Yosemite National Park Equal Access and Fairness Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 10, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to update a century-old agreement by increasing San Francisco's financial contribution for its use of Hetch Hetchy and Lake Eleanor while simultaneously expanding public recreational opportunities in these Yosemite National Park areas.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Raker Act of 1913 to significantly increase the annual payment from the City of San Francisco for its use of the Hetch Hetchy and Lake Eleanor areas within Yosemite National Park, raising it from $30,000 to $2,000,000 and indexing it to inflation. It also mandates expanded public recreational access to these areas, allowing activities such as swimming and non-motorized watercraft, and requires a report on revenue allocation and equitable access.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill rectifies an imbalance by requiring San Francisco to pay a more equitable amount for its use of federal lands and resources, reflecting modern values and the true cost of maintaining these areas. They contend it will ensure greater public access to a national park, enhance recreational opportunities, and contribute to critical wildfire mitigation efforts.
Opponents contend
Opponents, likely including the City of San Francisco, would argue that the increased fees could lead to higher water or power costs for its residents and that the existing agreement is sufficient. They might also raise concerns about potential environmental impacts or increased management burdens on a sensitive wilderness area from expanded recreational access, as well as the security of a vital water supply.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for evaluation.
Section 2(a)(1)(A)
Increased Annual Payment and Inflation Adjustment
This provision amends the 1913 Act to increase the annual payment required from the grantee (City of San Francisco) from $30,000 to $2,000,000. It also mandates that this new payment be adjusted annually to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, ensuring the fee keeps pace with inflation over time.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this update is long overdue, as the original $30,000 fee from 1913 is negligible today. The increased payment better reflects the value of the federal lands and resources utilized by San Francisco and provides more adequate funding for the National Park Service to manage and maintain the area.
Critics contend
Opponents, likely representing San Francisco, would contend that the original agreement was a fixed payment and that unilaterally increasing it breaks a long-standing understanding. They might argue it imposes an unfair financial burden on the city and its ratepayers, potentially leading to higher utility costs.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between updating a century-old agreement to reflect current economic realities and the potential financial impact on the City of San Francisco and its residents, who rely on the Hetch Hetchy system.
Section 2(a)(1)(B)
Restriction on Cost Recoupment from Wholesale Customers
This provision explicitly states that the grantee (City of San Francisco) "may not recoup said sums from wholesale water or power customers of the grantee." This aims to prevent the increased annual payment from being passed directly to other municipalities or entities that purchase water or power from San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy system at wholesale rates.
Section 2(a)(1)(C)
Funding for Wildfire Mitigation
This amendment adds "and wildfire mitigation activities" to the purposes for which the annual payments can be used. Previously, the funds were for "other improvements." This explicitly broadens the scope of permissible expenditures to include efforts to prevent and suppress wildfires in the Hetch Hetchy and Lake Eleanor Basin areas.
Section 2(a)(2), adding new Section 12
Public Recreation Mandate and Allowed Activities
This new section mandates that the Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service, administer the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Basin areas for public recreation, benefit, and use, while preserving scenic, historic, and scientific features. It specifically allows swimming, non-motorized watercraft, camping (above high-water marks), picnicking, and other appropriate recreational activities, along with vehicle access to support these activities, provided they don't negatively affect dam operations.
Section 2(b)
Mandated Report on Revenue and Access
This section requires the Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service, to submit a report to Congress within one year. The report must analyze whether the original intent of the 1913 Act regarding recreational access has been followed and how revenue collection and fund allocation can best provide equitable public access. It specifically asks for consideration of maintenance costs, wildfire prevention, and ways to mitigate costs, including adjusting water/power prices, treating San Francisco as a concessioner, and adding the monetary value of lost benefits (recreation, flood control) to the annual rental fee.
The report to Congress must consider ways to mitigate costs, including "treating the City of San Francisco as a concessioner" and "adding to the annual rental fee... the annual monetary value of the benefits that would be lost if such areas had not been created, including consideration of recreational activities; and flood control."
Section 2(b)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for setting the stage for future policy debates. It signals potential future directions without enacting them directly in this bill.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these considerations are essential for a full and fair accounting of the value San Francisco derives from Hetch Hetchy and the potential public benefits foregone. Treating the city as a concessioner or valuing lost benefits could lead to a more equitable financial arrangement.
Case against: The City of San Francisco would likely argue that such considerations fundamentally alter the nature of the original Raker Act agreement, which was not structured as a concession. Valuing "lost benefits" could be seen as an attempt to extract additional, unwarranted payments.
Estimated impact: The impact is currently analytical, but if enacted, could lead to significant financial implications for San Francisco, potentially millions of dollars annually depending on the valuation methodology.