PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 107-370.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 16, 2002
Big Sur Wilderness and Conservation Act of 2002 - Designates specified lands in California as wilderness, as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, and as additions to the Ventana Wilderness, the Silver Peak Wilderness, and the Pinnacles Wilderness.Authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to manage the designated wilderness areas in accordance with the Wilderness Act.Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to amend the management plans for the Ventana and Silver Peak Wildernesses to authorize the Forest Supervisor of the Los Padres National Forest to take appropriate actions for fire prevention and watershed protection in such areas..Permits military flights and flight training over, and continued non-motorized access for military training in, such wilderness areas.Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to: (1) conduct a 5-year pilot program to eradicate invasive plant and animal species in the Monterey District of Los Padres National Forest; and (2) permit the construction and maintenance of a new water line and spring box improvements adjacent to an existing domestic water service in the Silver Peak Wilderness.
People & committees
Rep. Farr, Sam [D-CA-17] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 107-370.
Became Public Law No: 107-370.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR 11/19/2002 S11652-11655)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR 11/19/2002 S11652-11655)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR 11/14/2002 H8923-8924)
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.(text: CR 11/14/2002 H8923-8924)
Committee on Resources discharged.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR 11/14/2002 H8923-8924)
Committee on Resources discharged.
Mr. Hansen asked unanimous consent to discharge from committee and consider.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4750 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4750 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4750 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4750 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.