Scarper Ridge Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/1142
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]

ID: P000145

Follow the money

The bill

Scarper Ridge Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act

S. 1142, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$89,100 raised

29 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 575-577 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Held at the desk.

March 26, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

(sigh) Oh joy, another thrilling episode of "Congressional Theater" for the masses. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** ( rolls eyes ) The bill's title is a mouthful, but I'll translate it for you: "We want to expand the Golden Gate National Recreation Area by adding some land called Scarper Ridge." Wow, what a bold move. I'm sure this will be a game-changer for... someone.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** ( mocking tone ) Oh boy, get ready for some earth-shattering amendments! The bill adds a new paragraph to an existing law, which basically says: "Hey, we're gonna include this Scarper Ridge property in the national recreation area." Wow, what a monumental change. I bet the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** ( condescendingly ) Let's see... who could possibly be affected by this groundbreaking legislation? Ah yes, the usual suspects:

* The National Park Service: because they need more land to manage and more bureaucratic red tape to navigate. * Local residents: who will probably have their property values affected in some way, but who cares about them? * Environmental groups: who will likely use this as a talking point to justify their existence and beg for more funding. * ( whispering ) And maybe, just maybe, some wealthy landowners or developers who stand to gain from this " boundary adjustment".

**Potential Impact & Implications:** ( dripping with sarcasm ) Oh, the possibilities are endless! This bill could lead to:

* A slight increase in park visitors, which will surely boost local economies and create a plethora of new jobs. (Not.) * A minor reduction in carbon emissions, because we all know that adding more land to a national recreation area is the key to saving the planet. * A significant increase in bureaucratic overhead costs, because managing this new land will require more staff, more paperwork, and more taxpayer dollars.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a bad case of "Legislative Ennui" – a disease characterized by a lack of meaningful action, a plethora of empty rhetoric, and a desperate attempt to appear relevant. The real illness beneath this legislative theater is likely a mix of greed (landowners/developers), ego (politicians seeking to leave their mark), and stupidity (voters who think this matters). Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach for bureaucratic nonsense, and a willingness to call out the obvious lies and spin.

Related Topics

Public Lands & Natural Resources
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$89,100
23 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$21,400
Committees
$0
Individuals
$67,700

No PAC contributions found

1
CHEROKEE NATION
1 transaction
$5,000
2
MOORETOWN RANCHERIA
1 transaction
$3,300
3
TOLOWA DEE-NI' NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
4
TULE RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL
1 transaction
$3,300
5
THE CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$2,500
6
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$2,000
7
ONEIDA NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
8
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
CHEN, YU
2 transactions
$6,600
2
ZHAO, PENG
2 transactions
$6,600
3
GOLDMAN, JOHN
2 transactions
$6,600
4
GOLDMAN, MARCIA
2 transactions
$6,600
5
ANDREESSEN, MARC LOWELL
2 transactions
$6,600
6
KIMBER, SHELDON
1 transaction
$5,000
7
CARUSO, RICK J.
1 transaction
$3,300
8
DELVAC, WILLIAM F.
1 transaction
$3,300
9
GRAY, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
10
KEYES, HOWARD
1 transaction
$3,300
11
STEIN, KEVIN
1 transaction
$3,300
12
FISHER, ROBERT J.
1 transaction
$3,300
13
FISHER, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
14
FISHER, WILLIAM S.
1 transaction
$3,300
15
DIXON, CHRISTOPHER
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]

ID: S001150

Top Contributors

64

1
KOI NATION OF NORTHERN CA
OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA
$3,300
Feb 29, 2024
2
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Feb 26, 2024
3
KOI NATION OF NORTHERN CA
OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA
$3,300
Feb 29, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Mar 1, 2024
5
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Mar 1, 2024
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Sep 6, 2023
7
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS GENERAL FUND
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Aug 9, 2023
8
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Sep 27, 2023
9
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS GENERAL FUND
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Aug 9, 2023
10
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Jul 21, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 61 nodes and 65 connections

Total contributions: $65

Top Donors - Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

8 Orgs15 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of the Interior

Moderate
Vector: 53%
Pages: 575-577AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill expands federal land protection through boundary adjustments to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, aligning with Project 2025's broader focus on Department of the Interior land management policies, though it does not directly engage with the specific critiques of the '30 by 30' initiative or private property rights concerns highlighted in the cited sources."

Key themes:federal land managementconservationDepartment of the Interiorland use policynatural resource protection

— 543 — Department of the Interior 68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily, April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private- property-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www. doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021). 70. Ibid. 71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1, October 13, 2022. 72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinke- monuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43 U.S. Code § 2601. 74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019). 75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188. 76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194. 77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252. 78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150. 79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019). 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/ solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023). 81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/ articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97. 83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killing- jobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzly- endangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023). 85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump- administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette, June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_ d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008. pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87. 90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA. 91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635. 92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20 Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 544 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 94. 32 U.S. Code, ch. 52. 95. Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,” October 19, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential- memorandum-promoting-reliable-supply-delivery-water-west/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 96. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,” https://www.doi.gov/ buybackprogram (accessed March 18, 2023). 97. Great American Outdoors Act, Public Law 116–152.

Department of the Interior

Weak
Vector: 56%
Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding a national recreation area in California for conservation and recreation, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes reducing federal land control in Alaska, reversing Biden-era conservation initiatives, and asserting state authority over wildlife and waters—there is minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:federal land managementconservationnatural resources

— 531 — Department of the Interior Wildlife and Waters. Throughout Alaska’s history, the federal government has treated Alaska as less than a sovereign state. This is especially the case when it comes to two of Alaska’s most valued resources, its wildlife and its waters. Immediate action is required to end, at least in part, this injustice. A new Admin- istration should: l Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules regarding predator control and bear baiting, which are matters for state regulation. Such revocation is permitted under the 2017 Congressional Review Act.62 l Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands in accordance with ANILCA as during the Reagan Administration, when each DOI agency in Alaska signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ceding to the state the lead on fish and wildlife management matters.63 l Issue a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be owned by the state so that the lands beneath these waters belong to Alaska. This will force the BLM to prove that water is not navigable, since in the case of non-navigability, any submerged lands belong to the BLM. Currently, BLM requires Alaska to prove navigability at its own expense—including the BLM’s preposterous assertion that the mighty Yukon River is non-navigable. l Reinstate President Trump’s 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule64 for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which was replaced by a Biden Roadless Rule that continues a 2001 Clinton rule affecting 9.37 million of the forest’s 16.7 million acres.65 The Clinton rule affects an area where communities are in small islands with no road access. It has prevented multiple infrastructure projects, including roads, electric transmission lines, and water and sewer projects, and it forces residents to use a heavily subsidized ferry system. Logging has been shut down to the extent that New York harvests more timber than does all of Alaska. OTHER ACTIONS The 30 by 30 Plan.66 President Biden’s Executive Order 14008 (30 by 30 plan)67 requires that the federal government, which already owns one-third of the country: (1) remove vast amounts of private property from productive use; and (2) end congressionally mandated uses of all federal land. The end result will be “total federal control of an additional 440 million acres of land or oceans in the U.S. by 2030.”68 — 532 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Although the new President should vacate that order, DOI under a conservative President must take immediate action on the 30 by 30 plan by vacating a secre- tarial order issued by the Biden DOI69 that eliminated the Trump Administration’s requirement for the approval of state and local governments before federal acquisi- tion of private property with monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.70 National Monument Designations. As has every Democratic President before him beginning with Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden has abused his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Like the outrageous, unilateral withdrawals from public use of multiple use federal land under the Carter, Clinton, and Obama Administrations, Biden’s first national monument was one in Colorado—adopted over the objections of scores of local groups and at least one American Indian tribe.71 In the days before the 2024 election, Biden will likely designate more western monuments. Although President Trump courageously ordered a review of national mon- ument designations, the result of that review was insufficient in that only two national monuments in one state (Utah) were adjusted.72 Monuments in Maine and Oregon, for example, should have been adjusted downward given the finding of Secretary Ryan Zinke’s review that they were improperly designated. The new Administration’s review will permit a fresh look at past monument decrees and new ones by President Biden. Furthermore, the new Administration must vigorously defend the downward adjustments it makes to permit a ruling on a President’s authority to reduce the size of national monuments by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which permitted emergency action by a President long before the statutory author- ity existed for the protection of special federal lands, such as those with wild and scenic rivers, endangered specials, or other unique places. Moreover, in recent years, Congress has designated as national monuments those areas deserving of such congressional action. Oregon and California Lands Act. One national monument worthy of down- ward adjustment is in Oregon, where its designation and subsequent expansion interfere with the federal obligation to residents to harvest timber on its BLM lands. A federal district court ruled in 2019 that land subject to the Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands Act of 193773 was set aside by Congress to be har- vested for the benefit of the people of Oregon. Specifically, those federal lands are to be “managed…for permanent forest production” and its timber “sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the princip[le] of sustained yield.”74 As the district court concluded,75 beginning in 1990, the federal government erected a trifecta of illegal barriers to the accomplishment of the congressional mandate, beginning with a response to the listing of the northern spotted owl,76 continuing a decade later with the designation of the Cascade–Siskiyou National Monument,77 and concluding in 2017 with an expansion of that monument.78 In

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak
Vector: 55%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding a national recreation area for conservation and recreation, while the Project 2025 EPA section emphasizes deregulating EPA authority and reducing regulatory burdens; there is only a tangential connection through general environmental protection goals."

Key themes:environmental protectionnatural resource conservationland management

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills