CALIFORNIA — A proposed quarter-mile road could unlock a major private development near Yosemite—and test whether park boundaries remain protected. Either way, the aggressive project is setting off a fight among stealthy developers, conservationists, and President Donald Trump.
The Trump administration is considering a land exchange that could give a private developer direct access through Yosemite National Park in Northern California, reviving a proposal for a road that federal officials and courts rejected for more than two decades.
The proposal would transfer land, or an easement across it, for a quarter-mile road connecting an undeveloped 83-acre property outside Yosemite's western boundary to Highway 120.
Rep. Jared Huffman, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, called the proposal a "zombie bad idea" during a recent KQED discussion about the potential Yosemite land exchange.
Huffman said he planned to organize congressional letters, rally public opposition, and seek bipartisan resistance to any federal funding request connected to the exchange.
Huffman and other opponents face a federal agency that could likely complete the exchange without further congressional approval.
They must also fight a proposal that Interior Department political leaders have reportedly pushed despite previous federal rejections, two court rulings, and warnings that the deal could establish a model for private development along national park boundaries.
The National Park Service has spent more than a year exploring the exchange with Nevada-based Kingsbarn Realty Capital, according to four people familiar with the discussions and federal documents reviewed by News of the United States, or NOTUS.
The road would dramatically shorten the trip between the property, formerly known as Hazel Green Ranch, and Yosemite Valley.
The existing route winds for more than 10 miles through Stanislaus National Forest and requires about 90 minutes of driving to reach the valley.
According to NOTUS, Kingsbarn controls the property through limited-liability companies. One of those companies bought the land for $4 million in 2024 and renamed it Sanctuary at Yosemite. The company has not publicly detailed whether it plans to build homes, a hotel, or a resort there.
NOTUS reported that Interior Department political leaders have pressed career Park Service employees to advance the exchange. Two people familiar with the discussions described unusual political pressure, while other sources said staff members have held recurring meetings with Kingsbarn representatives and provided progress reports to political appointees.
Anna Kramer, the NOTUS reporter who broke the story, said that her reporting contradicted the Interior Department, which denied that officials had pressured the Park Service toward a predetermined outcome.
"My sources tell me that Park Service officials, longtime staff, have been feeling pressure on this particular issue from the Interior Department political appointees," Kramer said on KQED.
The Interior Department has not denied that officials are considering the exchange, she said.
Yosemite may not match Yellowstone's vast scale or stretch across the landscape, but its granite walls, waterfalls, ancient sequoias, and role in the conservation movement have made it one of America's most cherished public places.
Yosemite attracts more than 4 million visitors annually, placing intense pressure on its roads, wildlife, employees, and other park resources.
That leaves little room for more development, according to critics of the Trump Administration proposal. For supporters, those, pressures make the case that the road would be a benefit.
Kingsbarn attorney Lanny Davis, a Democrat who served as counsel to President Bill Clinton, approached the Interior Department and argued that the shorter route would reduce driving and pollution, according to NOTUS. He described the proposal as lawful and said the road would not harm endangered species.
John Buckley, director of the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, challenged that argument during the KQED discussion about the land proposal. Buckley said the property has no current residents and that a paved connection to Highway 120 would make a potentially lucrative development practical.
"The speculative customers or clients of whatever gets developed in the future would have quick access, but there's no one on this property at this site," Buckley said.
Buckley said the road could cut through sugar pines, cedars, conifers, and dogwood forest. He also warned that traffic, lighting, noise, and development could affect wildlife habitat extending beyond the road itself.
His organization's surveys have found suitable habitat in the broader area for rare species, including the Pacific fisher, great gray owl, and California spotted owl, he said.
Development would also add vehicles to a park already struggling with traffic and congestion, Buckley said.
Several lodging developments have opened, received approval, or entered construction along the three western highway corridors into Yosemite, increasing pressure on park roads and resources.
Huffman said during the KQED discussion that Interior officials had listed the possible exchange as a proposed Land and Water Conservation Fund expenditure before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee.
"You don't do that if there's not something going on," Huffman said.
Republican Rep. Tom McClintock, whose district includes much of Yosemite, said during a congressional hearing that the exchange would not happen, according to Huffman's comments during the KQED discussion.
California's Democratic senators, Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, also told NOTUS that they opposed the proposal. Huffman did not return repeated requests for comment and Padilla and Schiff could not be reached by deadline.
Kramer said during the KQED discussion that Park Service exchanges generally begin when an agency identifies land it wants to protect or add to a park. The Yosemite proposal reverses that pattern because a private landowner initiated the request and stands to gain a more valuable route into its property.
Before any exchange could proceed, the Park Service would have to appraise the Yosemite parcel and identify California land of equal value that it wants in return. Kingsbarn would then have to acquire that property and transfer it to the federal government.
Kramer said an appraisal might not account for the increased value that direct Yosemite access could create for the developer's property. Officials have not identified the replacement land, released a road map, opened an environmental review, or announced a public-comment period.
The National Parks Conservation Association called the proposal unlawful and said it would surrender public land for private gain. The organization's Sierra Nevada program manager, Mark Rose, noted that a federal court had already rejected a road claim involving the property.
For critics, the dispute extends beyond the road's physical footprint. They fear that approving a private route through Yosemite could give other developers a model for pursuing land exchanges or easements across national parks.
"If they are allowed to do this in this case, it is coming to other national park units all over the country," Huffman said.
Sign up for free local newsletters and alerts for the
Healdsburg Patch
Patch.com is the nationwide leader in hyperlocal news.
Visit Patch.com to find your town today.