Yosemite National Park expansion stalls in Congress
Paul Rogers
June 17, 2014
San Jose Mercury News
Time is running out on a deal to secure the largest expansion of Yosemite National Park since 1939, and one man appears to be standing in the way: local congressman Tom McClintock.
Declaring his distrust in the National Park Service, the tea party Republican from Granite Bay is at odds with local Republican state legislators and the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors over efforts to add a scenic parcel of land on Yosemite’s western boundary now owned by a Bay Area conservation group. The deal is even becoming a campaign issue in this rugged part of California as McClintock fights for re-election against a fellow Republican.
If a deal isn’t reached by the end of the year, the small nonprofit group that owns the land says it will have to sell. And the land is zoned for construction of up to 19 homes.
“We’ve held this for 10 years and have the holding costs — the property taxes, management and upkeep, things of that nature,” said Laurie Wayburn, president of the Pacific Forest Trust in San Francisco.
“We are now at a point where we are faced with the hard choice of asking: ‘Are we going to be able to keep holding onto it or are we going to have to sell it to the private market?'”
In 2004, the trust bought the land — a scenic landscape near El Portal that is thick with incense cedar, white fir and sugar pine trees, with breathtaking views — from a family that had owned it since 1925.
The purchase, praised by the park’s superintendent, was intended to expand Yosemite to the original boundaries that conservation pioneer John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, had proposed in the 1880s when he advocated for Congress to first establish the park.
The property is 793 acres, and appraised in 2005 at $2.1 million.
McClintock, who declined a request for an interview, said in an email that he wants the National Park Service to come up with a plan to use the land because he doesn’t trust the agency after its attempt to ban bicycle rentals and limit other recreation in Yosemite Valley last year. After public outcry, the Park Service rewrote the plan, dropping the controversial limits.
“There is considerable resistance in the House and in my district to the acquisition of additional federal land without clear assurances that it will be properly managed and that public access and recreation will be guaranteed,” McClintock said.
McClintock’s 4th Congressional District, which he has represented since 2009, runs from Lake Tahoe to Kings Canyon National Park, and includes Yosemite.
McClintock also is one of a number of conservative Western Republicans who opposes nearly every effort to expand federal land holdings in the West, preferring it be held in private ownership for cattle ranching, logging, mining and other uses.
“When is enough enough?” he said in a speech on the House floor in 2009. “The public good is not served by the mindless and endless acquisition of property at the expense of the sustainable use of our natural resources, responsible stewardship of our public lands, and the freedom and property rights of our citizens.”
The issue may play a role in McClintock’s re-election.
He is being challenged by Republican Art Moore, a combat veteran and major in the Army National Guard, who said he is in favor of the proposal to expand Yosemite’s boundaries.
“Broad support exists because these bills represent a common sense approach to federal land management and acquisition,” he said in an email. “Rather than the federal government dictating what it will do, this is a situation of willing sellers and government acquisition based on fair market price.”
The process in Congress is fairly straightforward.
Last year, Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, introduced a bill to expand Yosemite’s boundaries by 1,575 acres. The bill, HR1677, would include the 793 acres owned by the Pacific Forest Trust, and another 782 acres of forested land owned by several doctors, who support the legislation.
If approved, it would allow the National Park Service to appraise the properties and buy them using existing money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a pot of money funded by royalties on offshore oil drilling.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has introduced a bill in the Senate to expand the park boundary. A vote is expected this summer. But if McClintock doesn’t support the measure, the GOP House leadership is unlikely to act, since the land is in his district.
The deal would become Yosemite’s largest acquisition since 1939, when the federal government bought 7,200 acres near Wawona known as the Carl Inn tract from a timber company.
McClintock left the door open somewhat, however, in his email to this newspaper.
“Unless the Senate acts, I don’t foresee action in the House,” he said.
Yosemite officials say they want the land, although they said they can’t formally plan for its future until the government owns it.
“It’s beautiful and there are great views,” said Yosemite spokesman Scott Gediman. “It includes prime habitat for rare species, and it would provide an area for us to potentially develop campgrounds and trails. Any opportunity to expand the boundary of the park is beneficial for everybody.”
Paul Rogers covers resources and environmental issues. Contact him at 408-920-5045. Follow him at Twitter.com/PaulRogersSJMN.
June 20th Reader’s Letters
John Muir’s promise must be redeemed
Paul Rogers reports (Page A1, June 18) that I am “standing in the way” of the annexation of a 1,500-acre parcel for Yosemite Park. In making this claim, he deliberately ignored the position that I expressed in writing: “I want to be sure the proposal remains a future option once these issues (of public access and use) are resolved.” My position is one of conditional support — not unconditional opposition.
John Muir’s vision for Yosemite was for public use, resort and recreation, yet today, public access is increasingly restricted. His promise must be redeemed.
This proposal has been around for many years without action by Congress. Contrary to Rogers’ claim, there is no prospect that the property will be developed in the foreseeable future, which gives us time to make sure that any addition to Yosemite is done in the public interest and that it guarantees the public’s access and use.
Rep. Tom McClintock
4th Congressional District
June 23rd Reader’s Letters
Yosemite expansion too important to stall
I am thrilled that Rep. Tom McClintock (Letters, June 20) is not opposed to the bill to expand Yosemite. But “conditional support” from the key congressman won’t get the bill passed, no matter how much bipartisan local and state support there is. Yosemite needs that same bipartisan support–and leadership — in Washington.
Waiting on others to act is another way to say no.
This key piece of land is a “hole in the doughnut,” with the capacity to connect two vast forested landscapes and add wonderful recreational opportunities to Yosemite. This same land, if developed, would interrupt a vital wildlife corridor, increase fire risk and add costs and complications for county emergency services. The window of opportunity to protect this land is now, while sellers are willing. Once that window closes, the opportunity to realize John Muir’s vision may be gone, and picking up any remaining pieces will be significantly more difficult and expensive.
Laurie Wayburn
President and co-CEO Pacific Forest Trust
June 24th Reader’s Letters
Protect Yosemite with park expansion
Rep. Tom McClintock (Letters, June 22) paradoxically cites John Muir to support the delay of the Yosemite Park expansion, potentially canceling it.
Here is what Muir actually said related to this issue: “Ever since the establishment of the Yosemite National Park, strife has been going on around its borders and I suppose this will go on as part of the universal battle between right and wrong, however much of its boundaries may be shorn, or its wild beauty destroyed.”
Muir often worried about development in the park area. As a Yosemite enthusiast and John Muir enthusiast, I urge the congressman to join Muir on the right side of history and protect this area by incorporating it into the park.
Brian A Schmidt
Vice-Chair Santa Clara Valley Water District