Rock Creek National Park Act of 2026
HB9104, the Rock Creek National Park Act of 2026, would redesignate Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia as “Rock Creek National Park.” The bill states that the redesignation is made in recognition of the park’s nationally significant natural, cultural, and historical resources, as well as its recreational opportunities. It does not change the park’s physical boundaries, management structure, or underlying purpose; it primarily changes the park’s official name.
The bill also makes conforming amendments to Title 40 of the U.S. Code and provides that any reference in federal law, maps, regulations, documents, or other records to Rock Creek Park will be treated as a reference to Rock Creek National Park. In practical terms, this is a nomenclature and reference-update measure that would require federal records and statutory references to be read consistently under the new name.
The bill would amend two provisions in Title 40 of the United States Code to replace references to “Rock Creek Park” with “Rock Creek National Park,” and it would apply that new name across federal laws and records. Its legal effect is limited to renaming the park and ensuring that existing statutory and administrative references continue to operate without interruption. The measure would affect federal agencies, legal references, maps, and documents that mention the park, but it would not create new regulatory authority or alter park operations.
The available context suggests the bill is largely ceremonial and likely noncontroversial. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes indicating opposition or debate, and the bill’s purpose is framed positively as recognizing the park’s national significance. The overall sentiment appears supportive, with the measure presented as a straightforward honorific redesignation rather than a substantive policy change.
No specific points of contention are evident in the available materials. Because the bill only changes the park’s official designation and updates conforming references, there is little apparent policy disagreement to resolve. If any concerns were raised, they are not reflected in the provided transcripts or voting history, and the bill appears to have been introduced as a simple naming measure by the District’s delegate.