Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/9264

Bill Overview

Title: Yosemite National Park Equal Access and Fairness Act

Description: This bill makes changes with respect to the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Basin areas of Yosemite National Park. Specifically, the bill increases rent paid by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for the use of the park from $30,000 to $2 million per year. That amount shall be adjusted annually to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. The commission may not recoup such sums from wholesale water or power customers. The bill allows collected rent to be used by the Department of the Interior for wildfire mitigation activities in the park and other national parks in California. The bill requires the National Park Service to administer the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Basin areas for public recreation, benefit, and use in a manner that will preserve scenic, historic, scientific, or otherwise important features.

Sponsors: Rep. Conway, Connie [R-CA-22]

Target Audience

Population: People affected by changes in the use and management of the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and related Yosemite National Park areas

Estimated Size: 38000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Engineer (San Francisco, California)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think it's important we support our national parks, but I am concerned about any additional costs being passed on indirectly to residents.
  • I regularly visit Yosemite and appreciate the idea of improved management plans for natural resources.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 9 7

Park Ranger (Fresno, California)

Age: 33 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having more funds for wildfire mitigation could vastly improve both park safety and conservation efforts.
  • This legislation presents a good opportunity to focus resources where they're needed.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 10 8
Year 20 10 8

Retired military (Sacramento, California)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Keeping the parks safe from fires is important; the bill sounds like a good step in that direction.
  • I wonder if this will make visiting easier or harder in terms of access or costs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Student (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 26 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If this means parts of Yosemite will be off-limits or cost more, that would really factor into travel plans.
  • Wildfire issues are huge, and if this helps, it's a win.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Public utilities manager (Oakland, California)

Age: 39 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Figuring out how to manage these additional costs without transferring them to end users is a major puzzle.
  • The balancing act might influence broader resource management strategies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

High school teacher (San Francisco, California)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is a good chance to show students real-world examples of conservation efforts in action.
  • I am hopeful that increased funding will benefit the park's educational planning features.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 10 8
Year 20 10 8

Hospitality manager (Bakersfield, California)

Age: 28 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Revenue in the sector can be cyclical, sudden changes in policies might affect how we operate and interact with park-related business.
  • Improved park conditions are always beneficial in the long run.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Software developer (San Jose, California)

Age: 48 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Focusing funds on dangerous wildfire areas makes sense, but we should cautiously assess regulatory choices.
  • Ensuring access to safe recreational spaces aligns well with my personal and professional goals.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Civil rights lawyer (San Francisco, California)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The socio-economic considerations on who bears the brunt of these changes is a continuous concern.
  • Partnering practical conservation with local resource needs is essential.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

College student (Livermore, California)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm keen on seeing reinforced environmental actions translating into tangible improvements in park conditions and facilities.
  • Mixed feelings if access limitations might arise.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 6 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $1000000)

Year 2: $525000 (Low: $275000, High: $1050000)

Year 3: $551250 (Low: $300000, High: $1105000)

Year 5: $609526 (Low: $350000, High: $1230000)

Year 10: $774970 (Low: $450000, High: $1500000)

Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)

Key Considerations