[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2139-H2141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1815
           YORK RIVER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY ACT OF 2013

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 2197) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
to designate segments of the York River and associated tributaries for 
study for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2197

       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 ``York River Wild and Scenic 
     River Study Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

       Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1276(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(_) York river, maine.--(A) The York River that flows 
     11.25 miles from its headwaters at York Pond to the mouth of 
     the river at York Harbor, and all associated tributaries.
       ``(B) The study conducted under this paragraph shall--
       ``(i) determine the effect of the designation on--
       ``(I) existing commercial and recreational activities, such 
     as hunting, fishing, trapping, recreational shooting, motor 
     boat use, bridge construction;
       ``(II) the authorization, construction, operation, 
     maintenance, or improvement of energy production and 
     transmission infrastructure; and
       ``(III) the authority of State and local governments to 
     manage those activities; and
       ``(ii) identify--
       ``(I) all authorities that will authorize or require the 
     Secretary to influence local land use decisions (such as 
     zoning) or place restrictions on non-Federal land if 
     designated under this Act;
       ``(II) all authorities that the Secretary may use to 
     condemn property; and
       ``(III) all private property located in the area studied 
     under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 3. STUDY AND REPORT.

       Section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1276(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(_) York river, maine.--The study of the York River, 
     Maine, named in paragraph (_) of subsection (a) shall be 
     completed by the Secretary of the Interior and the report 
     thereon submitted to Congress not later than 3 years after 
     the date on which funds are made available to carry out this 
     paragraph.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the legislation under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2197 authorizes the 
National Park Service to study 11.25 miles of the York River in the 
State of Maine for possible inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
program.
  The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 was intended to put a 
development freeze on rivers to preserve their ``free-flowing'' 
characteristics. Although no immediately apparent risks to the river 
necessitating Federal designation have been identified, proponents of 
the study explained that they would benefit from the expertise of the 
National Park Service and its interaction with the surrounding 
community.
  Due to a number of very real concerns that have arisen through prior 
designations, this bill includes several commonsense provisions aimed 
at better informing local property owners and communities about the 
full effects and impacts of a wild and scenic designation.
  The National Park Service will be required to consider the effect of 
designation on commercial and recreational uses, such as hunting and 
fishing and boating. The study must also look at the impact on 
construction and maintenance of energy production and transmission.
  Furthermore, H.R. 2197 requires the Federal Government to identify 
all existing authorities that could be utilized to condemn private 
property. We want property owners to know how much power the government 
will be given so they can form an educated opinion as to whether they 
should participate in or support a Wild and Scenic Rivers designation.
  Finally, the bill will require the Federal Government to identify 
those authorities that compel it to become involved in local zoning. 
While Federal designation of the York River clearly has an appeal to 
the local advocates supporting this legislation, it is important for 
the community to be aware that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires 
local zoning to conform to the dictates of the Federal act.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would note that this exact legislation passed 
the House last Congress, but because the Senate failed to act on it, it 
is being considered once again in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am very happy to stand in support of my bill, H.R. 2197, the York 
River Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Act, and I want to start by thanking 
Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Grijalva, and tonight Mr. Hastings for their support 
in reporting this bill out of committee in September. I thank them and 
former Congressperson, now Senator Markey's help in passing this bill 
last Congress. I very much appreciate their persistence and their 
willingness to help get this bill passed and into law. I know the 
people of Maine will appreciate their commitment, too.
  This bill was really proposed by the folks back home, the same people 
who live and work around the York River and who care deeply about it. 
This bill would allow organizations working around the York River to 
partner with the National Park Service to conduct a study that would 
provide the information that is vital to making smart decisions about 
the future of the York River and its communities.
  I have heard from small business owners, community groups, State and 
local government, local and national land trusts, fishermen, hunters, 
school representatives, and historical and environmental 
conservationists, and all

[[Page H2140]]

agree that continuing to benefit from the river depends on recognizing 
and protecting its important and unique qualities.
  There are many unique features of the York River and the ecosystems 
surrounding it, and I will talk about those in a minute, but I want to 
start with a little history.
  The first English settlers came to the York River nearly 400 years 
ago--but there is archaeological evidence along the shores of European 
settlers who were here even earlier. Before anyone came from Europe, 
the Abenaki Indians named the river ``Agamenticus,'' which means 
``little cove beyond the hills.''
  When I last visited the York River, I spoke with members of the local 
community about the importance of the river to the people today, to the 
economy, and to the wildlife of the York River watershed. The river is 
home to important and rare species, including the Maine endangered box 
turtle and the threatened harlequin duck.
  The salt marshes of the York River watershed serve as a nursery 
ground for nearly 30 species of fish that are vital to the Gulf of 
Maine ecosystem. The York River is a place where children are learning 
in an outdoor classroom. Students from nearby school districts gather 
data from the river for classes and to inform community decisions about 
the environment and the economy.
  Maybe the most important factor is that many of the hardworking 
people in this part of the State depend on the York River to support 
their jobs. The York River is a place where people go to work. 
Commercial and recreational fishing operations depend on excellent 
water quality and reliable access to the waterfront. Farmers in the 
York River watershed grow pumpkins, potatoes, and other produce that 
help keep Maine communities healthy.
  People travel to the York River to explore and appreciate its natural 
character and its incredible history, and while doing so, they invest 
in the surrounding communities.
  The work of community groups has already resulted in considerable 
progress, but the York River needs additional protection so this vital 
resource is not overwhelmed by increasing development. In order to move 
forward to a future that protects the most important aspects of this 
waterway and the jobs and the communities that depend on it, it is 
vital to connect these communities with the information they need. That 
is the goal and hopefully the eventual outcome of this important piece 
of legislation.

  My bill is widely supported in Maine, and I look forward to it being 
favorably considered today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to just point out that I have the privilege of 
chairing the House Natural Resources Committee, and the nature of that 
committee is such that we deal with a lot of important pieces of 
legislation, but pieces of legislation that are kind of parochial in 
nature with regard to a particular State. We have right now some 50 
bills, both Republican and Democrat bills that have passed this House, 
many of them on suspension, that are still awaiting action in the 
Senate. In fact, this legislation--similar legislation passed the 
Congress last time and didn't go anywhere in the other body, and so 
here we are back one more time. I only mention that because we can't be 
the only House that passes legislation. It has to be both Houses in 
order to get something to the President.
  I certainly hope that this legislation after two times will finally 
get through and the study can commence and we can proceed with looking 
at whether a designation would be in order.
  With that in mind, let me talk a bit, because I mentioned this 
earlier in my remarks. What I am saying here regarding Wild and Scenic 
is in many ways applicable to wilderness designations. We passed a bill 
earlier today by voice vote that designated a wilderness area in 
Michigan. In both of those cases, what is common with both of them is 
that we have seen since the Wild and Scenic designation law passed and 
since the wilderness law passed, we see this especially in the Western 
part of the United States, that when these areas are designated either 
Wild and Scenic or wilderness, what happens is areas around them become 
de facto wilderness or de facto Wild and Scenic which many, many times 
imposes on private property rights.
  Now we have experienced that more in the West than what my colleagues 
have in the East, and my colleague from Maine expressed, rightly so, 
this has very, very broad support. I am sure it does; they have worked 
very hard on it. The danger in the future is, if taken to the extreme, 
you could have, unless we had within the study--you could have some 
pressures on private property rights. We think that is sufficiently 
important to put that in the study so that those who will be affected 
know about it.
  I hope the outcome is such that everybody believes, fine, we can work 
with whatever restrictions come up. That is the precise reason, Mr. 
Speaker, why when we look, and I say ``we,'' being a Member from the 
Western part of the United States, when we look at these designations, 
it becomes pretty darn rigid even when you have acts of natural 
disaster.
  With that in mind, let me tell you about something that happened in 
my old district prior to redistricting. There is a wilderness area in 
the northern Cascades. A lot of people visit it; it is a wonderful 
place. But to access that from the Eastern part of the United States, 
you have to go up a lake; it's the only way to get there. Then you have 
to traverse some 10 or 20 miles to the wilderness area, and the only 
way to get there is by a road. Well, the road--nature washed out that 
road many times several years ago. It is called the Stehekin Road. The 
community up there has been trying to rebuild that road.
  Now, what does this have to do with wild and scenic and wilderness. 
Well, I mentioned that sometimes these things become so rigid that you 
can't affect something that needs to be done. Unfortunately, the road 
was right on the border of a wilderness area. So naturally, when you 
are going to rebuild it, you have to go through a wilderness area. 
``No, no,'' say all the national groups. Not the local groups, not the 
people who are affected, but all the national groups. ``No, you can't 
build this road.'' So we are now in the third Congress. The last two 
Congresses, we passed bills to address this issue, but we have not been 
able to succeed because, as I mentioned earlier, we have to go through 
the Senate.
  I only use this as an example of how national groups with a 
wilderness designation, and it has happened with wild and scenic 
designations, have unintended consequences on the community.
  This legislation says within--within--that study, we need to find out 
what these potential impacts could be. That is why we put that in this 
legislation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to say to 
Mr. Hastings, I really do appreciate the work you have done in your 
committee, the bipartisan activity in your committee, and truly for 
your assistance in bringing this bill to the floor. I know you are 
preparing to retire, and I wanted to wish you the best on whatever 
journey happens next in your life, and thank you for your long service 
to your State and to the rest of us in Congress. You have been a 
wonderful colleague to work with. Thank you very much for that.
  Representing Washington State, while we are at opposite ends of the 
country, I think many of the concerns you have raised and that your 
constituents have raised, given the fact that you have a tremendous 
amount of open land, you have a tremendous amount of coastal shore 
land, you deal with some of the same issues that those of us who reside 
in Maine do, and I appreciate you bringing that perspective to this 
bill and to the many bills you have worked with.
  I would just add in speaking about this particular program, it was 
really a wonderful experience for me when the many residents of this 
community, as I mentioned earlier, from all diverse walks of life, some 
of them were farmers and some of them were fishermen who depend on the 
river, some who care deeply about the history, but all of them came 
together, people who

[[Page H2141]]

hadn't necessarily had the opportunity to work together before, but 
realized this is a very important concern, and that this particular 
river has enormous impacts. Because this river is in the southern part 
of my district, which means it is close to the southern border of 
Maine, it is surrounded by a very developed part of our State, although 
not much is that developed in Maine. We are one of the most rural 
States in the country with only 1.3 million people, so we are not a 
particularly overdeveloped State, but this is part of the southern part 
of the State, where there is a lot of activity going on, and people 
were concerned even more so because they wanted to make sure that when 
visitors come to our State, when residents decide to make it their 
home, we can count on the fact that there will be this part of the 
river and the area around it that will be looked at very closely when 
thinking about future uses and how to make sure that it is always there 
for those people who depend on it for jobs, for the fishing industries 
that are so critically important, and for the communities that care 
deeply about its history and about the activities that go on there. 
That is part of what has made this bill so particularly important to 
our State. I am extremely grateful to everyone on the committee who 
worked to help us bring it to the floor.

  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her 
kind words, and I support this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the 
York River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2013.
  I want to thank my friend and colleague, Representative Pingree, for 
her leadership on this bill.
  A healthy York River is important to the economic and environmental 
vitality of Southern Maine. The river is used daily by fishermen and 
recreational boat users, and its beauty is a significant part of the 
tourist economy that is so integral to Southern Maine. The river is an 
important home for wildlife, providing a home to more than 100 
waterbirds and 28 species of fish.
  This important legislation would create a study to determine whether 
or not the York River and its tributaries should be included in the 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. The study would help evaluate current 
and future demands on the river, and determine whether or not extra 
federal protection is necessary to keep the river strong and healthy.
  Individuals, businesses, and wildlife depend on the York River. We 
must keep it strong and healthy for years to come.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2197.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________