![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.302083333333333in" height="1.125in"}

# 

# Legislative Bulletin.................................................July 16, 2008

**Contents:**

> **H.R. 415---**To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate
> segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as
> a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System

H.R. 415---To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments
of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component
of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System *(Frank, D-MA)*

[Order of Business]{.underline}: H.R. 415, the Taunton River Wild and
Scenic Rivers Designation Act, is scheduled to be considered on the
House floor on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, subject to a structured rule
([**H.Res.1339**](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.Res.1339:)),
making in order four amendments, each debatable for 10 minutes. A
summary of each amendment made in order can be found at the bottom of
this document.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill,
except those regarding PAYGO and earmarks, waives all points of order
against the bill itself---except the PAYGO rule---and allows the Chair
to postpone consideration of the legislation at any time during its
consideration. The rule allows one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 415 would designate approximately 40
miles of the Taunton River---from the river's headwaters in the town of
Bridgewater, Mass., to the river's convergence with the Quequechan River
in Fall River, Mass.---as a part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System. The river would be classified and managed as follows:

-   The first 18 mile segment (moving from north to south) would be
    classified as a scenic river;

-   The following five mile segment would be classified as a
    recreational river;

-   The following eight mile segment would be classified as a scenic
    river;

-   The final nine mile segment would be classified as a recreational
    river.

Under the bill, the Taunton Wild and Scenic River segment would be
managed by the Department of Interior, in accordance with the
stipulations of the Taunton River Stewardship Plan dated July, 2005.
Under the plan, the river would be managed by the Taunton River
Stewardship Council. The Secretary of Interior would be authorized to
enter into cooperative agreements (which may include financial
assistance) with the State of Massachusetts, the Taunton River
Stewardship Council, or any appropriate non-profit organizations to
provide for the long-term protection, preservation, and enhancement of
the river.

The bill would state that current local zoning ordinances regarding the
conservation of floodplains, wetlands, and watercourses satisfy the
federal standards for a conservation plan as required by the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. H.R. 415 would also stipulate that the
Secretary could only obtain land by donation or the consent of the
owner, and not through condemnation.

The bill would prohibit any federally funded or approved construction or
development projects on the segments of the river designated as a part
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

**[Additional Background on Wild and Scenic Rivers]{.underline}**: The
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-542) was enacted in order to
protect the natural characteristics of the nation's "outstanding" free
flowing rivers and their immediate surrounding environments.
Specifically, the legislation prohibits federal construction of dams or
other facilities that endanger the free flow and/or resource value of
the river. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), at the
time the Act was passed it was a national policy for the federal
government to construct dams and flood control treatment facilities
along the nation's rivers. Such "impoundments" often resulted in the
permanent alteration of the river's flow or the geography of the land
surrounding the river. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed as a
means by which to set-aside certain rivers in order to protect their
natural free flow from future development.

The original Wild and Scenic Rivers legislation states that rivers which
"possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish
and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be
preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate
environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present
and future generations." According to the Wild and Scenic River System's
[Website](http://www.rivers.gov/), the Act protects the natural
resources and free flow of selected rivers by:

-   Prohibiting dams or other federally approved projects on the river;

-   Protecting outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational
    resources;

-   Ensuring that selected rivers' water quality is maintained;

-   Requiring a comprehensive river management plan to establish
    resource protection and river management practices.

There are now 166 rivers designated as part of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers System, stretching some 11,000 miles through 38 states. Each
segment is managed by the Department of Interior (DOI) or the Department
of Agriculture (USDA), either through the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), or the Forest Service (USFS). Rivers designated as segments of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers System are arranged according to one of three
classifications:

-   *Wild Rivers*: Rivers that are free from dams or other impoundments
    and are usually underdeveloped only accessible via trail.

-   *Scenic Rivers*: Rivers that are free from dams or other
    impoundments, but are accessible via roads and may have some
    development along their shore.

-   *Recreational Rivers*: According to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
    of 1968, recreational rivers are "those rivers or sections of rivers
    that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have
    ***some*** development along their shorelines, and that may have
    undergone ***some*** impoundment or diversion in the past."
    ***\[Emphasis added\].***

H.R. 415 would designate 26 miles of the Taunton River as a scenic river
and 14 miles as a recreational river.

**[Lower Taunton River]{.underline}**: Some Members of the Natural
Resources Committee have questioned the discretion of including the
lower nine-mile stretch of the Taunton River as a part of the Wild and
Scenic River System. According to the Taunton River Wild and Scenic
River Study's [Website](http://www.tauntonriver.org/q&a.htm), the
original study was only supposed to review the upper Taunton River for
inclusion. However, after "petitions from lower river communities," the
study was extended to include the entire river. In dissenting views
included in [House Report
110-735](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr735)),
Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Don Young (R-AK), and Parks
and Public Lands Subcommittee Ranking Member Rob Bishop (R-UT),
expressed their concern that the lower portion of the river did not meet
the traditional requirements for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers
System.

Citing the fact that the lower portion of the Taunton River (especially
in and around the city of Fall River, Mass.) is highly industrialized,
Reps. Young and Bishop point out that this designation is unlike any
other segment of the Wild and Scenic River System. Though most rivers
which meet the requirements for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers
System are located in remote areas that are unaltered by significant
industrial development, the shores of the lower Taunton River are beset
by industrial expansion. In their dissenting views, Reps. Young and
Bishop ask, "What beautiful scenery should one expect to find on a canoe
trip down the Lower Taunton? Among other sights, you will see power
plants, oil refineries, vessel repair docks, shipyards, dilapidated
bridges, a battleship museum, yacht clubs, a designated port area,
street lights, a hair salon, and even a McDonald's." Opponents of the
designation argue that because of the industrial characteristics of the
lower Taunton River (as seen in the picture below), that segment of the
river does not meet the definition of "wild" or "scenic," and should not
be subject to the development restrictions associated with a Wild and
Scenic River designation.

![](media/image2.png){width="4.166666666666667in"
height="2.8020833333333335in"}

A portion of the Taunton River (near Fall River, Mass.) that would be

designated as a Wild and Scenic River under H.R. 415

During committee consideration of H.R. 415, it was revealed that the
U.S. Park Service had produced a number of alternative plans for
designating segments of the Taunton River as a part of the Wild and
Scenic River System. According to the dissenting views, other
alternatives would have designated the majority of the river as a Wild
and Scenic River, while omitting the highly industrialized segment near
Fall River. H.R. 415, which contains nine-miles of developed shoreline,
represents what the U.S. Park Service termed the "environmentally
preferred alternative" for the river. When questioned by Rep. Bishop
during a subcommittee hearing on the designation, a Park Service
official testified that the "environmentally preferred alternative" was
defined as "what the river would choose if it could speak."

During the committee markup of H.R. 415, a series of amendments were
offered by Rep. Bishop in an effort to address a number of concerns with
the bill. Several of the amendments sought to strengthen the property
rights protections in the bill by allowing property owners to opt out of
inclusion in the designation and to prohibit federal takings of private
property via eminent domain or condemnation. Other amendments sought to
exclude the controversial nine-mile segment of the designation that
passed through the industrialized portion of the river. The amendments
offered in committee were considered en bloc and were not agreed to by
voice vote. Rep. Bishop offered five similar amendments to the Committee
on Rules. The committee made in order one amendment offered by Rep.
Bishop, which would remove the nine-mile stretch of the lower Taunton
River from designation as a "recreational river."

**[Weaver's Cove Liquefied Natural Gas Import Terminal]{.underline}**:
The leading explanation for why the final version of H.R. 415 included
the designation of the industrialized segment of the lower Taunton River
is that it is an effort to block the construction of the proposed
Weaver's Cove Energy Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal. The project
would consist of a storage tank that would store LNG shipped in from
overseas and distribute the LNG to the Algonquin Gas Transmission
Company for transmission throughout the region. According to Weaver's
Cove Energy [Website](http://www.weaverscove.com/knowthefacts-faq.html),
the facility would be located on the Taunton River in Fall River (within
the area pictured above). The facility would consist of a storage tank,
a new pier, processing equipment, a number of small support buildings,
and two new pipelines to transmit LNG. According to the proposal---which
was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in
2005---ships would transport LNG though the Taunton River to the LNG
terminal, where it would be stored and transmitted throughout New
England.

According to Weaver's Cove Energy, the new LNG import terminal would
produce an essential, clean-burning energy resource for the entire New
England region. Weaver's Cove Energy states that the new facility would
provide New England with 15-20% more natural gas and, as a result, lower
the expected cost of natural gas in the area by \$500 million annually,
or about 10-15% per household. In addition, the company says that the
LNG import terminal will meet 35% of New England's daily winter gas
demand by supplying 800 million cubic feet of natural gas to the region
every day. In a letter of opposition to H.R. 415, Weaver's Cove Energy
argues that, "Because supplies are tight in New England, and will remain
so until new infrastructure is added, the region will continue to
experience sharp spikes in heating costs until supply is substantially
increased. LNG delivered to the region is the best way to offset this."
In their dissenting views in [House Report
110-735](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr735)),
Reps. Young and Bishop concurred with Weaver's Cove Energy. Citing the
current energy crisis and the strain borne by American families
attempting to heat their homes, the dissenting views state that the
legislation "exacerbates the energy crisis at a time when we should be
expanding our ability to provide clean, reliable sources of fuel."

Opponents of the LNG terminal cite an unfavorable safety ruling issued
by the Coast Guard in 2007. The background information given by the
Majority in [House Report
110-735](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr735))
asserts that, without the Coast Guards' approval, the project is dead
regardless of the river's designation. However, the Coast Guards' ruling
was based on the initial plan for transporting LNG in and out of the
Fall River facility. Originally, Weaver's Cove Energy had planned to use
small tankers to transport LNG from Fall River to other facilities
around Narragansett Bay. The Coast Guard ruled that the Taunton River
was not suitable for navigation by numerous LNG tankers. In response to
the Coast Guards' decision, Weaver's Cove Energy devised a new proposal
that would alleviate the Coast Guards' traffic concerns by transmitting
LNG throughout the region using pipelines instead of tankers. The
overhauled terminal project is now under appeal, and FERC is in the
process of deciding whether to authorize the revamped project. If the
project receives FERC approval again, the Coast Guard would reassess
safety concerns. On June 4, 2008, FERC gave the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) notice of its intent to prepare an environmental impact
study, as its assessment of the LNG terminal moves forward. H.R. 415
would ultimately halt FERC's determination process by prohibiting
federally approved development on the Taunton River.

While proponents of H.R. 415 claim that the lower Taunton River should
be designated as a National Recreational River, reports have indicated
that even the bill's sponsors proposed major federal development of that
segment of the river in recent years. According to recent a [*Wall
Street Journal*
editorial](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121555960271037429.html?mod=djemEditorialPage):

> (Rep. Barney) Frank claims that the wild and scenic designation has
> nothing to do with the terminal. But six months before the terminal
> was first proposed in 2002, Mr. Frank had advocated dredging this not
> so pristine landscape to preserve its viability as an industrial port.
> Suddenly, he's discovered its wild, natural beauty. Mr. Frank has also
> blocked the demolition of the Brightman Street Bridge just downriver
> from the site, with the aim of blocking ship access to any LNG
> terminal.

Because the Brightman Street Bridge was not demolished as planned, the
Coast Guards' final ruling determined that the river could not safely
facilitate increased tanker traffic. A 2005 [*Boston Globe*
article](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/08/22/obstacles_keep_hope_alive_for_foes_of_fall_river_lng_facility/)
suggests that the bridge, which has been the subject of much debate in
the community, was purposefully protected by federal lawmakers to thwart
the establishment of a new LNG energy facility. The article said:

> Moreover, after Congress passed a \$286 billion transportation bill
> signed into law by President Bush this month, Massachusetts lawmakers
> disclosed that they had slipped language into it prohibiting the
> demolition of the old Brightman Street Bridge connecting Fall River
> and Somerset. The bridge, which is being replaced by a larger
> structure, spans the approach to the proposed terminal and is too
> narrow for LNG tankers."

Due to the highly irregular designation of an industrialized river as a
segment of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and the past attempts by
Massachusetts lawmakers to block the LNG terminal, many have argued that
H.R. 415 is a poorly disguised effort to stop new energy transmission in
New England. Accordingly, Reps. Young and Bishop's dissenting views
refer to the designation of the lower nine miles of the Taunton River as
a "loophole," discovered by "local environmental zealots" to block
energy development.

[**Possible Conservative Concerns**:]{.underline} Some conservatives may
have multiple concerns with H.R. 415, including the following.

*[Designating an Industrialized River as a Wild and Scenic
River]{.underline}*: Some conservatives may be concerned that H.R. 415
would create a new unit in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System which would
include a nine-mile stretch of industrialized shoreline containing coal
burning power plants, commercial ship traffic, high voltage power
transfers, and sewage and storm water discharge areas. Some
conservatives may be concerned that Wild and Scenic River designations
are traditionally reserved for remote and pristine rivers that are
relatively untouched by development and provide only limited public
access. In fact, during committee consideration of H.R. 415, the
National Park Service said that the Taunton River would be the "most
industrialized" segment of the Wild and Scenic River System ever created
by Congress.

Some conservatives may be concerned that H.R. 415 would represent an
unprecedented expansion of the traditional definition of a "wild" and
"scenic" river. Some conservatives may be concerned that if an
industrialized area such as the lower portion of the Taunton River is
eligible for inclusion, any river in the U.S. could be designated as a
segment of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Some conservatives may be
concerned that expanding Wild and Scenic Rivers designations and
restrictions could have dire consequences on commercial activity along
our nation's rivers. In addition, some conservatives may be concerned
that the precedent set by H.R. 415 may be followed by any environmental
group, as a tactic to prohibit any commercial or energy growth on
rivers.

*[Prohibits the Creation of a Liquefied Natural Gas
Terminal]{.underline}*: Some conservatives may be concerned that H.R.
415 would effectively kill a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG)
terminal that has been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. According to Weaver's Cove Energy, the company that would
construct and operate the facility, the LNG terminal would supply New
England with 15-20% more clean natural gas and, as a result, lower the
expected cost of natural gas in the area by \$500 million annually, or
about 10-15% per household. In addition, the company says that the LNG
import terminal will meet 35% of New England's daily winter gas demand
by supplying 800 million cubic feet of natural gas to the region every
day. Some conservatives may be concerned that H.R. 415 is a veiled
attempt by environmental activists to block the development of clean
energy resources at a time when Americans are suffering under
record-high energy prices.

*[Property Rights]{.underline}*: Some conservatives may be concerned
that H.R. 415 does not specifically require the Secretary of Interior to
notify the owners of private property along the river of the new
designation or let them decline from participating. In addition, some
conservatives may be concerned that the legislation would block future
development rights along the shore of an industrialized river.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 415 was introduced on January
11, 2007, and was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources'
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. On October
30, 2007, the subcommittee held a hearing. The bill was discharged from
the subcommittee without further action on June 25, 2008. That same day,
the full committee held a mark-up and the bill was reported, as amended,
by voice vote.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, implementing H.R.
415 would cost the National Park Service (NPS) \$150,000 in FY 2009 and
each year thereafter to manage the designated areas.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** Yes, the bill creates a new federal Wild and
Scenic River designation.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** According to the
Committee on Natural Resources, in [House Report
110-735](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr735)),
"H.R. 415 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e) or
9(f) of rule XXI."

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Committee on Natural
Resources, in [House Report
110-735](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr735)),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, but fails to
cite a specific clause. House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that
all committee reports contain "a statement citing the *specific powers*
granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the
bill or joint resolution." *\[Emphasis added\]*

**AMENDMENTS MADE IN ORDER UNDER THE RULE**

**1. Bishop (R-UT).** The amendment removes the nine mile segment of the
lower Taunton River that would be classified as a recreational river
from the designation. The river segment in question has been subject to
scrutiny because the industrialized segment contains characteristics
that differ from traditional Wild and Scenic River designations. Also,
the segment contains the site of the potential Weaver's Cove Energy
liquefied natural gas terminal, which would be prohibited if the segment
were designate as a part of the Wild and Scenic River System.

***2.* *Shuler (D-NC).*** The amendment would state that nothing in the
Act shall be construed as limiting the authority or responsibility of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to manage, control, or regulate
hunting, fishing, trapping, and recreational shooting.

**3. Pearce (R-NM).** The amendment would require the Secretary of
Interior, in cooperation with the Secretary of Energy and private
industry, to prepare a report concerning energy resources available on
the lands and water within the Taunton River Wild and Scenic River. The
report would be submitted to the House Committee on Natural Resources,
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and affected
states' legislatures. The amendment would require that the report
contain the best available description of the types and amounts of
energy resources withdrawn from possible development. Specifically, the
amendment would require the report to include the number of barrels of
oil, cubic feet of natural gas, and megawatts of solar, wind, and
geothermal energy that could be commercially produced on any water or
land that would be designated as a part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
System.

***4. Boyda (D-KS).*** The amendment would state that nothing in this
Act shall impact the supply of domestically-produced energy resources.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.