Jimmy Panetta (D-CA)
Monterey Bay National Heritage Area Study Act
A Democratic bill with 5 Democratic cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Subcommittee Hearings Held
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the Monterey Bay National Heritage Area Study Act'', authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study. The study aims to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating certain lands in California as the Monterey Bay National Heritage Area``. The study area includes Monterey, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo counties, as well as adjacent areas with similar heritage aspects. The Secretary will consult with various entities, including the State of California, local agencies, and Tribal Governments. This legislation is intended to evaluate the potential for a new National Heritage Area.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +1
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
The study process mandates consultation with Tribal Governments regarding the proposed heritage area.
- Scored +1
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The study covers several coastal and inland counties in California which may benefit from heritage designation.
- Scored +1
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The study assesses the feasibility of designating a National Heritage Area to preserve cultural and natural heritage in California.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Assessment of Heritage Designation: The bill allows for a study to determine if certain lands in California should be designated as the ``Monterley Bay National Heritage Area'' (Section 2(a)). This process involves consultation with local organizations, governmental agencies, Tribal Governments, and nonprofit organizations (Section 2(a)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts are explicitly stated in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The study process mandates consultation with Tribal Governments regarding the proposed heritage area. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The study covers several coastal and inland counties in California which may benefit from heritage designation.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The study assesses the feasibility of designating a National Heritage Area to preserve cultural and natural heritage in California. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill authorizes a study to evaluate the potential management and designation of specific lands as a National Heritage Area.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill requires consultation with Tribal Governments during the heritage area study process.
- 3/18/2026
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 3/11/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
- 10/8/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/23/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Salud CarbajalDemocrat · California
John GaramendiDemocrat · California
Zoe LofgrenDemocrat · California
Sam LiccardoDemocrat · California
Kevin MullinDemocrat · California