S-4955-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text: CR S3746)
Sponsored by Richard Durbin (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would amend the 1954 law governing Gateway Arch National Park in St. Louis, Missouri to update the park's official boundary. It would increase the authorized park area from 100 acres to 102.18 acres and replace the boundary map reference from a January 1992 map to an August 2023 map. It would also update the park's name in the statute from its former name, "Jefferson National Expansion Memorial," to its current name, "Gateway Arch National Park."
Who benefits
Visitors to Gateway Arch National Park who would have access to a slightly larger protected area. The National Park Service, which would have clearer and more current legal authority over the revised boundary. Property owners or entities whose land falls within the newly added 2.18 acres, if the inclusion brings federal maintenance or investment. Local St. Louis residents and tourism-dependent businesses who may benefit from any expanded park amenities or visitor draw.
Who is hurt
Property owners or entities whose land falls within the newly added 2.18 acres could face federal land-use restrictions or acquisition proceedings. Adjacent landowners or developers who may lose flexibility near the expanded boundary. Local or state authorities who currently exercise jurisdiction over any land being brought into the federal park boundary.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the boundary revision reflects on-the-ground changes made during the park's major renovation completed around 2018, which physically reconfigured the park's footprint, and that updating the statutory map to the 2023 version simply aligns the law with existing reality. They contend that using an outdated 1992 boundary map creates legal ambiguity for park management and that the name correction eliminates confusion between the park's former and current official designations.
Opponents argue
Opponents could argue that even a modest boundary expansion of 2.18 acres may affect private property rights or local land-use authority without sufficient public input or compensation review, raising Takings Clause concerns under the Fifth Amendment. They might also contend that boundary changes — however small — should be accompanied by a full environmental review and transparent accounting of any federal acquisition costs before Congress acts.