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

# 

# Legislative Bulletin..............................................July 30, 2007

**Contents:**

**H.R. 986 ---** Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act

H.R. 986 --- Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act *(Courtney, D-CT)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Monday, July 30, 2007, subject to a closed rule ([H.Res.
580](http://www.rules.house.gov/SpecialRules_details.aspx?NewsID=2731)).

Note: The House considered H.R. 986 on July 11, 2007, on the suspension
calendar. However, the bill failed by a vote of
[239-173](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll615.xml).

[]{.mark}

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 986 would designate a 25 mile stretch of
the Eightmile Wild River, in south-central Connecticut, as a part of the
Nation Park System's National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, to be
administered by the Secretary of Interior. The bill would allow the
Secretary to enter into planning and management agreements with state
and local authorities to administer the scenic area, and would authorize
such sums as would be necessary for this purpose.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to a briefing paper,
written by the Republican staff on the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forest and Public Lands:

> The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was established in 1968 to impede the
> progress of dam construction. The act puts a freeze on the condition
> of land at the time of enactment by requiring that the designated
> river 'be preserved in free-flowing condition, and they and their
> immediate environments shall be protected.' The National Park Service
> (NPS) then has the authority to prohibit projects on any federal lands
> in the designation and is required to work on local zoning policy to
> further restrict land use on private land. The NPS also has the
> authority to purchase land and easements. It may purchase up to 100
> acres per mile of designated river, but is not limited in the amount
> of easements they may purchase. If the NPS is unable to reach an
> agreement on price, there exists authority to condemn private land, if
> the NPS concludes that the land is necessary to protect 'resource
> values'.

In its current form, the bill places new burdens on property owners,
which limits what they can do with their property, and provides no
compensation. During the subcommittee markup, an amendment was offered
that would have strictly prohibited the NPS from obtaining land through
condemnation, but allowing for the Park Service to purchase or accept
donated land. This amendment was defeated on a party-line vote, and due
to the fact that the bill will be considered under suspension of the
rules, members will be unable to offer any further amendments on the
floor. In light of these facts, a letter in opposition to the bill was
drafted and signed by all 14 Republican members of the subcommittee.

According to findings listed in the bill and a committee report for a
similar Senate bill (S. 553, Senate Report 110 -- 094), the Eightmile
Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2001 authorized a study of the
Eightmile River for potential inclusion in Nation Scenic River System.
The study was since conducted and it was recommended that the area be
designated as a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

**[RSC Bonus Fact]{.underline}**: The Eightmile Wild and Scenic River
System is located in the same Congressional district where the historic
property rights case Kelo v. City of New London originated.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}: Some conservatives may
be concerned that the bill falls short in preserving and protecting
private property rights and that it limits what property owners can do
with their land while providing no compensation. Additionally, some
conservatives may be concerned that there will be no opportunity to
address these problems on the House floor because the bill is being
considered under a closed rule, prohibiting amendments.**

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 986 was introduced on February
15, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Financial Services. On April
11, 2007, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets,
Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises, which took no official
action.

[]{.mark}

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, "the proposed
designation would not significantly affect the agency's administrative
or land-management costs, which are subject to appropriation."

[]{.mark}

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government]{.underline}?**: No.

[]{.mark}

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-]{.underline}**

**[Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: No.

[]{.mark}

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A committee report citing
constitutional authority is unavailable. 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." *\[emphasis added\]*

[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Joelle Cannon;
<joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov>, 202.226.0718**