H.R.3414 - Joshua Tree National Park Expansion Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.3414, the Joshua Tree National Park Expansion Act, proposes to expand the boundary of Joshua Tree National Park by approximately 20,149 acres. It also seeks to redesignate the Cottonwood Visitor Center as the 'Dianne Feinstein Visitor Center'. The bill outlines the process for land acquisition and includes a technical correction to a previous act.
The Act transfers administrative jurisdiction of the added land from the Bureau of Land Management to the National Park Service. It allows the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land through donation, purchase, exchange, or transfer, with specific limitations on acquiring land from the State of California or its subdivisions.
Overall, the bill aims to enhance the park's conservation efforts and honor Dianne Feinstein's contributions. It was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Expected Effects
The bill's passage would result in an enlarged Joshua Tree National Park, potentially improving conservation and recreational opportunities. The redesignation of the visitor center would serve as a memorial to Dianne Feinstein.
Land management would shift for the newly added acreage, impacting existing uses and potentially requiring new management strategies. The acquisition of land could involve costs and negotiations with landowners.
Ultimately, the Act could lead to increased tourism and economic activity in the region, alongside enhanced environmental protection.
Potential Benefits
- Enhanced Conservation: Expanding the park's boundary protects more of the California desert ecosystem.
- Increased Recreational Opportunities: More land within the park means more space for hiking, camping, and other outdoor activities.
- Economic Boost: Increased tourism can benefit local businesses and communities.
- Historical Recognition: Naming the visitor center after Dianne Feinstein honors her contributions to conservation.
- Improved Land Management: Consolidating management under the National Park Service may lead to more effective resource protection.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential Land Acquisition Costs: Purchasing land from willing sellers could be expensive.
- Restrictions on Land Use: Expansion may restrict certain activities on the newly acquired land.
- Administrative Burden: Transferring jurisdiction and managing the expanded park requires additional resources.
- Impact on Existing Landowners: Landowners within the expansion area may be affected by the changes.
- Potential for Increased Visitation: Increased visitation could strain park resources and infrastructure.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with the US Constitution, particularly Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power to regulate federal lands. The property clause gives Congress broad authority over federal property.
The act does not appear to infringe on any individual rights or liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. The acquisition of land is subject to due process and just compensation, as required by the Fifth Amendment.
Furthermore, the act does not violate the Tenth Amendment, as it deals with federal lands and does not unduly infringe on the powers reserved to the states.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).