Overview
Title
To amend the Act of December 19, 1913 (38 Stat. 242), to expand access to the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Basin areas for recreational purposes, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
Congress is looking at a new plan where they want to let more people swim, camp, and have fun at two big water places called Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Basin. They've decided to give a lot more money to make it all better and safe, but they need to be careful so it doesn't cost too much for everyone who wants to visit.
Summary AI
H. R. 177 seeks to amend a 1913 Act to increase public access to the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Basin for recreational activities such as swimming, camping, and picnicking. The bill proposes increased funding for improvements and wildfire mitigation, and requires the Secretary of the Interior to manage these areas for recreational purposes while preserving their scenic and historic features. Additionally, it mandates a report to assess compliance with the original 1913 Act's intent for recreational access and explores ways to allocate funds for the maintenance of these areas.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 177, referred to as the "Yosemite National Park Equal Access and Fairness Act," proposes amendments to the Act of December 19, 1913. The bill aims to expand public access to the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Basin areas within Yosemite National Park for recreational purposes. This expansion is intended to include activities such as swimming, non-motorized watercraft use, camping, and picnicking. The bill also outlines the role of the Secretary of the Interior in overseeing these areas and mandates a report to analyze historical adherence to recreational access plans and potential methods for equitable public access funding.
Summary of Significant Issues
A prominent issue with the bill is the substantial increase in the funding cap from $30,000 to $2,000,000, a change lacking clear justification. This discrepancy raises concerns about fiscal responsibility and potential for inefficient spending. Furthermore, the bill allows for these charges to increase annually according to the Consumer Price Index, potentially leading to higher costs for end-users, which could be burdensome for the public relying on these resources for recreation.
There is also concern over the use of roads by motorized vehicles, which might conflict with environmental conservation goals. The bill's language is vague in specifying acceptable recreational activities, which can result in arbitrary decision-making by the Secretary of the Interior. Terms like "to the extent practicable" and "negative effect" are ambiguous and may result in inconsistent enforcement of the bill's objectives.
The proposal to treat the City of San Francisco as a concessioner could create conflicts of interest, potentially privileging the city's interests over those of broader public and conservation priorities.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this bill seeks to enhance public access to natural resources within a cherished national park, promoting recreational activities that benefit both local and visiting populations. Enhanced access can lead to increased tourism and economic benefits for local communities. However, without careful regulation, there is a risk of environmental degradation resulting from increased recreational use.
The financial implications of increased funding without transparency can result in inefficient resource allocation. Additionally, the potential for annually increasing charges based on economic indices might place an undue financial burden on users, complicating access for economically disadvantaged groups.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For conservationists and environmental stakeholders, the bill's potential for increased human activity in delicate ecosystems presents a challenge. The inclusion of motorized vehicles and undefined recreational activities could negatively affect wildlife and natural resources without stringent management practices.
From a governance perspective, the Secretary of the Interior is granted significant discretion to interpret provisions of the bill, creating an uneven potential for implementation and oversight. For the City of San Francisco, being treated as a concessioner suggests a beneficial but contentious position within this framework—a role that will require transparent regulations to avoid any appearance of favoritism and ensure fair public access.
Overall, while the bill exhibits promising objectives of expanding recreational use and access to national park areas, these efforts must be balanced with considerations for fiscal accountability, environmental integrity, and equitable public engagement. Detailed guidelines and clarity in language are essential to harmonize recreational development with conservation responsibilities.
Financial Assessment
The proposed bill, H. R. 177, aims to amend existing legislation to enhance public access and recreational use of the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Basin areas. Within the context of this legislative change, several notable financial references and allocations have been highlighted which warrant closer examination.
Increased Funding Cap
A significant provision in the bill amends the original 1913 Act by raising the funding cap from $30,000 to $2,000,000. This is a substantial increase and raises questions regarding the potential for wasteful spending and a lack of fiscal accountability. The bill does not provide specific justification for this increase, which could lead to concerns about whether these additional funds will be used efficiently and effectively for their intended purposes. The absence of detailed financial oversight mechanisms raises potential red flags around transparent resource management.
Adjustments Based on Consumer Price Index
Alongside the increased cap, the bill also proposes that the financial sum be "adjusted annually to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers." This adjustment mechanism, while aiming to maintain the funding's purchasing power in face of inflation, could potentially lead to unchecked cost increases. End users relying on these recreational resources may experience a financial burden due to these rising costs, which could deter public engagement and accessibility, thus conflicting with the bill's primary objective to enhance access.
Restrictions on Cost Recovery
The bill includes a stipulation preventing the grantee from recouping this increased funding from wholesale water or power customers. While this is intended to protect consumers from bearing the financial burden of increased funding, it may also place a strain on available resources if alternative funding or revenue mechanisms are not clearly defined and implemented.
Revenue Allocation and Access
The bill also calls for a report analyzing revenue collection and fund allocation related to maintaining the recreational areas. It explores how best to balance equitable public access with essential maintenance and support costs, such as trail maintenance, road improvements, and wildfire prevention. The lack of clarity in how additional funds will be allocated or generated can lead to inefficiencies and potential shortfalls that could affect the sustainability of these activities.
Conclusion
In summary, H. R. 177 proposes substantial financial changes with clear implications for public funding and resource allocation. However, the absence of explicit mechanisms to ensure accountability, address potential consumer impacts, and provide comprehensive justification for the increased funding highlights areas where further legislative clarity and oversight are necessary. These financial aspects critically influence the bill's efficacy in achieving its desired outcomes of expanding and enhancing recreational access to these historic and scenic areas.
Issues
The amendment in Section 2 increases the funding cap significantly from $30,000 to $2,000,000 without providing clear justification for the increase. This raises concerns about potential wasteful spending and lack of fiscal accountability.
The bill allows the grantee to increase charges based on the Consumer Price Index, which could lead to unchecked cost increases affecting end users (Section 2). This could financially burden those who rely on the resources for recreational purposes.
The provision enabling the use of roads by motorized vehicles in the expanded recreational areas may conflict with environmental goals and conservation efforts (Section 2). This could lead to potential ecological damage if not properly regulated.
The phrase 'other recreational activities the Secretary determines appropriate' in Section 12(b)(5) is too vague and could lead to arbitrary decision-making. More concrete guidelines are necessary to ensure activities align with conservation goals and public interests.
The ambiguity in terms such as 'to the extent practicable' and 'negative effect' within the bill (especially in Sections 2 and 12) can lead to varied interpretations and inconsistent application, potentially undermining the bill's intended objectives.
Treating the City of San Francisco as a concessioner as specified in Section 2 can lead to conflicts of interest or favoritism. This could prioritize city interests over public and conservation goals if not clearly regulated and justified.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill gives it a name: the “Yosemite National Park Equal Access and Fairness Act.”
2. Expansion of access to Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Basin areas for recreational purposes Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the Act of 1913 to increase the budget for managing the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Basin areas and mandates that these areas be developed and preserved for public recreation, like swimming and camping. It also requires a report analyzing whether the original law's intentions for recreational access have been met and suggests ways to fund such access, including adjusting water and power prices and treating San Francisco as a concessioner.
Money References
- (a) In general.—The Act of December 19, 1913 (38 Stat. 242), is amended— (1) in section 7— (A) in the first sentence— (i) by striking “$30,000” and inserting “$2,000,000”; and (ii) by inserting “and adjusted annually to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers” after “July of each year”; (B) by inserting “The grantee may not recoup said sums from wholesale water or power customers of the grantee.”
12. Recreational activity Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior in managing the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Basin for recreational use, ensuring the preservation of their scenic and historic features. It allows for activities such as swimming, non-motorized watercraft use, camping, picnicking, and other recreational activities deemed appropriate by the Secretary, as long as they do not interfere with the primary use or maintenance of these areas.