The California congressional delegation is missing a golden opportunity to reduce the size of the federal government and bolster the state’s economy at the same time.

They can do their part to permanently reduce the federal payroll of more than 10,000 jobs, eliminate duplicity to improve government efficiency, and jettison almost $2 billion in outstanding liabilities. 

At the same time, it would assure local control as opposed to a Washington, D.C., bureaucracy dictating policy from office buildings 2,400 miles away.

All it takes is engineering the sale of nine properties to the State of California for the nominal legal transfer of ownership fee of $1 each.

The properties?

Yosemite, Death Valley, Pinnacles, Redwoods, Lassen Volcanic, Channel Islands, Kings, Joshua Tree, and Sequoia National Parks.

It is clear that California, perhaps more than any other state, is 100 percent in synch with the original and expanded purpose of the National Park Service to protect some of the nation’s most unique and enduring landscape from the throes of development.

Transferring ownership is not going to weaken efforts to preserve land within the nine national parks for the enjoyment of future generations while working to ensure it remains as natural as possible.

If anything, it will enhance the lofty goals the National Park Service has for the nine properties .

At the same time, it is a clear concession to the fact that national parks — at least in the case of California — benefits in-state residents significantly more than those of all states collectively.

That is, in terms of both actual use and economic benefit.

The fact California has almost 40 million residents or close to 12 percent of the nation’s population of 340 million means it is likely the leading state by far where most visitors to national parks within its borders are from in-state.

Why should a taxpayer in Kentucky or New York help subsidize parks that not only they likely will never access but are on the hook for a massive backlog of pressing maintenance needs?

Yosemite National Park is a prime example.

Based on the latest statistics, 62 percent of the 3.9 million annual visitors to Yosemite National Park are Californians.

Visitors only pay $35 vehicle for a week-long pass or $7 per day.

Yet, a 2009 economic impact study showed the average visitor spends $490 within a 50-mile radius of Yosemite during their visit to the national park.

Yosemite also accounts for the lion’s share of the $2 billion or so in pressing infrastructure needs the federal government is unable fund at the nine national parks within California based on 2015 dollars.

That includes $272 million in roads and bridges, $97 million in water and sewer needs, and $101 million for work on 800 plus buildings.

Given that was almost a decade ago, inflation as well as further wear and tear has likely pushed the backlog of $553 million in needed work identified in 2015 to close to $1 billion within the 1,049 square mile confines of Yosemite National Park.

A study back in 2015 pegged the pressing backlog of needed infrastructure work at all national parks across the United States as being in excess of $12 billion. It was noted at the time the federal government unlikely had the stomach to tackle the backlog given other pressing needs.

Based on 2021 stats, Yosemite National Park has a $30 million annual operating budget.

Yosemite has 741 National Park Service employees in the summer and 451 in the winter.

Yosemite hospitality workers employed by concessionaires number 750 in the summer and 700 in the winter.

By transferring control to California some of the most perplexing and  frustrating aspects of operating a national park in such rugged terrain that is visited by 3.9 million people a year could be addressed.

For more than a decade, the has been a struggle in trying to impose ways to reduce vehicle traffic in the valley where roughly 90 percent of the park’s visitors don’t venture beyond.

Ideas floated have included building massive parking lots miles away from the park’s boundaries — even as far away as the Central Valley floor near jumping off  “gateway” points for access to Yosemite such as Manteca, Merced, and Fresno.

It entailed a robust bus system — clearly electric or other zero emission — to ferry most visitors back and forth.

Whether that is the right solution or not, one thing is for sure. The best way to make progress toward reducing traffic congestion that can dilute the Yosemite experience is for those that have the great stake in devising and implementing a solution to do the work.

Minimizing vehicle traffic also helps reduce the impacts on the Yosemite environment.

Federal shutdowns over Congressional fundings and such have had a disproportionate impact on the economies of communities surrounding national parks.

They essentially have to make hay when the sun is shining.

In other words, if a shut down occurs during peak visitor seasons that are dictated by seasonal conditions such as not having access restricted by snow, it can have a devastating economic impact on thousands of families dependent on national park tourism.

Then there are long-term issues almost as old as the park itself that are effectively undermining the direction of a duly elected Congress.

We’re talking blatant violations of the Raker Act passed in 1913 that were included to justify the  destruction of the Hetch Hetchy Valley to build the O’Shaughnessy Dam to be the first — and last — time a national park had a reservoir built within its boundaries.

The biggie was language that prohibited the sale of any hydroelectric power generated from the project to an individual or corporation except a municipality, municipal water district, or an irrigation district.

Despite the clear language, PG&E almost from day one has pockets significantly profits from “wheeling” — or selling — the electricity generated at Hetch Hetchy.

Then there is the issue of public access to the land surrounding Hetch Hetchy Valley that want inundated.

Despite public access being a main tenet of the Raker Act, the City of San Francisco has successfully limited access to the Hetch Hetchy area.

Its access gate is not open 24 hours as are the other four gated access points to the national park.

At the same time, fishing for-all-practical purposes is prohibited or even using the water for boating, whether it is a non-polluting electric boat or kayaks.

San Francisco has also blocked camping at Hetch Hetchy, prevented the expansion of trail systems on the north side including to the top of Hetch Hetchy Dome, and rejected any consideration of whether weighing lodging at Hetch Hetchy is in the public’s interest.

Transferring stewardship, responsibility, and ownership for the nine national parks within the state to California has the ability to create an even more big and beautify park system.

So how about a MAPAA movement as in Make America’s Parks Accessible Again?