Press Releases

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, is pushing back against the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) proposed land exchange in Yosemite National Park. The project is listed as DOI’s sixth most important priority—even though Interior has acknowledged that it has not identified the parcel it intends to exchange. 

In a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Pingree warns that the Department is seeking approval without identifying the property involved or demonstrating any public benefit. 

“Given the complete absence of any demonstrated conservation or other public benefit, the unavoidable conclusion is that this project has been deemed a departmental priority to advance a private transaction rather than a public purpose,” Pingree said. “The Land and Water Conservation Fund exists to safeguard land for the American people—not to serve as a federal concierge for a private landowner’s real estate ambitions. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, which has not been provided by the Department, this project should not move forward.”

The full letter is available here and is copied below. 

Congress established the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in 1964 to protect natural areas, water resources, and cultural heritage while expanding outdoor recreation access. At no cost to taxpayers, LWCF provides matching grants to Tribal, state and local governments to support the acquisition and development of land for public parks and other outdoor recreation sites. Congress permanently reauthorized the program in 2019, and the Great American Outdoors Act of 2020 provided it with $900 million in permanent annual funding.

The proposed Yosemite exchange involves Kingsbarn Realty Capital, which owns the approximately 83-acre Hazel Green Ranch along the park’s western boundary. The developer has said it is seeking approximately 1.1 acres of federal land to construct a roughly 700-foot road connecting a planned lodging development to Big Oak Flat Road inside Yosemite. In return, it would acquire and transfer property of equal value in California, but that replacement property has not been identified. A previous owner of Hazel Green Ranch pursued separate easement claims seeking more direct access through Yosemite, but a federal district court dismissed those claims, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in 2012. 

Interior has said no final decision has been made and that any proposal moving forward would be subject to environmental review and public notification.

+++

Dear Secretary Burgum:

I am writing in response to the Land and Water Conservation Fund project lists that the Department of the Interior (DOI) submitted for Fiscal Year 2026. As required by Section 428(2)(A) of Public Law 119-74, these lists are subject to the Committee’s reprogramming guidelines.

I strongly oppose proceeding with the land exchange project in Yosemite National Park, priority number 6. In its communication with the Committee, DOI asserted that this land exchange is a priority while acknowledging that it has not identified an exchange parcel. Therefore, the National Park Service cannot possibly have assessed the public benefit or suitability of the exchange. DOI is effectively asking the Committee to approve a solution before it has identified either the property involved or the public purpose served. Given the complete absence of any demonstrated conservation or other public benefit, the unavoidable conclusion is that this project has been deemed a departmental priority to advance a private transaction rather than a public purpose. The Land and Water Conservation Fund exists to safeguard land for the American people—not to serve as a federal concierge for a private landowner’s real estate ambitions. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, which has not been provided by the Department, this project should not move forward.

Additionally, I am deeply troubled by the omission of certain Fish and Wildlife land acquisition projects, for which the Department has routinely requested funding for over recent years and for which additional funding needs remain. The information provided by the Department to date about the prioritization of projects in the Fish and Wildlife Service Fiscal Year 2026 land acquisition and supplemental lists has been wholly inadequate and provides no meaningful basis for evaluating these unexplained omissions.

Since these lists were transmitted to the Committee, staff have asked for additional details. To date, DOI has failed to provide sufficient responses to the requested information. Accordingly, I ask that the Department immediately provide complete responses to the Committee. 

I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

###