Yosemite National Park Equal Access and Fairness Act

Bill Number

H.R. 177

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Public Lands and Natural Resources

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Last Updated

2025-03-10T19:42:10Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The Yosemite National Park Equal Access and Fairness Act (H.R. 177) aims to amend the Raker Act of 1913, which granted the City of San Francisco rights to develop water and power facilities in Yosemite National Park. The bill seeks to increase public recreational access to the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Basin areas while ensuring the preservation of their scenic, historic, scientific, and other important features. It also addresses funding and equity in managing these areas.

Key Provisions

• Increased Annual Payments: Raises the City of San Francisco's annual rental fee to the National Park Service (NPS) from $30,000 to $2,000,000, with annual adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (a measure of inflation in everyday goods and services).
• Restrictions on Fee Recovery: Prohibits San Francisco from passing these increased payments on to its wholesale water or power customers.
• Expanded Recreational Uses: Directs the Secretary of the Interior (through the NPS) to manage the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Basin for public recreation, including:
• Swimming.
• Use of non-motorized watercraft (e.g., kayaks or canoes without engines).
• Camping and picnicking in and around the areas, provided camping is above the ordinary high-water marks (the typical highest level the water reaches).
• Other appropriate recreational activities determined by the NPS.
• Access via motorized and non-motorized vehicles on roads leading to the areas, as long as it does not harm dam operations or maintenance.
• Inclusion of Wildfire Mitigation: Adds wildfire prevention and response activities to the types of improvements San Francisco must support in the areas.
• Required Report to Congress: Within one year of enactment, the NPS must submit a report to relevant congressional committees analyzing:
• Whether the original 1913 intent for recreational access has been upheld since the areas' creation.
• Options for collecting and allocating revenue to ensure fair public access, including covering costs for trail maintenance, road improvements, and wildfire management. The report considers ways to offset costs, such as adjusting water and power prices, treating San Francisco as a park concessioner (a business operating under NPS oversight), or increasing the rental fee to account for lost benefits like recreation opportunities and flood control.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• From the Raker Act of 1913: The original law allowed San Francisco to build dams and reservoirs in Yosemite for water and power but restricted public access to protect water quality. This bill shifts focus by explicitly mandating recreational administration, introducing new allowed activities (e.g., swimming and boating, previously limited or prohibited), and significantly hiking the rental fee (from a fixed low amount to an inflation-adjusted $2 million). It also adds prohibitions on fee pass-through and wildfire provisions, which were not in the original act.
• New Section 12: Introduces a dedicated framework for recreational management, requiring preservation alongside use, which formalizes public access rights not previously emphasized.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The NPS will gain authority and responsibility to oversee expanded recreation, potentially increasing administrative workload for permitting, monitoring, and enforcement. It may also boost federal revenue from higher fees but require new budgeting for area maintenance.
• On Citizens: Enhances public access to iconic Yosemite areas for activities like swimming and camping, promoting equitable recreation opportunities, especially for urban populations near San Francisco. However, it could lead to higher water or power rates if costs are indirectly absorbed.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic park management; it may indirectly support U.S. environmental tourism, which attracts global visitors.
• Broader Effects: Could reduce San Francisco's financial burden on ratepayers by shifting some costs to the city, while improving wildfire resilience in a high-risk area. Potential for increased park visitation may strain resources if not managed well.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• National Park Service (NPS) and Department of the Interior: Primary administrators responsible for implementing recreation rules and submitting the required report.
• City of San Francisco: As the "grantee" under the 1913 act, it faces higher fees, restrictions on cost recovery, and potential new obligations like treating its operations as a concession.
• Public and Recreation Users: Yosemite visitors, hikers, and outdoor enthusiasts who gain expanded access to previously restricted areas.
• Environmental and Conservation Groups: May support preservation mandates but oppose increased human activity near sensitive ecosystems or water sources.
• Water and Power Customers: Primarily in the Bay Area, who could be indirectly affected if San Francisco adjusts rates despite the pass-through ban.
• Congressional Committees: Natural Resources Committee, which receives the report and oversees implementation.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Reinforces federal authority over national park lands under the 1913 Raker Act while clarifying public access rights, potentially setting a precedent for balancing utility development with recreation in protected areas. The report could lead to future amendments if inequities are identified.
• Constitutional: Aligns with the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 3), which empowers Congress to manage federal lands, including parks. No direct challenges to due process or takings (e.g., no compensation required for San Francisco's increased fees, as they stem from an existing grant).
• Political: Sponsored by California Republicans, it reflects bipartisan interest in park access (co-sponsors include local representatives) but may spark debate over water rights versus public lands. Could influence ongoing discussions on restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley (a long-standing environmental campaign) by prioritizing recreation without addressing dam removal. The inflation-adjusted fee and cost analyses promote fiscal accountability in public-private land deals.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5]

Cosponsors (3)

Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41], Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1], Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22]

Recent Actions

• 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
• 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
• 2025-01-03: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Yosemite National Park Equal Access and Fairness Act — issued 2025-01-03 — PDF (5 pages)