[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.

[[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.

____________________