Proposed Yosemite Land Swap Revives Decades-Old Hazel Green Dispute

A proposed land exchange involving Yosemite National Park could provide direct road access to a private development just outside the park — reopening a dispute over the historic Hazel Green property that stretches back decades.

The proposal involves an 83-acre privately owned parcel on Yosemite’s western boundary historically known as Hazel Green Ranch. Nevada-based Kingsbarn Realty Capital acquired the property in 2024 and is seeking a more direct road connection between the property and Yosemite’s Big Oak Flat Road.

No land exchange has been approved, and no final decision has been made.

But reports that the National Park Service and Kingsbarn have been discussing a potential exchange have generated opposition from California lawmakers, conservation organizations, former Yosemite officials and some park employees.

They have also brought renewed attention to Hazel Green — a property whose history is intertwined with one of Yosemite’s earliest roads and a long-running legal fight over access to the park.

What Is Being Proposed?

Kingsbarn Realty Capital acquired Hazel Green on Feb. 1, 2024, according to a statement issued Saturday by Lanny Davis, an attorney representing the company.

The property itself is not part of Yosemite National Park. It is surrounded by federal land, with Yosemite along its eastern boundary and Stanislaus National Forest on its other sides.

Kingsbarn wants to develop the property and establish a shorter road connection to Yosemite.

Davis told the Los Angeles Times that the company currently plans “upscale, single-family houses” on the property.

Without direct access through Yosemite, Davis said residents would face a substantially longer drive using existing roads to reach the park. The company argues that establishing a shorter route would reduce driving, vehicle emissions and travel over unpaved forest roads.

Because National Park Service land cannot simply be sold to the developer for the road, discussions have focused instead on a potential land exchange.

Under that concept, Kingsbarn would acquire other land that could be transferred to the federal government in exchange for an interest in Yosemite land needed for the access road.

In his Saturday statement, Davis said Kingsbarn and National Park Service staff have identified a potential land exchange for an access road of less than one mile. He said the exchange would not reduce the total amount of land within Yosemite because other property would be added in return.

Precisely what land would be exchanged — and the exact route of a new road — has not been publicly finalized.

Interior Says No Decision Has Been Made

The current proposal gained national attention Friday after NOTUS reported that officials in President Donald Trump’s administration had pressured National Park Service employees to find a way to facilitate the exchange.

The Department of the Interior disputes that characterization.

“There has been no political pressure to reach a predetermined outcome,” Interior Department spokesperson Cody Sargent said in response to the reporting, adding that claims the department was secretly attempting to transfer park land to a private developer were false.

Interior has, however, acknowledged that a potential transaction is being evaluated.

The department said that if a proposal advances, established procedures would be followed to provide appropriate coordination, transparency and public involvement under federal law.

“No final decisions have been made,” Interior officials told multiple news organizations.

Kingsbarn has also rejected suggestions that political influence is behind the proposal.

Federal Election Commission records reviewed by the Los Angeles Times show Kingsbarn CEO Jeff Pori has contributed to President Donald Trump, the Republican National Committee and other Republican organizations.

Davis, a former special counsel to President Bill Clinton, has said those political contributions have nothing to do with the project and argues the proposed exchange should instead be evaluated on its environmental and legal merits.

A Road With Roots in Yosemite History

While the current land-exchange proposal is new, the question of whether Hazel Green should have direct road access into Yosemite is not.

The property’s connection to Yosemite reaches back to the earliest days of tourism in the park.

Hazel Green was once a stop along the historic Coulterville Road, the first wagon road completed into Yosemite Valley.

Construction of the road reached Yosemite in June 1874, allowing wheeled vehicles to travel into the Valley for the first time.

The route passed from Hazel Green toward Merced Grove before continuing into Yosemite.

Over time, however, other routes became dominant and portions of the old Coulterville Road fell into disuse. Today, sections of the historic road within Yosemite are closed to public motor vehicle traffic.

Sierra News Online has previously explored portions of the Old Coulterville Road and its history.

That old road would eventually become central to a much more modern dispute.

Previous Owner Took the Fight to Court

Hazel Green’s previous owner spent years attempting to establish legal rights to use historic roads between the property and Yosemite.

In 2007, Hazel Green Ranch LLC filed suit against the U.S. Department of the Interior and other federal agencies.

Court records describe Hazel Green as an approximately 83-acre private property on Yosemite’s western boundary and document claims involving the historic Coulterville Road and Crane Flat Road.

The property owner argued that historic rights associated with those roads provided access from Hazel Green toward Yosemite.

Mariposa County also participated in the litigation, asserting interests involving the historic roads.

Federal courts ultimately rejected key claims seeking to establish enforceable access rights through the federal property.

The litigation demonstrates that the basic question now confronting federal officials — whether private development at Hazel Green should receive a direct road connection toward Yosemite — predates the current owner and the current presidential administration by many years.

Hazel Green Was Once Considered in Yosemite Planning

There is another chapter in the property’s complicated relationship with Yosemite.

During earlier Yosemite planning efforts, Hazel Green was considered as a possible location for visitor facilities outside Yosemite Valley.

The National Park Service’s Final Yosemite Valley Plan discussed using Hazel Green for hundreds of day-use parking spaces and shuttle service into the park as part of an effort to reduce vehicle congestion in Yosemite Valley.

The plan contemplated a public-private partnership and a short road connection between Hazel Green and Big Oak Flat Road.

Previous development concepts for the property also included a resort.

Those earlier proposals are distinct from Kingsbarn’s current plans. Davis has described the company’s present concept as upscale single-family homes.

But the history helps explain why access between Hazel Green and Yosemite has remained contentious for so long.

Opponents Warn About Precedent

Critics of the current proposal say the issue extends well beyond the amount of acreage involved.

California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff have objected to the potential exchange, while conservation organizations and former park officials have raised concerns about allowing national park property to facilitate private development.

Among those speaking out is John Buckley, executive director of the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center.

Buckley told NOTUS there is no current residential population at Hazel Green requiring access to Yosemite and argued that the primary reason for the proposed connection is to make new development of the property more feasible.

Critics have also raised concerns about additional traffic, wildfire risk, impacts on natural resources and the precedent that could be created if Yosemite land were exchanged to facilitate private development along the park boundary.

The Yosemite local of the National Federation of Federal Employees, which represents park employees, has also opposed the proposal, saying employees are concerned about potential effects on park resources, visitor safety and an already strained workforce.

Kingsbarn argues that the exchange should be viewed differently.

The company says Hazel Green is already privately owned and can be developed independently of Yosemite. Its position is that providing a shorter route to the park would reduce miles driven over existing roads and that an equal-value land exchange would leave Yosemite with no net loss of acreage.

What Happens Next?

For now, there is no final land exchange and no new private road into Yosemite.

Important details — including the precise land that would be exchanged, the final road alignment and what environmental review would be required — remain unresolved or have not been made public.

Interior says that if the proposal moves forward, federal procedures requiring transparency and public involvement will be followed.

That makes the current controversy the latest chapter, rather than the conclusion, in a debate that began long before Kingsbarn acquired Hazel Green.

More than 150 years after travelers first passed through Hazel Green on their way into Yosemite, the old question of how that property should connect to the national park is once again being debated.

This time, the answer could determine not only the future of Hazel Green, but how the federal government handles private development along the boundary of one of America’s best-known national parks.