S-1142-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by Alex Padilla (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would adjust the official boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) to include the Scarper Ridge area. The full text of the bill is not provided beyond its title, but boundary adjustment bills of this type typically authorize the National Park Service to acquire land within the newly drawn boundary and manage it as part of the existing recreation area.
Who benefits
Visitors to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area who would gain access to additional recreational land. Conservation and environmental groups interested in protecting open space near the GGNRA. Local residents near Scarper Ridge who may gain access to federally managed public land. The National Park Service, which would gain jurisdiction over the adjusted area. Wildlife and ecosystems within the Scarper Ridge area that would come under federal protection.
Who is hurt
Private landowners within or adjacent to the adjusted boundary area, who may face federal acquisition pressure or land-use restrictions. Local governments (counties or municipalities) that could lose property tax revenue if land is transferred to federal ownership. State or local agencies that currently manage any portion of the affected land. Existing users of the land — such as ranchers, hunters, or off-road vehicle users — whose activities may be restricted under National Park Service management rules.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that boundary adjustments like this one protect ecologically significant open space from development and expand public access to natural areas near one of the most visited urban national recreation areas in the country. They contend that incorporating Scarper Ridge into the GGNRA would ensure long-term federal stewardship of land that might otherwise be lost to private development, consistent with the original congressional intent to preserve the greater GGNRA landscape.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expanding federal land boundaries can displace private landowners and remove land from local tax rolls, shifting costs onto surrounding communities without their consent. They contend that the Tenth Amendment and longstanding concerns about federal land accumulation — particularly in western states — counsel against expanding federal jurisdiction over land that states and localities could manage more responsively and with greater accountability to affected residents.