preventing administrative changes perceived as driven by political or cultural trends.
  • Supports local tourism branding and business investments built around the Devils Tower name, minimizing confusion and preserving economic value.
  • Asserts clear congressional authority over high-profile naming decisions, limiting bureaucratic discretion at Interior or the BGN.
  • Delivers a low-cost, straightforward, and easily implemented standardization for federal records and maps.
  • Reflects constituent sentiment in Wyoming and aligns with state-level preferences to maintain the established name.
  • Reduces the risk of piecemeal or agency-by-agency divergence in naming that could create regulatory or navigational confusion.

Cons

  • Locks in a name many tribes consider inaccurate or disrespectful, preempting administrative avenues for reconciliation-oriented renaming or dual naming.
  • Short-circuits the U.S. Board on Geographic Names and Interior-led consultation processes that Democrats often favor for inclusive decision-making.
  • Misses an opportunity for compromise solutions (e.g., dual naming that elevates Indigenous names alongside the established one).
  • Sets a precedent for Congress to legislate contested names, potentially politicizing what is typically an expert-driven, consultative process.
  • May strain relationships with tribal governments and undermine trust in future co-stewardship or sacred site management initiatives.
  • Invites cultural controversy by freezing a contested name in statute, potentially galvanizing opposition from tribes and national advocacy groups.
  • Could be seen as federal micromanagement of a symbolic issue, detracting from GOP messaging on limiting federal involvement where not strictly necessary.
  • May complicate future collaborative efforts with tribes on access, seasonal closures, or sacred site protections if viewed as dismissive of cultural concerns.
  • Consumes legislative time on a symbolic matter when voters may prioritize economic, border, or national security issues.
  • If public sentiment evolves, requiring a new act of Congress to change the name could be seen as inflexible and politically costly.

This bill was introduced on January 08, 2025 in the Senate.

View on Congress.gov:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/31

  • Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

  • Introduced in Senate

    10000

This bill has not yet been enacted into law.

No related bills found for this legislation.

BILL IMAGE

Sponsors

Policy Area: Public Lands and Natural Resources