[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 123 (Monday, July 30, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8950-H8957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  EIGHTMILE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ACT

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 986) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to 
designate certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of 
Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 986

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Eightmile Wild and Scenic 
     River Act''.

     SEC. 2. WILD AND SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATION, EIGHTMILE RIVER, 
                   CONNECTICUT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Eightmile River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 
     2001 (Public Law 107-65; 115 Stat. 484) authorized the study 
     of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut from its 
     headwaters downstream to its confluence with the Connecticut 
     River for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers System.
       (2) The segments of the Eightmile River covered by the 
     study are in a free-flowing condition, and the outstanding 
     resource values of the river segments include the cultural 
     landscape, water quality, watershed

[[Page H8951]]

     hydrology, unique species and natural communities, geology, 
     and watershed ecosystem.
       (3) The Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee has 
     determined that--
       (A) the outstanding resource values of these river segments 
     depend on sustaining the integrity and quality of the 
     Eightmile River watershed;
       (B) these resource values are manifest within the entire 
     watershed; and
       (C) the watershed as a whole, including its protection, is 
     itself intrinsically important to this designation.
       (4) The Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee 
     took a watershed approach in studying and recommending 
     management options for the river segments and the Eightmile 
     River watershed as a whole.
       (5) During the study, the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic 
     Study Committee, with assistance from the National Park 
     Service, prepared a comprehensive management plan for the 
     Eightmile River watershed, dated December 8, 2005 (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Eightmile River Watershed 
     Management Plan''), which establishes objectives, standards, 
     and action programs that will ensure long-term protection of 
     the outstanding values of the river and compatible management 
     of the land and water resources of the Eightmile River and 
     its watershed, without Federal management of affected lands 
     not owned by the United States.
       (6) The Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee 
     voted in favor of inclusion of the Eightmile River in the 
     National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and included this 
     recommendation as an integral part of the Eightmile River 
     Watershed Management Plan.
       (7) The residents of the towns lying along the Eightmile 
     River and comprising most of its watershed (Salem, East 
     Haddam, and Lyme, Connecticut), as well as the Boards of 
     Selectmen and Land Use Commissions of these towns, voted to 
     endorse the Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan and to 
     seek designation of the river as a component of the National 
     Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
       (8) The State of Connecticut General Assembly enacted 
     Public Act 05-18 to endorse the Eightmile River Watershed 
     Management Plan and to seek designation of the river as a 
     component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
       (b) Designation.--Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(_) Eightmile River, Connecticut.--Segments of the main 
     stem and specified tributaries of the Eightmile River in the 
     State of Connecticut, totaling approximately 25.3 miles, to 
     be administered by the Secretary of the Interior as follows:
       ``(A) The entire 10.8-mile segment of the main stem, 
     starting at its confluence with Lake Hayward Brook to its 
     confluence with the Connecticut River at the mouth of Hamburg 
     Cove, as a scenic river.
       ``(B) The 8.0-mile segment of the East Branch of the 
     Eightmile River starting at Witch Meadow Road to its 
     confluence with the main stem of the Eightmile River, as a 
     scenic river.
       ``(C) The 3.9-mile segment of Harris Brook starting with 
     the confluence of an unnamed stream lying 0.74 miles due east 
     of the intersection of Hartford Road (State Route 85) and 
     Round Hill Road to its confluence with the East Branch of the 
     Eightmile River, as a scenic river.
       ``(D) The 1.9-mile segment of Beaver Brook starting at its 
     confluence with Cedar Pond Brook to its confluence with the 
     main stem of the Eightmile River, as a scenic river.
       ``(E) The 0.7-mile segment of Falls Brook from its 
     confluence with Tisdale Brook to its confluence with the main 
     stem of the Eightmile River at Hamburg Cove, as a scenic 
     river.''.
       (c) Management.--The segments of the main stem and certain 
     tributaries of the Eightmile River in the State of 
     Connecticut designated as components of the National Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers System by the amendment made by subsection (b) 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Eightmile River'') 
     shall be managed in accordance with the Eightmile River 
     Watershed Management Plan and such amendments to the plan as 
     the Secretary of the Interior determines are consistent with 
     this section. The Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan 
     is deemed to satisfy the requirements for a comprehensive 
     management plan required by section 3(d) of the Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(d)).
       (d) Committee.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     coordinate the management responsibilities of the Secretary 
     with regard to the Eightmile River with the Eightmile River 
     Coordinating Committee, as specified in the Eightmile River 
     Watershed Management Plan.
       (e) Cooperative Agreements.--In order to provide for the 
     long-term protection, preservation, and enhancement of the 
     Eightmile River, the Secretary of the Interior may enter into 
     cooperative agreements pursuant to sections 10(e) and 
     11(b)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1281(e), 1282(b)(1)) with the State of Connecticut, the towns 
     of Salem, Lyme, and East Haddam, Connecticut, and appropriate 
     local planning and environmental organizations. All 
     cooperative agreements authorized by this subsection shall be 
     consistent with the Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan 
     and may include provisions for financial or other assistance 
     from the United States.
       (f) Relation to National Park System.--Notwithstanding 
     section 10(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1281(c)), the Eightmile River shall not be administered as 
     part of the National Park System or be subject to regulations 
     which govern the National Park System.
       (g) Land Management.--
       (1) Zoning ordinances.--For the purposes of the Eightmile 
     River, the zoning ordinances adopted by the towns of Salem, 
     East Haddam, and Lyme, Connecticut, in effect as of December 
     8, 2005, including provisions for conservation of 
     floodplains, wetlands and watercourses associated with the 
     segments, are deemed to satisfy the standards and 
     requirements of section 6(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1277(c)).
       (2) Acquisition of lands.--The provisions of section 6(c) 
     of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that prohibit Federal 
     acquisition of lands by condemnation shall apply to the 
     Eightmile River. The authority of the Secretary of the 
     Interior to acquire lands for the purpose of managing the 
     Eightmile River as a component of the National Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers System shall be--
       (A) limited to acquisition by donation or acquisition with 
     the consent of the owner of the lands; and
       (B) subject to the additional criteria set forth in the 
     Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan.
       (h) Watershed Approach.--
       (1) In general.--In furtherance of the watershed approach 
     to resource preservation and enhancement articulated in the 
     Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan, the tributaries of 
     the Eightmile River watershed specified in paragraph (2) are 
     recognized as integral to the protection and enhancement of 
     the Eightmile River and its watershed.
       (2) Covered tributaries.--Paragraph (1) applies with 
     respect to Beaver Brook, Big Brook, Burnhams Brook, Cedar 
     Pond Brook, Cranberry Meadow Brook, Early Brook, Falls Brook, 
     Fraser Brook, Harris Brook, Hedge Brook, Lake Hayward Brook, 
     Malt House Brook, Muddy Brook, Ransom Brook, Rattlesnake 
     Ledge Brook, Shingle Mill Brook, Strongs Brook, Tisdale 
     Brook, Witch Meadow Brook, and all other perennial streams 
     within the Eightmile River watershed.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section and the amendment made by subsection (b).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Shea-Porter). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 580, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 
the bill, modified by the amendment printed in House Report 110-264, is 
adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 986

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Eightmile Wild and Scenic 
     River Act''.

     SEC. 2. WILD AND SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATION, EIGHTMILE RIVER, 
                   CONNECTICUT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Eightmile River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 
     2001 (Public Law 107-65; 115 Stat. 484) authorized the study 
     of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut from its 
     headwaters downstream to its confluence with the Connecticut 
     River for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers System.
       (2) The segments of the Eightmile River covered by the 
     study are in a free-flowing condition, and the outstanding 
     resource values of the river segments include the cultural 
     landscape, water quality, watershed hydrology, unique species 
     and natural communities, geology, and watershed ecosystem.
       (3) The Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee has 
     determined that--
       (A) the outstanding resource values of these river segments 
     depend on sustaining the integrity and quality of the 
     Eightmile River watershed;
       (B) these resource values are manifest within the entire 
     watershed; and
       (C) the watershed as a whole, including its protection, is 
     itself intrinsically important to this designation.
       (4) The Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee 
     took a watershed approach in studying and recommending 
     management options for the river segments and the Eightmile 
     River watershed as a whole.
       (5) During the study, the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic 
     Study Committee, with assistance from the National Park 
     Service, prepared a comprehensive management plan for the 
     Eightmile River watershed, dated December 8, 2005 (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Eightmile River Watershed 
     Management Plan''), which establishes objectives, standards, 
     and action programs that will ensure long-term protection of 
     the outstanding values of the river and compatible management 
     of the land and water resources of the Eightmile River and 
     its watershed, without Federal management of affected lands 
     not owned by the United States.
       (6) The Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee 
     voted in favor of inclusion of the Eightmile River in the 
     National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and included this 
     recommendation as an integral part of the Eightmile River 
     Watershed Management Plan.

[[Page H8952]]

       (7) The residents of the towns lying along the Eightmile 
     River and comprising most of its watershed (Salem, East 
     Haddam, and Lyme, Connecticut), as well as the Boards of 
     Selectmen and Land Use Commissions of these towns, voted to 
     endorse the Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan and to 
     seek designation of the river as a component of the National 
     Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
       (8) The State of Connecticut General Assembly enacted 
     Public Act 05-18 to endorse the Eightmile River Watershed 
     Management Plan and to seek designation of the river as a 
     component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
       (b) Designation.--Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(_) Eightmile River, Connecticut.--Segments of the main 
     stem and specified tributaries of the Eightmile River in the 
     State of Connecticut, totaling approximately 25.3 miles, to 
     be administered by the Secretary of the Interior as follows:
       ``(A) The entire 10.8-mile segment of the main stem, 
     starting at its confluence with Lake Hayward Brook to its 
     confluence with the Connecticut River at the mouth of Hamburg 
     Cove, as a scenic river.
       ``(B) The 8.0-mile segment of the East Branch of the 
     Eightmile River starting at Witch Meadow Road to its 
     confluence with the main stem of the Eightmile River, as a 
     scenic river.
       ``(C) The 3.9-mile segment of Harris Brook starting with 
     the confluence of an unnamed stream lying 0.74 miles due east 
     of the intersection of Hartford Road (State Route 85) and 
     Round Hill Road to its confluence with the East Branch of the 
     Eightmile River, as a scenic river.
       ``(D) The 1.9-mile segment of Beaver Brook starting at its 
     confluence with Cedar Pond Brook to its confluence with the 
     main stem of the Eightmile River, as a scenic river.
       ``(E) The 0.7-mile segment of Falls Brook from its 
     confluence with Tisdale Brook to its confluence with the main 
     stem of the Eightmile River at Hamburg Cove, as a scenic 
     river.''.
       (c) Management.--The segments of the main stem and certain 
     tributaries of the Eightmile River in the State of 
     Connecticut designated as components of the National Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers System by the amendment made by subsection (b) 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Eightmile River'') 
     shall be managed in accordance with the Eightmile River 
     Watershed Management Plan and such amendments to the plan as 
     the Secretary of the Interior determines are consistent with 
     this section. The Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan 
     is deemed to satisfy the requirements for a comprehensive 
     management plan required by section 3(d) of the Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(d)).
       (d) Committee.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     coordinate the management responsibilities of the Secretary 
     with regard to the Eightmile River with the Eightmile River 
     Coordinating Committee, as specified in the Eightmile River 
     Watershed Management Plan.
       (e) Cooperative Agreements.--In order to provide for the 
     long-term protection, preservation, and enhancement of the 
     Eightmile River, the Secretary of the Interior may enter into 
     cooperative agreements pursuant to sections 10(e) and 
     11(b)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1281(e), 1282(b)(1)) with the State of Connecticut, the towns 
     of Salem, Lyme, and East Haddam, Connecticut, and appropriate 
     local planning and environmental organizations. All 
     cooperative agreements authorized by this subsection shall be 
     consistent with the Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan 
     and may include provisions for financial or other assistance 
     from the United States.
       (f) Relation to National Park System.--Notwithstanding 
     section 10(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1281(c)), the Eightmile River shall not be administered as 
     part of the National Park System or be subject to regulations 
     which govern the National Park System.
       (g) Land Management.--The zoning ordinances adopted by the 
     towns of Salem, East Haddam, and Lyme, Connecticut, in effect 
     as of December 8, 2005, including provisions for conservation 
     of floodplains, wetlands, and watercourses associated with 
     the segments, are deemed to satisfy the standards and 
     requirements of section 6(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1277 (c)). For the purpose of section 6(c) of 
     that Act, such towns shall be deemed ``villages'' and the 
     provisions of that section, which prohibit Federal 
     acquisition of lands by condemnation, shall apply to the 
     segments designated by subsection (B). The authority of the 
     Secretary to acquire lands for the purposes of this Act shall 
     be limited to acquisition by donation or acquisition with the 
     consent of the owner thereof, and shall be subject to the 
     additional criteria set forth in the Eightmile River 
     Watershed Management Plan.
       (h) Watershed Approach.--
       (1) In general.--In furtherance of the watershed approach 
     to resource preservation and enhancement articulated in the 
     Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan, the tributaries of 
     the Eightmile River watershed specified in paragraph (2) are 
     recognized as integral to the protection and enhancement of 
     the Eightmile River and its watershed.
       (2) Covered tributaries.--Paragraph (1) applies with 
     respect to Beaver Brook, Big Brook, Burnhams Brook, Cedar 
     Pond Brook, Cranberry Meadow Brook, Early Brook, Falls Brook, 
     Fraser Brook, Harris Brook, Hedge Brook, Lake Hayward Brook, 
     Malt House Brook, Muddy Brook, Ransom Brook, Rattlesnake 
     Ledge Brook, Shingle Mill Brook, Strongs Brook, Tisdale 
     Brook, Witch Meadow Brook, and all other perennial streams 
     within the Eightmile River watershed.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section and the amendment made by subsection (b).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) 
and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on H.R. 986.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  H.R. 986 would designate 25.3 miles of the Eightmile River and its 
tributaries in Connecticut as a national scenic river. The bill was 
introduced by my friend and colleague, Representative Joe Courtney, who 
has been a strong and effective advocate for this designation.
  H.R. 986 would protect portions of the Eightmile River that have been 
found to have outstandingly remarkable values, including an intact 
watershed with a natural flow, very high water quality, unusual 
geological features, and large numbers of rare plants and animals.
  The bill would designate five segments of the river and its tributary 
as scenic under the Wild and Scenic River Act.
  The designated segments would be managed according to a plan produced 
pursuant to the 2001 Eightmile River Wild and Scenic River Study Act.
  The administration supports the legislation. The National Park 
Service has found these segments of the river and its tributaries to be 
eligible and suitable for designation. Under the provisions of the 
bill, the river will be managed pursuant to a partnership agreement as 
envisioned in section 10(e) of the Wild and Scenic River Act.
  H.R. 986 is cosponsored by the entire Connecticut House delegation. 
Both Connecticut centers support the designation, as does the 
Republican Governor of Connecticut and the State legislature.
  I submit for the Record a letter from Governor Rell, dated July 11, 
2007, in support of the bill.

                                               Executive Chambers,


                                         State of Connecticut,

                                                    July 11, 2007.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives.
     Steny Hoyer,
     House Majority Leader.
     John Boehner,
     House Minority Leader.
     Roy Blunt,
     House Minority Whip.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Congressmen Hoyer, Boehner, and 
     Blunt: I am writing to express my support for H.R. 986, which 
     will designate certain sections of the Eightmile River in 
     southeastern Connecticut for inclusion in the National Park 
     Service's Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Including parts of 
     this exceptional natural and cultural resource within this 
     program will help ensure that it receives the protections 
     that it deserves.
       I understand that this legislation also will protect 
     property owners from having their lands taken by condemnation 
     without the consent of the property owner. As you may know, 
     this has become an important issue in Connecticut in the wake 
     of the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision, and I am pleased 
     that H.R. 986 will respect the rights of property owners.
       Thank you for your efforts to help preserve this river, its 
     tributaries and watershed.
           Very truly yours,
                                                     M. Jodi Rell,
                                                         Governor.

  The legislation also enjoys ample support from the affected local 
communities, including the local governments of the towns of Salem, 
East Haddam and Lyme.
  During the committee consideration of the bill, there had been 
expressed concern about the private property provisions in the 
legislation.
  To ensure that the bill is absolutely clear on this point, I offered, 
and the Natural Resources Committee adopted, language that deems the 
zoning ordinances adopted by the towns of Salem, East Haddam and Lyme 
to satisfy section 6(c) of the Wild and Scenic River Act, and thus the 
bill expressly prohibits the use of Federal condemnation of authority 
under the Wild and Scenic River Act.
  In addition, the bill goes on to expressly forbid Federal 
condemnation for the Eightmile River designation. The authority 
contained in the bill to acquire land is limited to donation or

[[Page H8953]]

acquisition with the consent of the owner of the property. We have not 
one but two provisions, making it abundantly clear there will be no 
Federal condemnation along the Eightmile River.
  These provisions track the language used in several wild and scenic 
river designations in the east, including the designation of 
Connecticut's other wild and scenic river, the Farmington River. The 
language has been in effect for over a decade without questions or 
ambiguity on those rivers or in court.
  The opposition has said that they only want to add language to deny 
Federal condemnation. Given the language already in the bill, this 
would be plainly redundant. We simply ask that when all else fails, 
that they read the bill.
  The specific language of H.R. 986 denies the Federal Government any 
condemnation authority. The Bush administration has assured us that 
they consider the language to be absolutely unambiguous.
  H.R. 986 was originally considered by the House on July 10. When the 
vote was taken, the bill got a clear majority on a vote of 239-173 but 
failed to get the two-thirds necessary for passage under suspension of 
the rules.
  Since the only amendment that opponents have raised is clearly 
unnecessary, we believe the procedure under which the bill is being 
considered in the House today will allow the House to work its will on 
the measure.
  This is a good bill. I want to commend my colleague from Connecticut, 
Representative Courtney, for his commitment and leadership on this 
matter.
  We support the passage of H.R. 986, as amended, and urge its adoption 
by the House today.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I have had the wonderful 
opportunity, or privilege, I guess, at different times, of standing, 
sitting in this chair, standing at this mike either to present bills or 
to control time or to present rules. Oftentimes, I was perplexed at the 
discussion that went on, because oftentimes our side would be giving 
wonderful speeches and their side would be giving wonderful speeches 
but never on the same topic. We didn't even have the terms defined. 
That will not happen today with this particular bill, because there is 
but one issue, and the issue is clear, and it is precise.
  We do not have a problem with the creation of the wild and scenic 
river for this Eightmile area in the State of Connecticut. I am under 
the assumption that at the public hearings that were held in 
Connecticut, issues that could be of concern, for example, if you have 
a kid and want to add a bedroom, if you want to add a garage to your 
home, if you want to fix the roof to your house, if you want to repair 
a road that's been washed out or even ask to clear some of the brush 
next to the river, that not only could that possibly be prohibited, but 
it would probably be prohibited because there is precedent in other 
wild and scenic areas where that exact same thing has happened.
  But, with that, and I am sure it was covered in those public 
hearings, I am convinced a majority of residents in this area supported 
the wild and scenic area. I was somewhat disenchanted, when we were 
told in the hearing it was unanimous support. Later on, we found out it 
was not that and the record has been amended to illustrate that.
  In one city, in which one of the letters I received said only five 
people were opposed to it, in reality it was about a 400-person meeting 
with about a third, about 40 percent who were opposed to it. Still not 
a majority, so I am not opposed to the scenic river.
  What is significant, though, is there is a significant minority of 
individuals in this area that are fearful of what may happen to their 
homes in this area. Their rights and their fears should be considered 
and should be considered carefully. It is ironic that this happens to 
be in the district in which both the leaders of the State and local 
government turned their backs on Susette Kelo and brought about that 
infamous court case decision dealing with Kelo, imminent domain issues.
  We do not want that to be replicated, which is clearly why the 
Republicans presented language in both the Resources and Rules 
Committee to make it specifically clear what was the intent of this 
bill. The language we propose simply says, no Federal funds may be used 
to condemn land to carry out the purposes of this act or the amendment 
made by subsection B. Nothing would be done. It is puzzling to us why 
the Democratic Party would not support that language, when all the 
Democrats from the sponsor to the committee chairman say that is, 
indeed, their goal.
  If their goal is not to use condemnation, then you should say so. Why 
this wasn't accepted in a bipartisan way is, for me, puzzling. 
Otherwise, this bill need not to be here today; it could easily be 
handled by unanimous consent.
  The language that the chairman of the subcommittee gave you does not 
prohibit condemnation. It is based on zoning ordinances, zoning 
ordinances.
  It is unusual that, indeed, Federal statute should be contingent on 
local governments coming up with their zoning ordinance as of a 
specific date.
  What happens if they don't have those? What happens if they change 
those zoning ordinances, as has already happened?
  This is like a trial lawyer's dream come true in being able to take 
this language to a court and say, Look, Congress didn't specifically 
protect property rights with no condemnation language; they put their 
emphasis on local control. Ergo, local control should take precedence.
  They claim that the only land that will be taken will be done by 
donations or willing sellers. Another phrase, we have problems, simply 
because we have files that are bulging, of citizens who became willing 
sellers only after years of harassment put on them by Federal agencies.
  If you mean that you don't want condemnation, say it. Say it in 
logical terms that any citizen, any lawyer or any judge will clearly 
understand.
  If you don't mean it, then use double-talk, use loopholes. There is 
more that we need to talk about on this particular issue.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, local ordinances are being changed, and 
that will allow the National Park Service to invoke its condemnation 
authority as one of the issues that my good friend brought up now.
  What I would like to say, the specific language of the bill denies 
the National Park Service any condemnation authority. Even if a local 
government were to change this ordinance, the National Park Service 
wanted to exercise condemnation authority, they would have to come back 
and they would have to get this law changed.
  Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 986 and commend Representative Courtney for his outstanding work.
  Joe Courtney, in so many ways, is a story about so many people who 
come to the House of Representatives, not unlike ``Mr. Smith Goes to 
Washington'' and finds out that, when he presents a bill that's 
straightforward and works diligently at it and presents it on the 
floor, only to find that opposition rises where there should be 
unanimity.
  Now, my good friend and colleague from Utah talks about the concern 
of imminent domain, and yet the bill clearly forbids this. More 
important than the bill, however, that local authorities in the 
communities of Salem, East Haddam and Lyme and the entire Connecticut 
legislature, as well as the Republican Governor from the State of 
Connecticut, as well as the entire Connecticut delegation, including 
Republican Chris Shays.
  It seems as though Mr. Courtney has, perhaps, committed the grievous 
sin of coming to Washington and being able to accomplish more in 6 
months than his predecessor accomplished in 6 years. For this, he is to 
be punished.
  This bill should be by unanimous consent, an acclamation, because of 
the way it was worked on, because of the kind of support that it has, 
because of how important it is to the citizens of the State of 
Connecticut, who, indeed, on a local level and at the State level 
through the legislature, and for a party that claims to be for States' 
rights, why they would oppose the will of the local entity, and the 
State legislative body, and the Governor of the State of Connecticut, 
is somewhat astounding.

[[Page H8954]]

                              {time}  2315

  Now, I am sure if that happened in Utah, if the legislature in Utah 
passed it, if the Governor in Utah agreed with it and local 
municipalities approved of it in the impacted region, you would oppose 
it as well. I think not. But such is the case here.
  And I am pleased that the gentleman from Arizona outlined and 
articulated this very important piece of legislation for the citizens 
of the State of Connecticut. As I said, and I will repeat again, it has 
the support of the entire Connecticut delegation, including our two 
United States Senators. Why? Because this is a project that has been 
worked on for 10 years, because it has gone through a very thoughtful 
process. And the difference being that they finally elected an 
individual who is effective, who has the capability of bringing people 
together on all sides of the issue and making sure that he gets the job 
done.
  Congratulations, Joe. Job well done.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am very pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) such time as he may consume.
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from Utah and recognize the hard 
work of my friend from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  I think that we all agree patently that the underlying bill is not a 
problem. The problem is a very simple sentence that my friend from Utah 
would have included: no Federal funds may be used to condemn land, 
carry out the purposes of this act, or the amendment made by subsection 
B. It is a very simple amendment, one that is very clear.
  One would have to ask: Are there circumstances where we would be 
concerned about confiscation? Is it a valid concern? Has it been done 
before? Is it a worry that land owners or property owners might have to 
fear that confiscation would actually reach in and take their property 
and wrestle it away from them? That is the essential question before 
us.
  As the chairman of the Parks Subcommittee last year, we had the 
opportunity to listen to people along the Appalachian Trail. The Friars 
case was most prevalent. It is not the actual condemnation; it is the 
threat of condemnation that is the tool that is most often used; that 
we begin to persist from the Federal Government that we are going to 
take your land; that we can; that you need to just get along. So we 
have seen up and down the Appalachian Trail problems that come when 
land owners get in the way of a very strong central government.
  A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to be in Shenandoah 
National Park. I was amazed at the boldness of the park superintendent 
there. The entire visitors center was filled with stories of exactly 
the same thing, where a too strong Federal Government came in and began 
to take people and move them off the land because they were just so 
inconvenient. These constitutional rights of private property ownership 
were so inconvenient that we simply confiscated their land and moved 
about 4,000 families out of that whole Shenandoah area.
  Confiscation is a very real thing to people of New Mexico. The White 
Sands missile range extends for 100 miles north to south, 40 miles east 
to west. Ranch was confiscated because the Defense Department felt like 
it wanted to create a training base. Now, all of us in the area support 
the training base. We support that it is the largest overland missile 
training proving ground in the world. We are able to do magnificent 
things there. But we cannot turn a blind eye to the way that parcel of 
land was put together, by taking people and evicting them off their 
land.
  Recently, I had the opportunity to stumble across one of the books 
that people in dire frustration write in their home. No major publisher 
would pick it up and do it. It wasn't very well written, maybe. But it 
was published on a small printer or maybe even one of the old copying 
machines that we used to have in high school, but it talked about 50 
years of confiscation there in that one section of New Mexico.
  So, yes, we do in this country face a problem of a too strong central 
government. I don't know if it is going to be a problem; Mr. Bishop 
alludes to the fact that we have land owners there who are expressing 
their concern of what is going to happen to them. None of us can say 
what any bureaucracy would do in the future. All we can do is offer the 
security of this one simple sentence: no Federal funds may be used to 
condemn land to carry out the purposes of this act or the amendments 
made by this subsection (b).
  Now, there are those who completely oppose this kind of restriction. 
Recently, I volunteered to help with the Continental Divide Trail that 
runs north-south, through the United States. It starts at the Mexican 
border, goes all the way to the Canadian border, and runs all the way 
north to south through New Mexico. That trail was originated in 1978 
language, but in the intervening years not one mile across private 
property had ever been gotten. I volunteered to take that task on, but 
the one reassurance people wanted was, don't let them come and take my 
land later.
  I am sympathetic to the rights of private property owners. I think 
that we all should be, because private property ownership is at the 
heart of the success of our democracy and this Republic that we 
represent people in. Private property ownership is the basis of our 
Constitution. It is the basis of the economic way of life that we have 
in this country, and we should jealously guard it even to the point of 
putting in simple language like that that Mr. Bishop has suggested. It 
is not an unreasonable request.
  And, no, it is not some scheme rigged up to make it look like someone 
didn't get their job done. It is simply the people out West, where 60 
and 70 and 80 percent of our States are owned by Federal Governments. 
Those people out West have a different view than those people on the 
east coast where almost nothing is owned by the Federal or State 
government. And we out West say, please, just take the time to put in 
this one simple sentence, to take the precautions that would protect 
the constitutional rights and liberties of our residents. It is not an 
unreasonable request, and we simply ask that the bill be voted against 
because of that one provision that is missing. I thank the gentleman 
for yielding
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. And I would just 
point out that every time, and I am guilty of that, too, when we vote 
for a highway bill, a defense bill, a water bill that comes before us, 
we are voting for the ability of the Federal Government to conduct 
condemnation. This is not the case in this legislation. It is 
specifically prohibited in two sections of this bill.
  I yield to the sponsor, my good friend from Connecticut (Mr. 
Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership 
on this legislation. And I also want to thank my colleague from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for his strong words in support of this 
measure, which again is something that people in Connecticut are 
watching anxiously in terms of the actions of this body.
  Madam Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record letters of support 
for this legislation from the Republican Governor of Connecticut, Jodi 
Rell; the first selectman of the town of East Haddam, Brad Parker; the 
Republican first selectman from the town of Salem, Larry Reitz; the 
Republican first selectman of the town of Lyme, Ralph Eno; and also a 
letter of support from the State of Connecticut's Attorney General, 
Richard Blumenthal, all of whom have reviewed this legislation and 
have, very mindful of the situation that occurred in London, a year 
ago, have examined the question of whether or not this legislation 
opens the door to condemnation of eminent domain, and all have 
expressed their support for the committee bill which is before the 
House this evening and will be voted on tomorrow
                                                 Attorney General,


                                         State of Connecticut,

                                      Hartford, CT, July 19, 2007.
     Hon. Joseph D. Courtney,
     U.S. Congressman,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Courtney: I am writing to support H.R. 
     986, the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act, which 
     designates certain areas of the Eightmile River in Lyme, 
     Salem and East Haddam as part of the National Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers System. This river is a great asset to the people of 
     Connecticut, and such designation will enhance efforts to 
     preserve and protect its beauty and environmental integrity.
       The proposal also protects the property rights of land 
     owners within the designated areas from federal eminent 
     domain takings by expressly stating that the Secretary of the 
     Interior's authority to acquire property

[[Page H8955]]

     in this area ``shall be limited to acquisition by donation or 
     acquisition with the consent of the owner thereof . . .'' 
     Section 2(g).
       The Secretary's general statutory authority under the Wild 
     and Scenic Rivers Act to acquire land is already severely 
     circumscribed. The Act flatly prohibits use of eminent domain 
     if the lands are subject to local zoning laws that conform to 
     proposes of the Act. According to the Interior Department, 
     there have been no condemnations under this Act in the past 
     30 years. Nevertheless, H.R. 986 goes even further by 
     prohibiting the use of eminent domain by the Secretary under 
     any circumstance.
       I commend your leadership on this critical legislation.
           Very truly yours,
     Richard Blumenthal.
                                  ____



                                                     Lyme, CT,

                                                    July 11, 2007.
     Congressman Joe Courtney,
     Norwich, CT.
       Dear Congressman Courtney: I am writing to reaffirm my 
     longstanding support for legislation to secure federal ``wild 
     and scenic'' designation for the Eight Mile River. The towns 
     of Lyme, East Haddam and Salem have invested considerable 
     time and effort to protect this vital asset common to our 
     communities.
       Approval of your bill is key to insuring the integrity of 
     the stream as well as safeguarding the rural character and 
     quality of life in Lyme, I cannot stress its importance to 
     our respective communities strongly enough.
       Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.
           Best Regards,
                                                       Ralph Elio,
     First Selectman.
                                  ____

                                                     July 9, 2007.
     Hon. Joseph Courtney,
     Canon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Courtney: As First Selectman for the Town 
     of Salem I would like to reiterate Salem's strong commitment 
     to protecting and preserving the Eight Mile River and the 
     surrounding watershed. Resources such as this are critically 
     important in the health and well being of all residents in 
     this part of Southeastern Connecticut, and need to be 
     recognized for their intrinsic value.
       Federal designation as a Wild and Scenic River is an 
     important part of preserving this natural resource. The Town 
     of Salem is pleased that you have chosen to sponsor this 
     effort and guide it through the legislative process. Thank 
     you, and if we can be of any additional assistance in support 
     of your efforts please do not hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
                                                   R. Larry Reitz,
                                                  First Selectman.
                                  ____
                                  
                                               Selectmen's Office,


                                         Town Office Building,

                                    East Haddam, CT, July 6, 2007.
     Hon. Joseph Courtney,
     Congressman, Second District,
     Norwich, CT.
       Dear Congressman Courtney: Thank you for your time and 
     effort in this important matter. I am writing to reassure you 
     that the citizens and elected officials of East Haddam are 
     overwhelmingly in favor of Wild & Scenic designation.
       Over ten years ago my predecessor, along with the First 
     Selectmen from Lyme and Salem signed the Eightmile River 
     Watershed Conservation Compact. That inter-municipal 
     agreement represented East Haddam's commitment to a regional 
     project that our town has participated in and endorsed 
     widely. The Compact states: ``We understand that 1) land use 
     in our towns is the key determinant to the health of the 
     Watershed's natural resources; 2) a healthy watershed 
     ecosystem is consistent with our town goals of promoting a 
     healthy community, preserving rural character, and nurturing 
     suitable economic growth.''
       This broad view of the Eightmile River Watershed including 
     its rural character, economic well being and intact natural 
     resources has led to a heightened awareness and concern for 
     this fragile system by a broad spectrum of town residents. 
     Over the 12 years of East Haddam's participation in the 
     Eightmile work, I have heard of only a small number of 
     individuals who oppose the project. We have overwhelming 
     support from the business community and private citizens 
     alike. In fact, our river front landowners are some of the 
     strongest advocates--they deeply understand the risks that 
     unchecked development and sprawl will have on the river in 
     their own back yards. The town has also taken measures to 
     protect much of the open space in the watershed area.
       Thanks again for your time and attention to our pristine 
     Eightmile Watershed.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Brad Parker,
                                                  First Selectman.
                                  ____
                                  
                                              State of Connecticut


                                           Executive Chambers,

                                      Hartford, CT, July 11, 2007.
     Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Congressman Steny Hoyer,
     House Majority Leader,
     Congressman John Boehner,
     House Minority Leader,
     Congressman Roy Blunt,
     House Minority Whip.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Congressmen Hoyer, Boehner and 
     Blunt: I am writing to express my support for HR 986, which 
     will designate certain sections of the Eightmile River in 
     southeastern Connecticut for inclusion in the National Park 
     Service's Wild and Scenic River System. Including parts of 
     this exceptional natural and cultural resource within this 
     program will help ensure that it receives the protections 
     that it deserves.
       I understand that this legislation also will protect 
     property owners from having their lands taken by condemnation 
     without the consent of the property owner. As you may know, 
     this has become an important issue in Connecticut in the wake 
     of the U.S. Supreme Court's Keto decision, and I am pleased 
     that HR 986 will respect the rights of property owners.
       Thank you for your efforts to help preserve this river, its 
     tributaries and watershed.
           Very truly yours,
                                                     M. Jodi Rell,
                                                         Governor.

  As Mr. Grijalva has indicated, this effort has been 10 years in the 
making. It has been a grass-roots effort. There have been meetings of 
planning and zoning commission, inland wetland commission, town 
meetings in the district. The idea of trying to protect this gem, this 
beautiful river in one of the most densely populated parts of the 
country, is something that people in these towns have come together on 
a bipartisan basis, Republican and Democrat, property owners and public 
officials, and have embraced the idea of the Wild and Scenic Act 
designation as a way of preserving this river with unique and special 
characteristics.
  There are 168 rivers in this country protected by the Wild and Scenic 
law and program that has been in place for over 30 years. Now, maybe we 
are just not getting news in our part of the country, but we have not 
read of any wave or epidemic of condemnation or eminent domain that is 
taking place across this country as a result of this legislation. It is 
not about ownership by the government. What it is about is preserving 
water quality and preserving species and vegetation flora and fauna 
that have been identified by the National Park Service through a very 
strict system of screening to qualify for the status. And what it does 
is it triggers support and grants so that the characteristics that have 
been identified will continue to be conserved and preserved into the 
future.
  In 2001 this Congress approved the report authorization for a study 
to be done of this river again on a bipartisan basis. And in every one 
of the areas and categories that the National Park Service examines to 
determine whether or not a river qualifies, Eightmile River passed with 
flying colors.
  The legislation, which was drafted by nonpartisan staff, is based 
exactly verbatim on Wild and Scenic Act designations that have occurred 
as recently as the 109th Congress. The gentleman from Utah said that he 
was surprised that local zoning was being referenced in Federal 
statutes. Well, he shouldn't be surprised, because the last Congress 
when they approved a river in the State of New Jersey used exactly the 
same language. And as Mr. Grijalva has indicated, that was also the 
case with the Farmington River Wild and Scenic Act designation 10 years 
ago, again, referencing local zoning provisions that triggered the 
anticondemnation plan and program which the National Park Service has 
incorporated into the underlying act, into the underlying law that 
governs the National Wild and Scenic Act provisions.
  But let's cut to the chase here. What are the zoning ordinances that 
we are talking about in these three communities of East Haddam, Salem, 
and Lyme? They are in fact wetland review requirements for property 
owners who border the body of water, the river. In the town of Lyme 
there is a 100-foot setback where you need to get a permit to build, 75 
feet in Salem, and 75 feet in East Haddam.
  Now, let's be clear here. These wetland requirements existed before, 
and I want to say that again, before the Eightmile River Project was 
ever contemplated. These were not the result of the threat of 
condemnation or the threat of eminent domain. These are zoning 
ordinances in wetland protection provisions that these towns had 
adopted long before this project was ever contemplated, and never has 
there ever been any indication that those wetland review requirements, 
which again are frankly commonplace throughout Connecticut. I was a 
town attorney of the community that I come

[[Page H8956]]

from, and again you have got to get a permit if you are building in a 
wetland. You can build in a wetland if the wetland commission gives you 
permission. But if you disturb wetlands or disturb a body of water, you 
have to mitigate for it. That is basic land use law, certainly in the 
State of Connecticut and I imagine in many, many other parts of the 
country.
  So when the National Park Service looked at this application and saw 
what inland wetland protections these towns had already adopted, they 
clearly indicated that it triggers the anticondemnation provisions of 
the Wild and Scenic Act. And as Mr. Grijalva has stated, the 
acquisition of lands provision of this statute clearly states that the 
Federal acquisitions are prohibited and that the provisions of the Wild 
and Scenic Act that prohibit Federal acquisition of lands by 
condemnation shall apply to this project, to this request.
  Now, again, we had some discussion at the public hearing, and I 
apologize if I in my exuberance overstated the support that existed in 
the area. What I guess I meant to say is that the Land Use Commission 
all came together in support of it. But I know New England town 
meetings; I have been through enough of them as a town attorney to know 
that unanimity is hard to find almost on any agenda item that comes 
before it.
  But the fact of the matter is that we used statutory language which 
has verbatim been used in other Wild and Scenic Act designations, 
drafted by nonpartisan staff. I think Mr. Grijalva bent over backwards 
to try to accommodate the concerns when there was a debate at the time 
the committee reported the bill out.

                              {time}  2330

  And again, I emphasize the fact that this anticondemnation provision 
would be incorporated into the very statute, it wasn't just simply 
relying on National Park Service's representations, and brought the 
bill to the floor on the suspension calendar thinking that that really 
was the end of the debate over that issue. Well, obviously it wasn't. 
It was requested, a rollcall vote, and although 18 Republicans did 
support us at the time the vote was taken, it was not sufficient to hit 
the two-thirds number.
  Now, press releases went out to local newspapers in Connecticut 
breathlessly exclaiming that Joe Courtney was out there trying to push 
a bill that was going to create eminent domain or condemnation in the 
area, and I've got to tell you, it was greeted by ridicule and guffaws 
in Connecticut.
  The Hartford Current, there's a clip here that we're presenting, 
dismissed the concerns as just simply none of it was true. The New 
London Day, the paper of record in the community of New London, which 
was, again, where the Kelo case was located, wrote an editorial after 
reviewing the claim that somehow this bill was going to create eminent 
domain in the Eightmile River region completely dismissed it out of 
hand. And both newspapers called on Congress to get serious and to act 
swiftly and to make sure that the 10 years of hard bipartisan work that 
has gone on in these communities is completed by passage of this 
legislation, just like we did in the 109th Congress for a New Jersey 
river, using verbatim, the same language incorporating local zoning as 
the trigger for anticondemnation provisions by the National Park 
Service. And that's exactly what we've done with this legislation, and 
we are asking no more and no less than what Congress has done in 
numerous instances where wild and scenic act designation took place.
  This is a beautiful, beautiful part of Connecticut. I invite anyone 
to come up there. When the river's running high, you can kayak on the 
Eightmile River, fly fishing during the summer. In the winter, take a 
walk in the woods like Robert Frost described. It is spectacular and 
amazing, given, again, the fact that we live in such a densely 
populated part of the country.
  Mr. PEARCE. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COURTNEY. Sure. I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. PEARCE. The gentleman understands, I mean, it is a very 
straightforward, transparent thing that we're suggesting. What was 
offensive about this particular amendment that simply says no Federal 
funds may be used to condemn, and it just gets really clear, because 
again, those of us in the West, maybe we're overly sensitive, but so 
much land has been taken from us that it is, it is a point at which we 
begin to resist. Why wasn't that amendment simply agreed to?
  Mr. COURTNEY. Well, again, I don't sit on the Resources Committee, on 
the day that this was deliberated on, but, I think clearly, and I don't 
want to put words in the Chairman's mouth, and he can probably answer 
this when maybe the microphone goes back to him, but my understanding 
is that basically they wanted to follow the basic statutory format that 
has worked in all the other designations that this Congress has taken 
up in the past, and where really honestly there has not been a problem 
of condemnation or eminent domain of the property owners. But that's 
the best of my knowledge.
  Mr. PEARCE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. And if he would 
yield further, just point out that, again, we have had so many people 
come and testify about the Appalachian Trail that came through there, 
and I wouldn't call it systematic, but enough to where we began to 
feel, I began to feel uncomfortable with a too-strong National Park 
Service that was very energized about just getting this little parcel 
here, and it would make things fit so well that they began to really 
use their power in a way that was distressing. And that's, again, it's 
a very simply straightforward, transparent piece that is the problem.
  We've got some magnificent vistas out West that might not equal what 
you're talking about, but we share our love for those things, and it's 
unfortunate that this bill is kind of the focal point for this 
particular dispute. But again, it's certainly nothing to do with the 
gentleman's underlying assumption or his belief that this river is 
worth protecting, but is instead one that we're expressing our concern 
as cleanly as we can that a government can be too strong and too large 
and too heavy-handed. And we worry about that.
  But I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. COURTNEY. And in conclusion, again, I'd be happy to submit an 
excerpt from the Eightmile River Watershed management plan, which again 
confirms what the zoning and wetland regulations, which ones were 
examined by the National Park Service and by the committee, again, the 
75-foot and the 100-foot setback for wetland permits, which, again, 
were satisfactory in terms of triggering the anticondemnation 
provisions of the wild and scenic act, which, again, I think have 
worked without a hitch based on any data and information, facts or law 
that the committee staff and the committee leadership has examined.
  In conclusion, I just want to thank, again, the leadership of the 
committee for the work that they've done on this legislation. I hope 
maybe this colloquy has reassured people that this is not a plan which 
is about trying to ram through government authority to take people's 
property rights away. It has been fashioned and designed in a way that 
accommodates people's input and participation with, again, property 
owners in strong support of it. Their names were submitted to the 
committee during the committee process. And again, I want to thank Mr. 
Grijalva for his leadership on this issue


                         adequacy of protection

       An important component of the management plan development 
     process was determining the adequacy of existing protection 
     mechanisms to protect and enhance the watershed's outstanding 
     resource values. Determining adequacy achieves objectives:
       (1) Proving that local communities meet the requirements of 
     Section 6(c) of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act.
       Section 6(c) of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act states:
       ``(c) Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may acquire lands by condemnation, 
     for the purpose of including such lands in any national wild, 
     scenic or recreational river area, if such lands are located 
     within any incorporated city, village or borough which has in 
     force and applicable to such lands a duly adopted, valid 
     zoning ordinance that conforms with the purposes of this Act. 
     The standards specified in such guidelines shall have the 
     object of (A) prohibiting new commercial or industrial uses 
     other than commercial or industrial uses which are consistent 
     with the purposes of this Act and (8) the protection af the 
     bank lands by means of acreage, frontage, and setback 
     requirements on development.''

[[Page H8957]]

       Local, state and federal regulations, combined with 
     protected lands and physical constraints to development (i.e. 
     floodplains, wetlands, topography, etc.) create enough of an 
     existing protection scheme to make federal condemnation of 
     lands unreasonable and unnecessary. While no new actions are 
     deemed required by the towns to meet the requirements of 
     Section 6(c), the management recommendations in Section VI 
     are considered critical to the overall long-term quality of 
     the watershed's outstanding resource values.
       At the local and state level, a number of key actions 
     underscore the current level of protection and the dedication 
     to river and watershed conservation:
       Local upland review areas are in place in all three 
     communities. These are the areas within 100 feet of wetlands 
     and watercourses in East Haddam and Lyme, and 75 feet in 
     Salem. Municipal Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commissions 
     can regulate activities in upland review areas that would 
     likely impact wetland or watercourse function. Reviews in 
     upland areas may include assessing and regulating impacts 
     from a proposed activity on hydrologic, water quality and 
     ecological functions.
       All three towns have adopted net buildable area 
     requirements in their subdivision regulations recognizing new 
     construction should be compatible with the carrying capacity 
     of the land to sustain it. In addition, Salem requires 75% of 
     the net buildable area be outside of the upland review area, 
     and Lyme requires all of the net buildable area be at least 
     100 feet back from wetlands and watercourses.
       Local communities, working in partnership with local land 
     trusts, the state and The Nature Conservancy, have directly 
     preserved 28% of the watershed (over 11,000 acres of land), 
     and 25% of all river frontage within 100 feet of the 160 
     miles of river and stream in the watershed.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If I could ask the gentleman from Arizona how 
many more speakers you have.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. We have no additional speakers.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  As I said before, there are some significant issues that always take 
place on these particular types of bills. Indeed, there is no basic 
statutory structure for wild and scenic bills. They've gone all over 
the place, including the now infamous one in New Jersey, which I think 
was actually the last bill to go through during the last session.
  These are the issues that we've talked about before which can, 
indeed, take place under wild and scenic areas where people do not have 
the right to fix their roof, do not have the right to expand their 
garage, do not have the right to clear areas on their own property. It 
is not just a possibility; it is actually a probability. There is 
precedent for all of those.
  But once again, this isn't this key issue. We are willing to have 8 
miles of scenic river in Connecticut. The key issue is defending those 
people in Connecticut and establishing a precedent that is significant 
the rest of the way.
  It's not simply a matter of reading the bill; it's a matter of 
reading the law. The language of zoning requirement, which once again 
is a conditional one. You mentioned the Attorney General from the State 
of Connecticut wrote a letter and once again he said the act flatly 
prohibits use of eminent domain if, and once again that's the 
conditional language, if the lands are subject to local zoning laws 
that conform to the purposes of the act. And once again the date that 
these zoning laws should have been in effect, the zoning ordinances 
have already been changed from that particular date.
  But the key element is that that zoning language, that willing seller 
language, is inserted into the existing bill and it comes directly 
after this sentence, and the sentence is very clear. Nothing contained 
in this section, which is everything we've been talking about in this 
bill, nothing contained in this section however, shall preclude the use 
of condemnation. Nothing that you add as far as zoning ordinances or 
willing sellers precludes the right the Secretary of Interior has in 
the rest of the bill and the rest of the section from condemnation, 
unless you simply adopt the Republican language, and that is why we hit 
over and over and over again on this issue.
  It is important that we stand up for property rights and personal 
property. It's important that people have some sense of security and 
safety in their own homes. And this bill doesn't take away this 
provision of the act which says, nothing contained in this section 
shall preclude the use of condemnation. That is to which we object. 
That is the problem with this bill. That is what must change.
  The Republican option was clear, simple and to the point. The 
Democrat option, whatever the motive was, is somewhat double-talk. It's 
a loophole. This language that we propose is very similar to what this 
body adopted by a voice vote with the Department of Interior 
appropriations bill.
  And in conclusion, Madam Speaker, I'm actually sad that we had this 
bill before us at all. There is no reason this bill should be before us 
with a closed rule. I wish that the Democrats had moved in a bipartisan 
way to work with us to meet what are legitimate concerns. And if, 
indeed, protection of private property is a partisan issue, I'm more 
than happy to be on the side of private property. That's the right side 
to be on in this issue. This bill may indeed sometime become a metaphor 
for this entire section where we can see how much muscle can be flexed 
to push through issues rather than sitting down and trying to solve 
problems.
  I truly hope that in the future we can work in a bipartisan way, that 
we can actually talk together to find language that is mutually 
acceptable to both sides of the aisle for these issues, because there's 
no reason that we should actually have to go through a closed rule on 
this type of a bill.
  But the issue is simply black and white or yellow and black, I guess. 
Will you actually ensure, by taking the money away, there is no 
condemnation, or do you leave the language in the act? It's clear. It's 
understandable. It should be clear to our colleagues. It will be clear 
to our constituents and our voters.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, with the 
exception of 2 minutes, which I reserve for tomorrow.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired. There are 
2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Utah, the 
ranking member.
  Just in closing, let me say that the Appalachian Trail that was 
referenced by the gentleman from New Mexico has, in the legislation, 
condemnation as part of it. This particular bill does not. And there is 
separate language, aside from the section that my good friend from Utah 
presented today, that adds an additional prohibition and a protection 
for the acquisition of private property in this legislation
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 986, the Eightmile 
Wild and Scenic River Act, which would add the Eightmile River to the 
Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
  This legislation has overwhelming bipartisan support from the 
National Park Service, the bipartisan Connecticut House delegation, the 
Republican Governor of Connecticut, the Attorney General of 
Connecticut, the three local mayors, and the State legislature, which 
passed a resolution in support of Wild and Scenic designation.
  Concerns have been raised that H.R. 986, the Eightmile Wild and 
Scenic River Act, would allow land condemnations within the Eightmile 
River corridor. This is not the case. The bill prohibits eminent 
domain, condemnation or any takings.
  H.R. 986 also explicitly states: ``The authority of the Secretary to 
acquire lands for the purposes of this Act shall be limited to 
acquisition by donation or acquisition with the consent of the owner 
thereof, and shall be subject to the additional criteria set forth in 
the Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan.'' This prohibits 
condemnations regardless of how local zoning laws apply.
  The Eightmile River is a worthy addition to the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System. I strongly urge passage of H.R. 986.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield back all but 2 minutes and 
reserve the 2 minutes until tomorrow.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired. There are 
2 minutes remaining.
  Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 580, further proceedings on 
the bill will be postponed.

                          ____________________