U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–129 PDF 2014

A WASHINGTON, DC–BASED 

BUREAUCRATIC INVENTION 

WITH POTENTIAL WATER 

CONSERVATION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPACTS: THE 

NATIONAL BLUEWAYS ORDER 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 

Serial No. 113–34 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, CA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Jim Costa, CA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Vacancy 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 .......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wyoming .................................................................................................... 5 

McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Smith, Hon. Jason T., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri ......................................................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bacon, Sutton, President and CEO, Nantahala Outdoor Center, Bryson 

City, North Carolina ..................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Budd-Falen, Karen, Owner/Partner—Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC .......... 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick’’, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Arkansas .......................................................................................... 8 

Griffin, Hon. Robert T., Judge, Independence County, Batesville, 

Arkansas ........................................................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Justice, Eddy, Popular Bluff, Missouri ........................................................... 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Prepared statement of .............................. 46 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON A WASHINGTON, 

DC–BASED BUREAUCRATIC INVENTION 

WITH POTENTIAL WATER CONSERVATION 

AND PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPACTS: THE 

NATIONAL BLUEWAYS ORDER 

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock 

[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McClintock, Lummis, Tipton, Gosar, 

Napolitano, and Huffman. 

Also Present: Representatives Smith of Missouri, and Crawford. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The subcommittee will come to order. Before 

we begin with statements from Members and witnesses, I would 

ask unanimous consent that Mr. Smith of Missouri and Mr. 

Crawford of Arkansas be allowed to sit with the subcommittee and 

participate in today’s hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

We will begin with 5-minute opening statements. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Today, the Subcommittee on Water and Power 

meets to take testimony on the administration’s so-called ‘‘National 

Blueways Order,’’ and to hear from communities that have been 

impacted by this order. 

The National Blueways Order appears to have originated 

through a leftist environmental organization called ‘‘American Rivers,’’ whose CEO at the time, Rebecca Wodder, is now Senior Advisor to the Department of the Interior, spearheading this drive. Ms. 

Wodder was invited to appear before the subcommittee but has declined to do so. 

In a nutshell, the National Blueways Order was never authorized 

by Congress, but simply imposed by administrative fiat in May of 

last year through Secretarial Order 3321. Although the Department cites broad general authority under three Federal acts, as we 

shall hear, these claims are dubious and yet to be tested in court. 

This sweeping order, whose stated intention is to impose Federal 

designations on waterways that it describes as ‘‘a headwaters-tomouth approach to rivers management,’’ is asserting authority that 

Congress has hitherto reserved to itself through the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Secretarial Order allows ‘‘any established 

2 

stakeholder partnership’’—which would include distant environmental advocacy groups—to nominate a river and for the Department then to impose the designation. As we shall hear, the implications of this designation can be economically devastating to local 

economies. 

For example, in January of this year, the Department announced 

the designation of the White River watershed as a Blueway, a 17.8 

million-acre drainage area spanning 60 counties and 722 miles of 

mainstem river in southern Missouri and northern Arkansas. As 

we shall hear, it did so with no public testimony and despite widespread local opposition. Less than 2 weeks ago, the Department 

was forced to abandon this plan in the face of rapidly mounting 

local and congressional opposition. 

Although the order speaks of coordination and consultation, we 

have learned that there is none. Indeed, in April, this subcommittee heard testimony from a Wyoming conservation director 

about the process he had witnessed in his own region. He asked, 

‘‘How can a designation that requires no public notice, no comment 

opportunity, and was created without coordination or consultation 

with affected landowners, local governments or States, result in increased coordination?’’ 

The implications of this overreach are breathtaking. As a recent 

letter signed by 79 environmental advocacy groups says, ‘‘With 3.5 

million miles of rivers across the country, we have only scratched 

the surface when it comes to establishing Blueways. There is tremendous potential to expand existing trails and create new ones.’’ 

Now, to those who suggest that these orders are a precursor to 

enhancement of recreational opportunities along these waterways, 

I invite them to look toward Yosemite National Park in my district, 

where the administration is seeking to expel long standing recreational services from the Yosemite Valley, including bicycle and 

raft rentals, horseback riding, and many other commercial amenities. 

This subcommittee has repeatedly invited Ms. Wodder to testify 

about this sweeping ‘‘headwaters to mouth’’ National Blueways 

Order and continues to seek answers to many questions, including 

the legal authority for this order; the process by which the designation is imposed; the regulatory implications of designation; and the 

due process afforded by all those who are directly impacted by it. 

To date, this subcommittee has been met by silence. 

Earlier today, in response to rapidly building public opposition, 

the new Secretary of the Interior offhandedly announced she is 

calling a pause to the Bluewaters order, ‘‘until we figure out the 

future of the program.’’ Well, the subcommittee welcomes this announcement. But the question occurs, does this mean a pause until 

the heat dies down, or does it mean a genuine intention to step 

back from a legally suspect, economically damaging, and politically 

unpopular initiative? That is one of the questions I would have 

liked to have asked Ms. Wodder. 

The Congress and the American people are entitled to forthright 

answers from this administration, not stonewalling. This is particularly urgent in light of the avowed intention by the program’s supporters to turn their sights on all 3.5 million miles of American 

streams and rivers. But we can at least shine a light on this pracVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:36 Oct 31, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Z:\05 WATER & POWER\05JY17 1ST SESS\7-17-13 P\82129.TXT MARK
3 

tice by affording those citizens and taxpayers who have been directly affected by it to have a say in the decisionmaking process, 

and we do so today. 

The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM MCCLINTOCK, CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

Today, the Water and Power Subcommittee meets to take testimony on the administration’s so-called ‘‘National Blueways Order,’’ and to hear from communities 

that have been impacted by this order. 

The National Blueways Order appears to have originated through a leftist environmental organization called ‘‘American Rivers,’’ whose CEO at the time, Rebecca 

Wodder, is now Senior Advisor to the Department of the Interior spearheading this 

drive. Ms. Wodder was invited to appear before the subcommittee but has declined 

to do so. 

In a nutshell, the National Blueways Order was never authorized by Congress, 

but simply imposed by administrative fiat in May of last year through Secretarial 

Order 3321. Although the Department cites broad general authority under three 

Federal acts, as we shall hear, these claims are dubious and yet to be tested in 

court. 

This sweeping order, whose stated intention is to impose Federal designations on 

waterways that it describes as ‘‘a headwaters to mouth approach to rivers management,’’ is asserting authority that Congress has hitherto reserved to itself through 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

The Secretarial Order allows ‘‘any established stakeholder partnership’’—which 

would include distant environmental advocacy groups—to nominate a river and for 

the Department then to impose the designation. 

As we shall hear, the implications of this designation can be economically devastating to local economies. 

For example, in January of this year, the Department announced the designation 

of the White River watershed as a Blueway—a 17.8 million-acre drainage area spanning 60 counties and 722 miles of mainstem river in southern Missouri and northern Arkansas. 

As we shall hear, it did so with no public testimony and despite widespread local 

opposition. Less than 2 weeks ago, the Department was forced to abandon this plan 

in the face of rapidly mounting local and congressional opposition. 

Although the order speaks of coordination and consultation, we have learned 

there is none. Indeed, in April, this subcommittee heard testimony from a Wyoming 

conservation director about the process he had witnessed in his own region and 

asked, ‘‘How can a designation that requires no public notice, no comment opportunity and was created without coordination or consultation with affected landowners, local government or States result in increased coordination?’’ 

The implications of this overreach are breathtaking. As a recent letter signed by 

79 environmental advocacy groups says, ‘‘With 3.5 million miles of rivers across the 

country, we have only scratched the surface when it comes to establishing 

Blueways. There is tremendous potential to expand existing trails and create new 

ones.’’ 

To those who suggest that these orders are a precursor to enhancement of recreational opportunities along these waterways, I invite them to look toward Yosemite National Park, in my district, where the administration is seeking to expel long 

standing recreational services from the Yosemite Valley, including bicycle and raft 

rentals, horseback riding, and many other commercial amenities. 

This subcommittee has repeatedly invited Ms. Wodder to testify about this sweeping ‘‘headwaters to mouth’’ National Blueways Order and continues to seek answers 

to many questions, including the legal authority for this order; the process by which 

the designation is imposed; the regulatory implications of designation and the due 

process afforded all those directly impacted by it. 

To date, the subcommittee has been met by silence. 

The Congress and the American People are entitled to forthright answers from 

this administration, not stonewalling. This is particularly urgent in light of the 

avowed intention by the programs supporters to turn their sights on all 3.5 million 

miles of American streams and rivers. 

But we can at least shine a light on this practice by those citizens and taxpayers 

who have been directly affected by it, as we do today. 

4 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I yield back the balance of my time, and recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And today’s hearing focuses on the Secretarial Order that created the National 

Blueways program. The intent of the program should be one that 

both Democrats and Republicans and others should support: a 

more coordinated effort by Federal agencies to support the actions 

of localities in the watershed. Yet today we are here to criticize the 

program that is voluntary. It is discretionary and, essentially, a 

designation only in name. 

I agree with the Majority there are questions about the program 

that need to be addressed, and I am especially interested in the 

role that public input and participation has played in the designations. I am disappointed the Department chose not to testify at today’s hearing. However, I believe Secretary Jewell’s comments 

today at an earlier morning committee hearing, her commitment to 

delve into the details of the program before additional designations 

are made should help alleviate concerns from the other side of the 

aisle. Her decision to rescind the White River designation is also 

an indication the Department is taking a hard look at the program. 

There are very real concerns about the program, which we will 

hear from our witnesses today. 

And the committee is also taking this issue on the road with a 

field hearing in Rep. Smith of Missouri’s district in 2 weeks. Yet 

there are also very real concerns across the country, due to 

drought. As of last week, nearly half the country is experiencing 

moderate to exceptional drought. Drought record and record-high 

temps have led to extremely dry conditions, creating fodder for the 

wilderness fires scorching—the wildfires also scorching the Southwest and the West. 

As the authorizing committee, we have the ability to hear legislation like the Drought Relief Act. The Drought Relief Act is a widely 

supported program that would provide the Bureau of Reclamation 

with tools to help our communities in time of drought. Yet, despite 

being introduced at the beginning of Congress, and the authorization having expired last year, it is yet to have a hearing. There are 

also several tribal water rights settlements like the Black Feet settlement in Montana, that are waiting introduction and subsequent 

committee consideration. There is also legislation like the Desalination Act that has had a hearing and is waiting a mark-up. Mr. 

Chairman, I hope we can work together to consider these issues 

and subsequent legislation in the near future. 

I thank our witnesses, and also would like to introduce into the 

record the current drought map, which shows central—experiencing high amounts of drought. And also, for the record, letters 

of support from—Connecticut River designation from David Bingham, private citizen; Frederick Gahan, private citizen; Dannel 

Malloy, Governor of Connecticut. As the committee may know, citizens in New England have long fought for private property rights, 

dating back to the original Tea Party of 1773. I submit for the 

5 

record letters of support from local governments, including the city 

of Augusta in Woodruff County, and the city of Clarendon in Monroe County. 

Testimony received today also stated there were no local governments in support of either the Connecticut or the White River designations. Yet I am introducing this into the record to show that 

this is the correct support from those areas. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Without objection. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Napolitano follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, RANKING

MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

Today’s hearing focuses on the Secretarial Order that created the National 

Blueways Program. The intent of the program should be one that Democrats and 

Republicans support: a more coordinated effort by the Federal agencies to support 

the actions of the localities in the watershed. Yet here we are today to criticize a 

program that is voluntary, discretionary, and essentially, a designation only in 

name. 

I agree with the Majority that there are many questions about this program that 

need to be addressed. I am especially interested in the role that public input and 

participation has played in the designations. I am also disappointed that Department chose not to testify at today’s hearing. However, I believe that Secretary’s 

Jewell’s comments earlier this morning, and her commitment to delve into the details of this program before additional designations are made, should help alleviate 

concerns from the other side of the aisle. Her decision to rescind the White River 

designation is also an indication that the Department is taking a hard look at this 

program. 

There are very real concerns about this program, which we will hear about from 

our witnesses today. The committee is also taking this issue on the road with a field 

hearing in Rep. Smith of Missouri’s district in 2 weeks. 

Yet Mr. Chairman, there are also very real concerns across this country due to 

drought. As of last week, nearly half the country is experiencing moderate to exceptional drought. The drought and record high temps have led to extremely dry conditions, creating fodder for the wildfires scorching the west. As the authorizing committee, we have the ability to hear legislation, like the Drought Relief Act. The 

Drought Relief Act is a widely supported program that would provide the Bureau 

of Reclamation with tools to help our communities in a time of drought. Yet despite 

being introduced since the beginning of Congress, and the authorization having expired last year, it has yet to have a hearing. 

There are also several tribal water rights settlements, like the Blackfeet Settlement in Montana, that are awaiting introduction and subsequent committee consideration. There is also legislation, like the Desalination Act that has had a hearing 

and is awaiting a markup. Mr. Chairman I hope we can work together to consider 

these issues and subsequent legislation in the near future. Thank you for our witnesses for being hearing today. I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Lummis of Wyoming for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. Wyoming’s conservation districts, county commissioners, State 

legislators, and other citizens are concerned about the National 

Blueways program, and rightly so. Five or 6 months ago, none of 

us really knew what a Blueway was. But thanks to Wyoming’s 

neighbors in Montana, we learned that Interior official Rebecca 

Wodder was actively pushing for a designation of the Yellowstone 

River watershed. That is 22 million acres in Wyoming being tarVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:36 Oct 31, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Z:\05 WATER & POWER\05JY17 1ST SESS\7-17-13 P\82129.TXT MARK
6 

geted for a mysterious new Federal designation. Yet the Department of the Interior did not engage a single Wyoming official or 

water user, not a one. 

So, we did our homework. And what we found is not encouraging. 

We have learned that a Blueway designation could potentially undermine private property rights, State primacy over water law, and 

local conservation efforts. We have learned that a Blueways designation can occur with no formal public process or opportunity for 

public comment. All it takes is the swipe of a pen. 

Today we have an opportunity to explore another dimension of 

this controversial order. Under what authority does the Department of the Interior believe it can designate and manage millions 

of acres of private, State, and Federal land? This program, having 

been concocted by the Department of the Interior, the Congress has 

an opportunity and responsibility to examine whether they have 

the legal authority to do so. 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to welcome Karen Budd-Falen of 

Cheyenne, Wyoming, who will help us unravel that very question. 

Ms. Budd-Falen is a renowned private property and western water 

rights lawyer. Her legal representation is a tremendous asset to 

Wyoming citizens whose livelihoods are affected by the decisions of 

Federal agencies and the environmental litigation that all too often 

follows. In addition to her legal practice, she has generated an impressive amount of policy literature. I want to commend her for her 

recent work to expose the abuse of the legal system by radical environmental organizations, in many cases at taxpayer expense, under 

attorney fee-shifting statutes. 

Coincidentally, she has identified a potential litigation problem 

with the National Blueways program, something I hope we can explore today. I also look forward to her insight on the legal basis, 

or lack thereof, for the National Blueways program. 

Ms. Budd-Falen has appeared before Congress and this committee several times over the years. We are fortunate to have the 

benefit of her expertise. 

With that, thank you, Ms. Budd-Falen, for coming to testify, and 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and paying 

much deserved attention to this important issue. I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Smith of Missouri for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON T. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having us. And thank 

you for hosting the committee. Before I make my remarks, I would 

first like to thank the witnesses for taking their time in traveling 

to Washington today to testify, including my good friend, Mr. Eddy 

Justice. 

Eddy hails from Poplar Bluff, a city in my district, that would 

have been included in the White River National Blueway. In addition to being a friend, Eddy uses the river for boating and camping 

frequently, and is an active member of the Popular Bluff civic community, has some unique insight into how his community and surrounding communities in Missouri were not included in the designation process at all. 

7 

The process for designating these national Blueways has not always been voluntary, open, or public. And I commend these witnesses for being willing to discuss the Blueways issues today in an 

open forum. In much the same way, I am disturbed by the refusal 

of Ms. Rebecca Wodder to testify today. 

Though this program is trumpeted as voluntary, open, and public, Ms. Wodder does not appear to be interested in making voluntary, open, and public comments at all. 

First, let me provide a little background about the district that 

I represent. Missouri’s eighth congressional district contains 30 

counties in southeast and southern Missouri. It starts 40 miles 

south of St. Louis, goes down the mighty Mississippi, including the 

Bootheel Region, to about 40 miles east of Springfield, Missouri, to 

the very northwest corner of Rolla. 

My district is agriculturally diverse, growing everything but citrus and sugar. Importantly, for the purpose of this hearing, 14 of 

the 30 counties in my district contain land that would have been 

within the White River National Blueway designation. In addition, 

our district includes the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, a National Park Service entity that spans through five counties on the 

western side of my district, including my home county of Salem. 

The parts of our local economy that are not driven by agriculture 

rely heavily on tourism and natural resources. Folks come from all 

over the State and around the country to be guided on float trips 

on the rivers and streams contained in my district. We have a 

thriving timber industry that produces lumber, charcoal, and finished wood products, and some of the district’s largest employers 

mine lead and smelt aluminum. 

What is the common thread that ties together the components of 

agriculture, tourism, and natural resources in my district? Property 

rights and our ability to use the land, and its bounty, to make a 

living. All too often, the Federal Government tugs at this thread, 

threatening to unwind the fabric of our economy. Whether it is new 

regulations restricting farm labor, new EPA carbon emission rules 

that would shutter our largest employers, or shutting down access 

and restricting the use of our rivers and streams, my district is 

under attack. 

My constituents and I are tired of unelected Washington, DC bureaucrats creating new programs out of thin air that have the ability to end our way of life and the way that we make a living. While 

the White River National Blueways has been withdrawn, it is only 

the latest symptom of a disease that has embedded itself into the 

very core of this administration. They think that they know better 

than locals, and they think they can act on their own without congressional approval or oversight. Where does it stop? 

I challenge the members of this committee today to make it our 

goal not only to stop the National Blueways system all over the 

country, but also to fight the disease that has spawned. 

Local groups and individuals are often the best situated to manage their lands and resources. We don’t need bureaucrats, mandates sent from them on high that may have drastic repercussions 

for our local communities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

8 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. The Chair next recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

ARKANSAS 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the Chairman and appreciate your latitude here today. Thank you for holding this hearing. And I would 

like to welcome Judge Robert Griffin, and thank him for coming 

here today to testify. 

Judge Griffin led the efforts to oppose the Blueway designation 

in Arkansas’ Independence County. I am very happy that he has 

agreed to come here today to share with us his experience with 

how this designation was handed down from Washington with little 

input from or notice to the people it would affect most. 

I also would request unanimous consent to submit for the record 

the resolutions from several of the counties in my State, including 

one from Judge Griffin’s Independence County, which requested 

the Department of the Interior’s rescission of this designation. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Without objection. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I think it is critically important that we hear 

and understand why so many rejected this designation. And hopefully it will serve as a lesson for Washington bureaucrats that national pronouncements of local programs shouldn’t be made without 

the input of those that they will most affect. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Chair notes that the bells have rung for 

attendance on the House Floor. But we should have at least another 10 minutes that we can comfortably continue to meet. So I 

will go ahead and begin with the public testimony. 

Again, for all of our witnesses, as we outlined in the invitation 

letter, the rules allow 5 minutes per testimony. There will be a 

green light until the final minute, when a yellow light will go on, 

and a red light at the end of 5 minutes. 

And with that, I am very pleased to recognize The Honorable 

Robert Griffin, an Independence County judge from Batesville, Arkansas, to testify. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT T. GRIFFIN, JUDGE, 

INDEPENDENCE COUNTY, BATESVILLE, ARKANSAS 

Judge GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, honorable 

members, I welcome this opportunity to come before you to explain 

the grassroots effect of having an executive-driven initiative come 

downstream. 

And first, I want to explain what a county judge is because it 

may be a foreign concept to this committee. I am more the county 

administrator. I do have a limited judicial role, but very limited. 

So, I am over the system of roads, I am over the administration, 

the legislation of the quorum court. And I choose to honor the separation of the government in our county. When I have the executive 

ability to do things, I do not do them, I would rather involve my 

quorum court and seek their input. So I am very much against executive-driven directives. 

9 

The White River bisects our county. The main concern I had— 

and, again, since my written testimony is for the record already— 

is to discuss the way that it is seen in their initiatives. In the 

nominating document, it does not recognize the White River having 

any significance, except limiting fish passage. That reservoir that 

is created by lock one, is a reservoir of water for 25,000 people. It 

is a reservoir for farmers to irrigate from. And it has much more 

significance—it feeds our industries that are located in Batesville, 

Arkansas, in the nearby proximity. So it has a much deeper impact 

than just the passage of fish. It has been there for 100-something 

years, impacting in that manner. Yet we have seen our county 

grow from the 1950s to double in population into the 2000s. 

The partnerships that it implies—we fully support partnerships. 

We partner with the Game and Fish Commission on half a dozen 

projects in our county. Those are voluntary participations. If there 

is a project that we can try to do, then we work together. Also, 

NRCS, a national agency under the Department of Agriculture, we 

partner with them in various projects. In fact, we have two or three 

that we are working toward right now. But again, those are voluntary participations. That is where we identify a problem, we seek 

their help, we go through the permitting process, and we do the 

things that are necessary to help impact the lives of our citizens 

in Independence County. 

Eighty percent of our property is privately owned. And we can 

only imagine what initiatives may be brought down when the Secretarial Declaration 3321 implies broad United States Code in 

being able to enact this partnership. 

Something else that is much more troubling is the fact that they 

seek to solicit other partners and manage those partners. And that 

was done in a way that they have at least three solicitations for 

the nomination from local governmental—or quasi-governmental— 

agencies. The Mayor of Clarendon has a project that is being 

worked with the Corps on the Cache River. He was encouraged to 

write a letter of support in exchange for the hope of more funding 

for that project. The Major of Augusta, Arkansas, I spoke with him. 

Now, this is hearsay, because I spoke to him and I am relaying it 

to you. I talked to him. He has a U.S. Fish and Wildlife office that 

he trusts that agent very much, and he asked for his support, and 

he did. One of my local county judges is on a Cache River Coalition, 

a project that very desperately needs to be done. There is a log jam 

that has been there in existence probably 40 or 50 years that they 

now have been working toward moving it in a voluntary partnership with the Corps and other partners. He was encouraged on the 

promise of funding. But the truth is, the funding for all these 

projects is already there and was already there. But that is a perfect example of how they were solicited for their support, and managed to believe what it was saying. 

Water is very important, not just to California, Ranking Member. 

I mean—and I know you are—I think Los Angeles County, you live 

in about a 100,000-population city—water is very important. Your 

city is out of water today if you were over in Maryland—100,000 

people out of water of a 54-inch water main, 3 to 5 days they are 

going to be out of water. If you don’t think water is important to 

them, and their access to that water, go talk to those people today. 

10 

They are not going to have a shower or water to drink in that 

length of time. 

So, it has an impact, even to the public utility, in the aspect that 

the people need water. 

The main problem is—and I am going to quote what I said—is 

found in Cool Hand Luke, when the captain explained to Luke, 

‘‘What we have here is failure to communicate.’’ 

This process was done, executive-driven, it come downstream to 

us, and we had to live with the result. Thankfully, it has been 

withdrawn at this time. We would hope to see the entire thing rescinded. And I think the suspicious wording is somewhat troubling. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Griffin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT T. GRIFFIN, JUDGE, INDEPENDENCE COUNTY, BATESVILLE, ARKANSAS

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, and Honorable members of 

the subcommittee, I am Robert Griffin, County Judge and the Chief Elected Official 

of Independence County, Arkansas located in northeastern Arkansas and bisected 

by the White River of recent ‘‘National Blueway’’ fame through Department of the 

Interior Secretarial Order 3321. As a third generation farmer/landowner in the 

White River Watershed, my life has been devoted to agriculture along the many 

links to the White River in our county. As well, I am very familiar with the conservation programs provided by the USDA through the years. As owner and operator of a United States Federal Warehouse Act grain facility for 30 plus years, I 

dealt with the regulatory protection administered by the act and as well, dealt day 

to day with the farmers within the watershed. As a land owner, I have participated 

in several voluntary conservation programs of the USDA. I see the 80 years of historical evidence throughout our county of the conservation efforts brought forth by 

the dust bowl years beginning in 1933 beginning with the Soil Erosion Service. Our 

county is dotted with land terraced for protection of soil erosion in voluntary participation with the partnership of the Federal Government. As County Judge, I must 

be concerned with issues that impact the residents of Independence County and as 

well, part of my responsibilities is the maintenance of roads and the drainage from 

those lifelines of society goes directly into the watershed. 

Independence County is the perfect place to examine the potential effects of the 

Blueway designation due to the fact the White River bisects our county. Independence County is at the ‘‘fall line’’ separating the Ozarks from the Mississippi Alluvial 

Plain, thereby splitting the fertile river bottom soil and the beginning of the mountains. We split evenly between forest at 49 percent and cropland/pastures at 50 percent with 1 percent surface water. This makes us a kindred spirit with the Western 

States of Washington, Idaho and Oregon that share the same balance of forest and 

crop/pasture/rangeland uses. In fact, the entire acreage within the White River Watershed is comprised of a similar distribution of forest and cropland/pasture/rangeland as those Western States named. We are you. 

I am pleased today to be able to communicate to you the sorted problems with 

top driven initiatives but first I ask you to indulge me to begin with an analogy that 

I believe puts most of the problems into perspective. In the film Cool Hand Luke, 

the captain has to explain to Luke the core of his issues. When he states, ‘‘What 

we’ve got here is failure to communicate’’, he sums up as well the problems with 

the National Blueway, NO COMMUNICATION! 

The executive branch began with declaring the AGO (America’s Great Outdoors) 

initiative. This was intended to reshape the conservation efforts of the Nation. The 

Secretary of Interior followed up this initiative with Secretarial Order 3321, declaring the National Blueways System designation and edict for the stakeholders to join 

together in a cooperative manner to accomplish stated goals. The first problem is 

defining stakeholders to be agencies under the Interior Department, Department of 

Agriculture and Army to name a few. The true stakeholders are the 80 percent of 

people in Arkansas that are private property owners graced with a dubious honor 

with unknown consequences. 

I want to point out the wording in the initiative whereby it is ‘‘not intended too’’. 

My analogy here is that each day in America, millions of people leave home for some 

destination by automobile not intending to have a wreck. Yet, the result, each day, 

is multiple millions of dollars of property damage, injuries and death. All of this was 

11 

unintended when they began the journey. Somehow the wording of unintended does 

not give comfort when the executive branch is expecting results and some of the 

goals seem to target our way of life. Agriculture is identified as the single largest 

contributor to issues within the watershed, both good and BAD. Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee, each of your States are identified as being heavily dependent upon agriculture and/or forestry, just as my beloved Arkansas and Independence County are as well. When the top income generator of your economy is 

targeted as the biggest contributor of bad issues within the watershed, the words 

not intended are somewhat disconcerting when the goals such as are stated belie 

the issue. 

Let me quote from the delusory nomination document: 

Page 10—‘‘Water quality suffers from sediment, nutrient and biocide runoff from 

UNSUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PRACTICES. Surface and groundwater extraction for irrigation negatively affects aquifers and stream flow. The results of these 

changes are dramatic and will prove catastrophic to delta communities and the Big 

Woods ecosystem alike without concentrated attention to the GOALS AND OBJECTIVES that form the CORE PRINCIPLES OF THE NATIONAL BLUEWAYS INITIATIVE.’’ 

Page 15—‘‘Many of the near and mid-term goals proposed in this nomination will 

be achieved through the work associated with the achievement of the AGO goals.’’ 

Page 16—‘‘Agricultural practices, good or bad, have the biggest impact on the Watershed’s environment.’’ 

Page 18—‘‘The Coalition’s central commitment and goal is to develop a conservation 

framework for the Watershed that implements a multi-level strategy for achieving 

this vision.’’ 

Goals are outlined: 

Page 19—‘‘Habitat short-term (1–3 years, 4a.) Establish minimum 180′ wide vegetative buffers along ALL SURFACE WATER.’’ (NRCS) 

Page 20—‘‘Agriculture Mid-term (3–7 years, 1) Complete enrollment of 30 percent 

of eligible cropland into conservation programs.’’ (NRCS) 

Page 21—‘‘Hydrology Short-term (1–3 years, 3b.) Control encroachment of HUMAN 

ACTIVITIES into the existing floodplain.’’ (USACE) 

Page 21—‘‘Hydrology Mid-term (3–7 years, 1) Complete reduction of on-farm, consumptive water use by 15 percent using irrigation efficiency practices.’’ (NRCS) 

‘‘(3,a.) Setback levees to RESTORE HISTORIC FLOODPLAIN HABITAT.’’ 

Page 24—‘‘DESIRED OUTCOMES—The success proposition for the White River 

Watershed National Blueway relies on the ability of the Coalition to DELIVER 

OUTCOMES that (1) achieve the objectives of the AGO pilot project as detailed in 

this section, and (2) translate the qualities of the partnership to the ENTIRE WATERSHED through strategic recruitment and management of additional Coalition 

members.’’ 

Page 28—Of six dams in Arkansas, that ‘‘have had a profound effect both in their 

immediate vicinity and throughout the entire Watershed.’’ ‘‘The city of Batesville 

now owns all three dams and beginning in 2004 they were retrofitted to generate 

electricity. These dams have no flood control capabilities and hold back a relatively 

shallow pool of water. THE MAJOR IMPACT OF THESE STRUCTURES IS REDUCED FISH PASSAGE.’’ 

The devil is normally in the details and while the designation has an attractive 

outer shell, the details are troubling and some of the wording is problematic. Let’s 

summarize how the nomination is structured and what it intends to accomplish. The 

executive branch issues an initiative, AGO, and thereby his appointee, the Secretary 

of the Interior, also a member of the executive branch made a designation of the 

White River to meet a vision and goals brought forth through the Presidential initiative. 

Secretarial Order 3321 establishing the National Blueways System, in section 3 

claims authority through various sections of United States Code and Law and says, 

‘‘The bureaus within Interior have a broad panoply of legal authority to carry out 

their respective missions that support enhancing river recreation, undertaking river 

restoration, and pursuing river protection initiatives to pass on healthy rivers to future generations.’’ 

12 

Section 7 of Secretarial Order 3321 says thusly, ‘‘Nothing in this Order is intended to authorize or affect the use of private property. Nothing in this Order is 

intended to be the basis for the exercise of any new regulatory authority, . . .’’ 

The nomination identifies agriculture to be as currently practiced, ‘‘unsustainable 

agriculture practices’’. Irrigation is found to negatively impact the watershed. Continuation of current practices is deemed to be catastrophic and the only salvation 

is found in the goals and objectives that form the core principles of the initiative 

known as National Blueways. So we have the promise of unintended consequences 

to fulfill the following goals based upon what was identified (agricultural and irrigation) to be the problem. 

Those goals include that a minimum of 180 foot buffer be established along all 

surface water. This means not just the White River itself but as well all tributaries 

of rivers, creeks, streams and ponds or lakes. This area includes places cattle and 

livestock water which would be fenced from their source of water. 

Another goal is to complete enrollment of 30 percent of eligible cropland into conservation programs. There is no consideration of the need to produce food for humans and livestock, only a desire to eliminate crop production. Of course, another 

goal listed is to control encroachment of humans into the existing floodplain. Then 

again, another goal is to restore historical floodplains further restricting human interference into the floodplains. Did you note I brought forth the fact that Arkansas 

is 80 percent owned by private property owners that might object to being told not 

to go onto their hard earned property? 

More goals were to reduce on-farm irrigation use by 15 percent while a study indicates Arkansas will need to increase its water use by 13 percent over the next few 

years. This contradicts what we need to have to sustain life over the term of these 

goals. In truth, the desired outcomes listed in the nomination indicate how this is 

determined to be possible. In the mandate to deliver outcomes and objectives of the 

AGO, there will be strategic recruitment and management of the right type of partners. The key word is ‘‘management’’ as relates to additional partners. Let me illustrate how this is done. There were three elected officials nearby that signed onto 

the nomination. I called the two mayors and the one county judge to inquire how 

they even knew this was happening. Each of them had a project or trusted contact 

that encourages them to write the letter of support. The enticement was the hope 

they were given for additional money to work on the slated projects in their area. 

That is how they would know the designation was in the works while I, with the 

river running through the middle of my county, would not be aware of the possibility. Those others were ‘‘managed’’ to come along and support the initiative. 

As much as any of this, I am concerned about the literal disregard for human 

needs as relates to the discussion about the three dams in my county. The dams 

are determined to have no impact other than the fish passage. The nominees apparently forgot that the vast majority of the citizens of Independence County, population 36,647, get their water from the reservoir formed by the dam at Batesville. 

Also, all of our industries in Batesville receive their water from that source as well. 

Couple this with wanting to reestablish historical floodplains and no recognition of 

human needs and you can see why this is not a grassroots generated document. In 

fact, that one fact is the very reason local input should be paramount before any 

designation was developed. 

As county judge, one of my main responsibilities is the road system of the county. 

This requires motor graders turning gravel in the roadbed, plowing ditches, putting 

out prime oil for surfacing with asphalt products. All this is necessary for the public 

to travel upon these roads. Am I to think that the needs of the public within the 

watershed would be unraveled by frequency mandates for blading instead of need? 

The very function of local government could be disrupted for basic services due to 

more permits required or some review process each time you needed to blade a road. 

It is my belief that such edicts as ‘‘AGO’’ and the National Blueways Order circumvent the separation of powers, upon which our government was founded, as to 

be necessary for it to be a government as seen by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, 

‘‘of the people, by the people and for the people’’. I fear that the continuation and 

toleration of executive authority through their appointees, such as this issue, without purview of legislative process and transparency, will lead to continued disembodiment of our people and our government. No process should be allowed to be 

enacted without local involvement and input and then the legislative action of 

Quorum Courts, State Legislatures and Congress for these issues that have a local 

and national impact. 

I wish to close with a few local examples just recently brought to my attention. 

A local grocer has 80 acres in a rural area upon which he placed three adult hogs 

and a few piglets. There are no county ordinances restricting this activity. He had 

a visit from a State agency that required a few layers of red tape to finally resolve 

13 

that he could use his property in that manner. We have had in our area of the State 

in more than one county, several small gravel pits that are seldom used, closure orders from a State agency due to not having a permit. These are privately owned 

and used with no impact to their neighbors. Another community cleanup was ongoing by burning a couple of old buildings, build before any chemical treatments were 

used in processed lumber, attended by local officials and fire departments, and a 

State agency delivered a complaint upon that group. These were all within the watershed of the White River and can you imagine what unintended consequences 

could occur with a national recognition? 

Private property rights are important to us in Independence County and we support voluntary conservation efforts wholeheartedly. We stand adamantly against the 

potential of involuntary conversions of private property due to executive edict. We 

founded a nation to deliver us from a king, how sad we could see this type action 

result in kingdoms being formed here in our county. There should be community 

driven conservation efforts and local decisionmaking, not mandates without due 

process of government. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for the 

chance to be a part of the ‘‘due process’’ of true governance. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you for your testimony. 

Our next witness is from Popular Bluff, Missouri. Mr. Eddy Justice for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF EDDY JUSTICE, POPULAR BLUFF, MISSOURI 

Mr. JUSTICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

come and testify in front of this committee. I also want to thank 

our Congressman, Mr. Smith, for the work that he has done in 

fighting this, because it is the will of the people in our district that 

this not take place. 

Earlier I was watching the Committee on Natural Resources 

where the Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, was commenting. 

And the Congressman from Utah asked her what her plans were 

in regard to working with local communities and working with people on the ground as these orders went forward. And she said that 

she gave her commitment to work with the people on the ground 

as she went forward, as well as to follow the law. I hope that this 

is true. 

I hope that she will keep her word. Because if she does coordinate with people on the ground, she will not be following the example of her predecessor, Mr. Salazar, who signed this order, never 

once, that I have any knowledge of, came to the White River watershed, never once held a town hall meeting there, never once had 

interaction with county commissioners. I know of at least 16 counties in this watershed that have signatures from county commissioners saying that they did not have a single clue this was going 

to happen, and they would not have supported it if it had, and they 

have sent letters saying so. 

There was a news release by the Department of the Interior on 

January 1, 2013 that said that this initiative is part of President 

Obama’s America’s Great Outdoors initiative, and was established 

as a community-driven conservation and recreation agenda of the 

21st century. There have been rumors that this is a collaborative 

effort. There have been rumors that this is a cooperative effort. I 

haven’t seen it. Wouldn’t that require maybe some announcement 

in a newspaper, or with a TV or radio, or town halls, or some way 

getting the input and cooperation of local people? We have not seen 

it in these counties. 

14 

The residents of this watershed deserve better. Our economy, in 

large part, has been based on recreation and tourism and in cattle 

farming and in row crop farming. None of this is possible without 

these waterways. And yet, we have, in the past, had the Ozark National Science Riverway in part of the Current River, which is a 

contributor in the watershed to the White River. 

At least with the Ozark National Scenic Riverway, Congress 

acted. And they put this in place. But if you look at what that 

order looks like, and what has happened since with the regulations, 

with what the Department of the Interior has done, they are unrecognizable. And that is what the people in our area are concerned 

about. They are concerned about this being the first step of the Department of the Interior coming in and controlling our access to our 

river, our size of horsepower, the access we have for our cattle, the 

access we have for our entertainment and recreation through boating. 

The general management plan of the Department of the Interior 

over the Ozark National Scenic Riverway has increased regulation 

on us and is about to do it again. They have a plan that is about 

to come out that is going to restrict us to a point that it could cripple our economy up and down the Current River in a way that 

would probably be unrecoverable. That is the kind of regulation 

that we are seeking to avoid. That is the kind of regulation that 

we cannot afford. 

We, as the people in this area, have invested our lives, invested 

our children’s future, invested everything we have in what is in 

this area. And it is very frustrating for us to have a controlling, 

nanny-type agency of people who probably have never even visited 

our area, trying to come down and tell us and regulate us to a 

point where our businesses will no longer be viable, our future for 

our children to recreate there and have homes there and have businesses there could no longer be a possibility. 

Not only should this declaration be rescinded or put on pause, it 

needs to be taken away, and it should never come back again. 

There are rumors and accusations that the Department of the Interior is looking at doing 25 more of these over the next 5 years. If 

the people in these other 25 areas are treated like we have been 

treated through this designation with no say whatsoever, as if they 

know what is best for us, then I feel sorry for them, and I think 

they should stand up and fight just the way we are. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Justice follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDDY JUSTICE, POPULAR BLUFF, MISSOURI

My name is Eddy Justice and I am a resident of Butler County in southeast Missouri. I have been the owner of Eddy Justice State Farm Insurance Agency since 

1999. I am an avid user of the Current River, part of the White River Watershed, 

for recreation, and I boat and camp there many times throughout the spring, summer and fall months. I currently am renting property to use on the river and am 

looking to purchase property there in the near future. I am representing myself in 

my testimony today. 

I am here today to testify before this committee in regard to the designation of 

the White River National Blueway by the Department of the Interior. Thankfully, 

due to pressure from many concerned citizens of the affected area, Congressman 

from Missouri’s 8th District Jason Smith, U.S. Senator from Missouri Roy Blunt, 

and other Members of Congress from Arkansas, this designation has now been rescinded. 

15 

There is a long list of reasons why this step back by the Department of the Interior is a positive move, but I will address only two here today. 

In a press release issued by the Department of the Interior on January 9, 2013, 

the statement was made that ‘‘The initiative is part of President Obama’s America’s 

Great Outdoors Initiative to establish a community-driven conservation and recreation agenda for the 21st century.’’ This is just one of many insinuations and statements that have been made to me and others across the affected area that the 

Blueways Designations was a collaborative effort that included local input. 

To the best of my knowledge, not one single townhall meeting was held to gather 

local input. Not one request was issued for public input regarding this designation. 

Not one representative or letter was sent to any county commissioner in the affected 

area, advising them of the plans by the DOI to implement this designation. 

The people of the affected areas, whether business owner, recreators, land owners, 

residents, employees, employers, or farmers, deserve to have a say in whether or 

not they want their home to be designated one way or the other by a Federal agency. 

County Commissioners are elected to handle the business of these effected counties. How can they effectively do so when they are not even notified of these actions 

by the Department of the Interior? This is why at least 16 counties in Missouri 

alone have had commissioners sign letters to Secretary Salazar requesting the designation be rescinded. 

The failure of the Department of the Interior to bother with obtaining local input 

while claiming to have issued this designation after having collaborated with local 

governments and organizations is irresponsible at best and at least hints at dishonesty and possible ulterior motives. 

Another issue that I would like to address today is the fact that Federal agencies 

that are imposing these designations are doing so without any oversight from elected officials. These designations are being imposed arbitrarily, unilaterally and without representation. 

The fact that the Department of the Interior can impose these designations without having to get the approval of Congress proves it is arbitrary, as well as the reality that the power they are allowed to wield is unlimited. We have seen this in 

the past with the Ozark National Scenic Riverways imposing harsh restrictions on 

access to the Current River and strict guidelines for use of the river while attempting to impose it without the input of the local residents who depend on the river 

for their very livelihood. 

There are very few, if any, industries in the area existing in this watershed that 

are not affected directly by regulations imposed on our waterways. The Tourism Industry and the Timber Industry alone are dependent on the waterways so drastically, that further regulation on them would be detrimental at best and catastrophic at worst. I have many customers in my insurance agency that, without 

these industries, would not be able to maintain their businesses and incomes. 

We all know of freedom loving folks from our past that were upset about being 

taxed but having no say in the implementation of those taxes. There are many in 

southeast and southern Missouri that believe we are now being regulated without 

representation. With this kind of unmitigated regulatory activity by Federal agencies in the past, it is very clear why local citizens are opposed to any further designations or groundwork for further regulatory activity without local input and 

without the oversight of elected officials. 

There has been word the Department of the Interior is reviewing the idea of Implementation of Blueway Designation in as many as 25 other locations over the next 

5 years throughout the United States including the Yellowstone River Watershed. 

It is my opinion and testimony that any implementation of regulation or designation 

without local input and consent is inexcusable and further proof of the attitude Federal agencies have—believing they know better how to manage local business and 

activity than those who live and work in the areas affected and actually have invested their lives to better themselves and the area they live in. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Justice. To our witnesses and 

to the audience, I apologize. We are required to break here in order 

to attend to business on the House Floor. That business is likely 

to take, I would think, at least 45 minutes. So we will reconvene 

some time—hopefully not long—after 2:15. I thank you for your indulgence. It is an occupational hazard with afternoon hearings 

16 

around here. But the committee will stand in recess until the call 

of the Chair at some point after 2:15. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The committee will reconvene. The Chair 

thought it had promised not later than—or not earlier than 3:15, 

but staff informs me I actually said 2:15. So I guess we are covered 

on all of that. And again, I apologize to the witnesses as well as 

to the audience members for the interruption. The Good Lord willing and the creek don’t rise, I don’t think there will be any further 

interruptions. 

We had left off with Mr. Sutton Bacon to begin his testimony. 

And again, thank you for your patience, welcome to Washington, 

and go for it. 

STATEMENT OF SUTTON BACON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NANTAHALA OUTDOOR CENTER, BRYSON CITY, NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. BACON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 

members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. My name is Sutton Bacon. I am the CEO of the Nantahala 

Outdoor Center. And I am here to offer insights about how programs like the National Blueways system can properly function, 

primarily through a small business lens. 

As a background, NOC is the largest outfitter guide company in 

the United States. We operate in 12 national forests and parks, 

and we help over 1 million Americans experience public lands and 

waterways each year. To put that in perspective, our guests paddle 

enough river miles each year to travel to the moon and back twice. 

I am also a small business owner. I employ 250 full-time employees and have over 1,000 seasonal employees on my payroll right 

now. We are the largest employer in our region. And I know firsthand about the economic and regulatory challenges that small 

business owners face. We are located high in the mountains of 

western North Carolina. And like so many other small, rural communities, our economy has suffered immensely through the recession. Plus, 88 percent of our county is federally owned. And one 

might say that our current economic situation is exacerbated because of these large Federal land holdings that diminish our tax 

base. 

However, nothing could be further from the truth. We are located 

in one of the most conservative congressional districts in the State 

of North Carolina, and we proudly cling to a set of strong mountain 

values, such as hard work, honest communication, and family values. And central to our values is stewardship of our lands and waters. 

Our community fully understands that outdoor recreation is the 

pathway to a growing and sustainable prosperity, one that is rooted 

in an experience-based economy, not an extraction-based economy. 

It can’t be outsourced overseas as long as the health and protection 

and integrity of our natural resources are maintained. These jobs 

and economic impact will never go away. For example, on the 

Nantahala River, it alone is an $85 million-per-year industry, sustaining over 1,000 full-time jobs. In fact, it directly supports over 

20 percent of the workforce in our community. 

17 

We are the story about rural economic development. And to further enhance these economic dividends, we have created a regional 

watershed partnership, including the outfitter guide community, 

the Forest Service, Duke Energy, the Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Nation, local government, private land owners, businesses of all 

stripes, local universities and community colleges, non-profits, and 

user groups. 

We are investing mostly private dollars in fundamental recreation infrastructure, implementing a cooperative marketing plan 

around our rivers and lakes, hosting national and international 

events in paddle sports and fishing, and we are establishing a 10- 

year community vision for our waterways. Drawing from our mountain values, we have shown that diverse, and even competing interests, can be overcome by earnest dialog and cooperation. And all 

of this is happening solely because of our own initiative in a bottom-up effort to improve our community. 

As such, we are precisely the kind of community and diverse 

willing stakeholder group that could benefit from future Federal 

recognition programs such as the National Blueways. We would absolutely, in our region, cherish the recognition the blue ribbon and 

especially the brown DOT highway sign that we could put on our 

interstate. 

I believe there are opportunities for the Federal Government to 

create tools that can engage local stakeholders and support a locally determined vision, since we all agree that community-based 

leadership promotes better management of our natural resources 

than distant and sometimes problematic bureaucratic intervention. 

As such, these voluntary partnerships can be heralded through 

programs and branding programs like the Blueways that support 

local communities just like ours, who are dedicated to using their 

waterways to improve quality of life, create jobs, improve property 

values, and foster healthy, more active families. 

I would suggest to the committee that efforts like the National 

Blueways system don’t just promote natural resource ecosystems, 

but also the ecosystems of rural, economic development. Most of 

the $85 million we generate on the Nantahala flows right back into 

the small towns where we live and work, supporting far more than 

the 1,000 people we employ directly. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share my testimony with you 

today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bacon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUTTON BACON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NANTAHALA

OUTDOOR CENTER, BRYSON CITY, NORTH CAROLINA

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Sutton Bacon, 

and I am the Chief Executive Officer of Nantahala Outdoor Center. Established in 

1972, NOC is an outdoor recreation company located at the intersection of the Appalachian Trail and the Nantahala River in the Nantahala National Forest in Swain 

County, North Carolina. Originally a roadside inn, the company has evolved into 

one of the largest outdoor recreation companies in the Nation. We are also one of 

western North Carolina’s largest employers with approximately 250 full-time employees and over 1,000 employees during peak season. 

Over 1 million guests visit NOC annually to embark on a diverse collection of over 

120 different itineraries, to learn kayaking at NOC’s world-renowned Paddling 

18 

School, to travel abroad with NOC’s Adventure Travel program, to shop at one of 

our LEED-certified flagship retail stores, or to enjoy NOC’s resort amenities including our three restaurants and multi-tiered lodging. Each year, NOC guests paddle 

over 1 million river miles on Federal lands, enough for two voyages to the moon and 

back. NOC has recently been recognized as ‘‘The Nation’s Premier Paddling School’’ 

by The New York Times, ‘‘Best Place to Learn’’ by Outside Magazine, and as ‘‘One 

of the Best Outfitters on Earth’’ by National Geographic ADVENTURE. Twenty-two 

Olympians and two Olympic Gold Medalists have called NOC home. 

Through our programming, we strive to educate and engage adventure-seekers 

through dynamic, world-class instruction and tours on some of the world’s most 

beautiful whitewater rivers and landscapes. We are committed to sharing our passion for the outdoors and our penchant for exploration with our guests. Our employees share a common vision of keeping NOC a dynamic, enjoyable, and successful 

place to work and of participating actively, considerately, and sustainably in the 

communities in which we operate. We firmly believe in the triple bottom line of people, planet, and profits. 

My testimony today will discuss how public lands and waterways offer a pathway 

to an economic prosperity in the rural communities of western North Carolina. I will 

articulate how my company and a diverse, local stakeholder partnership have come 

together to protect and develop public access to our region’s river system. I will also 

express support for the river protection and recreation-related elements of the National Blueways System. And finally, I will suggest that the model of cooperation 

between private and public entities found in our region is worthy of recognition and 

even replication in the rest of the country. 

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

NOC is located high in the rugged mountains of western North Carolina in a 

small county with a population of 14,000 and a county seat of only 1,400 residents. 

Like so many other small, rural communities, our economy has suffered immensely 

through the recession. We continue to suffer from the loss of traditional manufacturing jobs to international outsourcing, as textile, garment, and furniture plants 

continue to close. Our housing and construction industries have collapsed. And, 

Swain County suffers from one of the highest unemployment rates in North Carolina (19 percent) and an equally disturbing rate of poverty (22 percent). A recent 

study indicated that 20 percent of Swain residents face ‘‘food insecurity,’’ in other 

words, not knowing from where their next meal would come. 

Approximately 88 percent of Swain County is federally owned and managed, the 

majority of this land included in Nantahala National Forest and Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park. Some might say that our current economic situation is 

exacerbated by these large Federal land holdings diminishing our tax base. However, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, our small community has fully 

embraced the notion that our public lands and waters are the pathway to a growing 

and sustainable prosperity—a type of prosperity that cannot be outsourced overseas 

and is rooted in the value of experiencing these places directly. 

Swain County’s new economy is an experience-based economy. Whereas extraction 

and manufacturing industries have come and gone, our public lands boast a wealth 

of waterways, trails, and recreation areas, making Swain County a popular destination for outdoor enthusiasts. In fact, while our local manufacturing base continues 

to contract, the region’s outdoor-based tourism economy has seen exponential 

growth, as has interest in tourism re-development, the enhancement of existing public-private tourism product, and the utilization of tourism-related natural resources 

in an environmentally sensitive manner. Human-powered outdoor tourism is truly 

the backbone of our future. 

Our community recognizes the importance of activating public-private partnerships with our natural resources to enhance rural economic development. We enjoy 

a unique collaboration amongst diverse stakeholders such as the outfitter-guide 

community, local business leaders, the U.S. Forest Service, Duke Energy, American 

Whitewater, the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation, tourism development authorities and local governments from seven counties, the North Carolina university 

system, local community colleges, regional destination marketing organizations, and 

the Southwestern North Carolina Planning and Economic Development Commission. These diverse organizations work together every day to share the region’s natural resources with millions of residents, visitors, students, paddlers, hikers, and 

bikers; to meet the energy needs of our region; and to maintain our forests’ and rivers’ healthy ecosystems. Our collaboration is based on trust, mutual respect, a spirit 

of compromise, open communication, and alignment. 

19 

There are numerous examples of how this stakeholder group has worked together 

for the benefit of our community and our user groups, from a decades-long FERC 

relicensing project that preserved consistent water flows on the Nantahala to a successful bid to host the 2013 World Freestyle Kayaking Championships, to collectively mitigating severe drought conditions to participating actively in a new forest 

planning process. The impact of our continual collaboration around the management 

of our public lands and waters guides the investments that public and private enterprise make in our communities and contributes to the branding of our region as a 

top destination for outdoor enthusiasts. 

At the national level, it is easy to recognize the enormous economic impacts of 

outdoor recreation. According to a recent study by the Outdoor Industry Association, 

Americans spend $646 billion on outdoor recreation every year. This is twice as 

much as they spend on pharmaceuticals or cars. Outdoor recreation creates $40 billion in Federal tax revenue and $40 billion in State and local tax revenue. Outdoor 

recreation providers, retailers, and manufacturers directly employ over 6 million 

Americans. In North Carolina alone, outdoor recreation generates $19 billion in consumer spending and supports 192,000 jobs. 

The national and State numbers are so staggering that they are, in some ways, 

hard to grasp. So, what does that mean at a local level, in the rural communities 

of western North Carolina? The direct economic impact of tourism and recreation 

in our seven-county region stands at $663 million. The region’s four primary rivers—the Little Tennessee, the Nantahala, the Oconaluftee, and the Tuckaseegee— 

include one of the Nation’s three most popular rivers for whitewater paddling and 

commercial rafting, the most utilized competitive whitewater racing venue in the 

United States, a Trout Unlimited ‘‘Top 100 Trout Stream,’’ one of the most popular 

float trips for young children in the Southeast, and a river that generates over 

850,000 fishing permits annually. Beyond that, the rivers also provide opportunities 

for backcasting fishermen, relaxing tubing trips, and wildlife viewing for residents, 

visitors and second-home owners. 

Even more locally, NOC commissioned a study in 2008 from Western Carolina 

University to quantify the economic impact of the Nantahala Outdoor Center and 

public outdoor recreation on the Nantahala River alone. The researchers calculated 

that the direct annual economic impact from the Nantahala was $62 million with 

another $23 million of indirect impact, for a total annual contribution of over $85 

million to our local economy—while supporting over 1,000 full-time jobs in our community. By comparing that number to the total workforce in Swain County, it can 

be said that over 20 percent of Swain County workers are employed due to the outdoor recreation economy. 

None of this economic and civic revitalization would happen without our cherished 

public lands and waters. Our guests travel from all over the world to experience our 

mountains, rivers, and forests in a direct and meaningful way. The jobs created by 

using our natural resources to provide experience rather than extraction cannot be 

outsourced. As long as the health and integrity of our lands and waters are maintained, these jobs will never go away. 

HERALDING THE WATER-BASED RECREATION ECONOMY IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA

Our situation in western North Carolina is exactly the type of locally driven vision 

the National Blueways System is designed to recognize and support. As noted before, our region boasts a strong and diverse stakeholder partnership, and this partnership works closely with Federal and State agencies to mange and promote these 

resources. While competing interests like power generation, steady lake levels, commercial rafting, guided fishing tours, conservation, public access, and economic development can sometimes work against each other, our mutual trust and willingness 

to compromise help us deal with difficult issues. Altogether these compromises make 

our region a more desirable place to live and to visit. 

Managing resources and compromising in the present moment is one thing. But 

more importantly, our stakeholders are able to collaborate on a long-term vision for 

the region. We feel like western North Carolina should be the Nation’s premier 

human-powered outdoor recreation destination. We are investing in our reputation 

and our tourism product. For example, we have committed over $1 million to host 

the 2013 International Canoe Federation Freestyle Kayaking World Championships 

so we can reinforce the Nantahala River’s reputation as a world-class whitewater 

resource. We are also committed to marketing the region as one of the Nation’s best 

fishing destinations, hosting the U.S. Fly Fishing Championships in 2011 and organizing seven national fishing tournaments throughout the year with over $70,000 

awarded in prizes. 

20 

Perhaps most importantly, Duke Energy is providing over 50 new recreational enhancements in the western North Carolina area within the next 5 years including 

many new river access points. These access points, especially those on the Little 

Tennessee and the Tuckaseegee Rivers, will allow use of these rivers to grow with 

improved boat camping sites, fishing trails, and wildlife viewing areas. These investments in fundamental recreation infrastructure promise opportunity to businesses 

and entrepreneurs willing to provide guiding services or other trip amenities to visitors of these new resources. These new resources should provide opportunity for 

more businesses to grow, and they should help draw new visitors into the gas stations, restaurants, lodging, and retail stores in our region. 

As you can see, the outdoor recreation economy is a sustainable economy in our 

region. Not only do we collaborate to share the benefits of our rivers and lakes, but 

also we recognize the importance of investing in them, marketing them, and enhancing them at regular intervals. Here in the Smokies we are lucky: we have the tools, 

resources, and willingness to communicate about our natural resources. Not every 

river in the country has what it needs to leverage its waterways for economic 

growth. That is where the National Blueways System comes into play. The National 

Blueways System is about the power of a locally determined vision for a waterway. 

In western North Carolina, our collective local vision is the primary voice in the 

management of our natural resources, but that’s not the case everywhere. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NATIONAL BLUEWAYS SYSTEM

We all know that outdoor recreation is a major component of our economy. Much 

of the $646 billion in annual direct consumer spending is generated by 12.4 billion 

outdoor outings taken by 141.9 million Americans, many of these on public lands 

and waterways. Since most Americans live within a mile of a river or a stream, 

many of these outings take place on or beside a river. Growing participation indicates that the outdoor economy is flourishing. According to the Outdoor Foundation, 

participants have increased by 7.5 million since 2006, and Americans are enjoying 

the outdoors more and more. 

In fact, according to the same study, kayaking in all of its forms—whitewater, 

touring and recreational paddling—grew at over 10 percent each year from 2009 to 

2012, and fly fishing participation grew 3 percent on average. Poised to capitalize 

on the surging growth of paddlesports participation around the country, the National Blueways System can even more firmly connect Americans with water-based 

recreational opportunities. The program fosters voluntary partnerships and brings 

together local stakeholders to create a locally driven vision for these natural resources. Community-based leadership will promote better management and increased use of the rivers and lakes enjoyed by millions of Americans. Recognizing 

waterways as Blueways will also provide a key rallying point for local communities 

to continue their stewardship of their local natural resources, ensuring clean water, 

healthy and active outdoor recreation, improved quality of life, higher land values 

in adjacent areas, as well as better economic and community prosperity. 

I applaud the efforts of the Department of the Interior and Secretary Jewell; asking local stakeholders to collaborate and create a comprehensive plan for their river 

systems makes more sense than dictating it to them. As we have shown in western 

North Carolina, diverse and even competing interests can be overcome by earnest 

dialog and cooperation. We recognize that we are all trying to maximize the amount 

of value we can get out of our rivers and lakes, and we all know that we can do 

so while preserving their productivity, environmental integrity, and inherent beauty 

through smart resource management. 

CONCLUSION

In these trying economic times, it is clear that Americans need more than ever 

the physical, emotional, and psychological benefits that human-powered outdoor 

recreation provides. Another Outdoor Industry Association research project showed 

that 80 percent of Americans feel that they are happier, have better family relationships and less stress in their lives when they engage in outdoor recreation. 

Anecdotally, during the recession, we witnessed more hikers pass through NOC on 

the Appalachian Trail than we had seen in years. 

Our own internal research over the last 40 years indicates whenever there is economic uncertainty or a precipitous rise in gas prices, our guest numbers increase. 

This affirms the importance of outdoor recreation during these difficult times that 

our country faces. We take this charge seriously and appreciate our guests’ confidence in our ability to deliver these authentic outdoor experiences. We also take 

seriously our ability to create jobs and positively impact rural economies in need. 

The jobs we are creating through the outdoors can never be outsourced so long as 

21 

we have the kind of open spaces, healthy forests, free-flowing rivers, and recreation 

infrastructure that the Blueways initiative recognizes. 

I truly appreciate this invitation to speak with you today. Thank you for your attention, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you for your testimony. 

And our final witness is Ms. Karen Budd-Falen, attorney for 

Budd-Falen Law Offices in Cheyenne, Wyoming, to testify. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN BUDD–FALEN, ATTORNEY, BUDD– 

FALEN LAW OFFICES, LLC, CHEYENNE, WYOMING 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee. 

[Pause.] 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Is that better? All right, thank you. I am also 

an attorney specializing in protecting private property rights, rural 

communities, rural counties, and multiple use on the Federal 

lands. Today I would like to offer to this subcommittee legal and 

factual information surrounding Secretarial Order 3321, the National Blueways Initiative. 

In my opinion, this initiative has no basis in Federal statute, and 

should be withdrawn. The U.S. Constitution that set forth the very 

foundation of this Nation requires that the bureaucracy can only 

act under the direction of Congress. There is simply no congressional authority for the National Blueways program. 

Additionally, like its predecessor, the Great American Outdoors 

Initiative, the National Blueways order was never published or 

made available for public comment in the Federal Register, nor has 

there been any compliance with NEPA or other rulemaking processes. There simply has been no public input. 

Now, make no mistake about it. These kind of special land designations have very real, personal, social, and economic impacts on 

land owners, rural communities, small businesses, and local governments. This is true, whether it is a congressionally designated 

area such as wilderness or wild and scenic rivers, or bureaucratically designated areas such as a national monument, a 

Blueway, lands with wilderness characteristics, a water trail, or 

the brand new MOU that just came out that creates landscape and 

watershed-scale conservation demonstration areas. None of those 

have congressional authority. In fact, the MOU that I talked about 

cites as its only congressional authority the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative. 

Although such designations are often accompanied by great proclamations that they are going to focus and coordinate Federal resources, or that existing land uses will be protected, this has simply not proven to be the case. Existing uses are almost always negatively impacted, either with regulatory impositions, or because of 

radical environmental group litigation. 

While special designations will impact local citizens and the local 

economy, these same communities and citizens rarely have a voice 

in the management of specially designated lands and waters. Indeed, the intra-agency National Blueways Committee, established 

under Order 3321, includes no representatives of State governments, local governments or private citizens. 

22 

Furthermore, for these ‘‘multi-state watersheds,’’ only one State 

sponsor is required. I would argue that any proposed designation 

should receive a State sponsor from each and every State affected, 

as well as the support of a majority of impacted local governments. 

The congressional delegations and impacted States should also 

have input and fair ability to comment on proposed designations. 

But that is not what the Executive order allows. 

Additionally concerning is the fact that under Order 3321, the 

Department of the Interior is not required to view State and local 

land use management plans. Natural resource conservation districts and counties across the Nation have land management plans 

to protect its waters and its watersheds. Yet, the Federal Government does not review a single one of these plans before imposing 

an entirely new designation on top of them. 

The DOI proposes to ‘‘realign DOI agency and bureau activities 

and programs to protect and restore and enhance natural, cultural, 

and recreational resources’’ of a designated river. To reassign agency purposes at the whim of the bureaucracy is to take huge liberty 

with congressionally designated purposes, flying in the face of federalism. This order may also invite increased involvement into 

areas not traditionally within the purview and jurisdiction of the 

Federal Government, such as State and private lands. 

The National Blueways is not precedent-setting for its overreach 

or lack of statutory basis. In order to protect ourselves from this 

unconstitutional abuse to power, we must continue to demand our 

Nation’s founding principles of checks and balances be honored. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Budd-Falen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN BUDD-FALEN, OWNER/PARTNER—BUDD-FALEN LAW

OFFICES, LLC 

My name is Karen Budd-Falen. I am a fifth generation rancher and have an ownership interest in a family owned ranch in Wyoming. I am also an attorney specializing in protecting private property rights, rural counties and communities and multiple use on the Federal lands. In my opinion, the National Blueways Initiative, created by Interior Secretarial Order 3321 dated May 24, 2012, has no basis in Federal 

statute, thus is an ultra virus action by the Department of the Interior (‘‘DOI’’) and 

should be withdrawn in its entirely. See Interior Order No. 3321, Establishment of 

a National Blueways System. Additionally, I would urge this committee to carefully 

examine this and other programs and initiatives set forth in President Obama’s 

America’s Great Outdoors Initiative in 2010. As with the National Blueways Program, many of these related initiatives have no basis in Federal statute and will 

significantly hurt many rural communities, local governments, local businesses and 

landowners. 

Despite the claims in Secretarial Order 3321, local governments such as counties 

and conservation districts, believe that this Washington, DC ‘‘collaboration’’ with absolutely no sideboards guaranteeing general public participation, general public notice and comment or the specific involvement of ALL impacted local governments 

will actually impede protection and conservation of local watersheds, not enhance 

it. Neither the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative nor National Blueways Order 

No. 3321 have been published and available for public comment in the Federal Register, nor has there been any compliance for either document with the National Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’) or the rulemaking requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’). Thus, in addition to the fact that the National 

Blueways System has no Congressional authorization, it has not been through the 

scrutiny of a public comment period. In and of itself, that is an additional reason 

for withdrawal of Secretarial Order 3321. 

In addition to requesting that the subcommittee seek the withdrawal of the National Blueways Order, I would also draw the committee’s attention to ‘‘section 9: 

23 

1 As an aside, although the Plaintiffs claimed in the litigation to be concerned about the management of the Owyhee Wild and Scenic River, their true goal was to eliminate the ranchers’ 

use of these lands. Because of the devastating impacts of eliminating the use of the River for 

water for livestock, the ranchers agreed that they would stop using the River if there were alternative sources of livestock water. The Federal District Court granted the ranchers’ request to 

develop alternative water, over the strong objection of the Plaintiffs. The environmentalists 

wanted no water use anywhere at all, which would mean that the ranches in this area would 

have been eliminated. 

Expiration Date’’ within Order 3321 which allows the order to be published in Interior manuals and handbooks. This is concerning because the policies and direction 

in this order can easily survive action taken by this committee, by the DOI simply 

placing the provisions of Order 3321 in a departmental manual. That is exactly 

what happened with Secretarial Order 3310, the ‘‘Wildlands Policy.’’ Although Congress was successful in getting that order withdrawn, its effects continue to be felt 

because the policy itself was simply placed in Bureau of Land Management (‘‘BLM’’) 

manuals and handbooks. Thus, I would caution the committee that withdrawal of 

the National Blueways Order is not enough; I recommend that the committee further ensure that after Order 3321 is withdrawn or revoked, the policy does not continue to be implemented through agency or department manuals and handbooks or 

Memorandums of Understanding (‘‘MOU’’). 

I. IMPACTS OF SINGLE FOCUS LAND DESIGNATIONS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, FEDERAL

LAND MULTIPLE USE, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AMERICAN CITIZENS

There is no mistake that whether it is a congressionally designated area, such as 

a wilderness or wild and scenic rivers designation, or a bureaucratically designated 

area, such as a national monument, land designations have real, personal, social 

and economic impacts on landowners, rural communities, small businesses and local 

governments. Although it may sound good to proclaim that these designations are 

only to ‘‘focus and coordinate Federal resources,’’ or ‘‘that existing uses will be protected,’’ that is simply not the case. Designations like National Blueways, Lands 

with Wilderness Characteristics, Water Trails, National Monuments and others will 

impact the local citizens and local economy, yet local communities and citizens rarely have a voice in the designation or management. 

For example, Tim Lequerica has a ranch in Oregon through which the Owyhee 

Wild and Scenic River designation runs. Mr. Lequerica’s ancestors were Basque immigrants to the Owyhee River area in 1900, and his family has worked in the livestock industry since that time. The Lequerica private land is surrounded by BLM 

managed land within the Owyhee wild river canyon. He holds a permit to graze 444 

cattle in the Saddle Butte BLM Allotment from November 1 to February 15. 

The cattle in this allotment used to depend entirely on drinking water from the 

Owyhee River. Although the Owyhee River was named as a wild and scenic river 

by Congress in 1984, the legislation promised that local ranches would be protected. 

Since ranching use of the River has existed since the 1900s, this use could not have 

been harming the river if Congress thought the river was pristine enough to still 

be ‘‘wild and scenic.’’ 

In 1998, environmental groups sued the BLM to eliminate the use of these 

ranches along the Owyhee River. The litigation was not centered on specific ranching use of the Owyhee River per se, but on whether the BLM had jumped through 

the correct procedural hoops in writing a management plan for the Owyhee Wild 

and Scenic River. The ranchers intervened in this litigation because these groups 

were trying to stop access to the River 1 by livestock while the BLM prepared a new 

management plan. If these ranchers had lost their access to water, grazing would 

have been eliminated despite the protection given to these ranchers by Congress. 

Collectively, the impacted families paid $42,000 just to participate in the litigation. 

Ranchers and local governments are impacted in the same way by Presidential 

National Monument designations. For example, Brian Gasvoda resides in Chouteau 

County, Montana. He is the fourth generation to raise a family on this land. In 

2001, President Clinton designated the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument 

which included his unfenced private lands and his BLM grazing allotments. 

Although the Monument’s Presidential Proclamation ‘‘protects’’ current land uses 

on National Monument land, the BLM management plan for the Monument, pushed 

by litigation by environmental groups, has caused significant changes. After the 

BLM finished its management plan, in 2010, an environmental group sued the BLM 

seeking further restrictions and requesting an injunction on road use and livestock 

grazing within the Monument. Mr. Gasovda calculated that if grazing had been enjoined within the Monument, his ranch would need approximately 651 tons of hay 

to feed the displaced livestock for 155 days. At that time, hay cost approximately 

24 

$110 per ton hauled into his area, therefore it would have cost $71,610 to keep his 

livestock alive. 

Additionally harming was the proposal to close many of the roads within the 

Monument. Many of these roads are historic and/or public roads. This rancher, like 

the others within the area, needed to keep these roads open, in order to access, 

maintain and keep his private and leased ground operational. Again, these ranchers 

had to retain legal counsel to intervene in the litigation to ensure that the promise 

in the Presidential Proclamation was honored. Thus, far from simply bringing national recognition and assisting to focus Federal resources, this designation brought 

legal battles and unwanted attention to those who had already been protecting 

these lands for generations. 

The County Commissions impacted by the Grande Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument tell of the same harms. The Grande Staircase-Escalante National Monument was created by Presidential Proclamation 6920, dated September 18, 1996. According to that Proclamation, ‘‘All Federal lands and interests in lands within the 

boundaries of this monument are hereby appropriated and withdrawn from entry, 

location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under the public land laws, 

other than by exchange that furthers the protective purposes of the monument.’’ 

However the Proclamation also stated, ‘‘The establishment of this monument is subject to valid existing rights. . . . Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to 

affect existing permits or leases for, or levels of, livestock grazing on Federal lands 

within the monument.’’ 

Despite this lofty language, Kane and Garfield Counties in Utah have suffered severe economic damage as approximately 10,000 animal-unit months (AUMs) of livestock grazing within the Monument have been lost, resulting in a multi-million dollar annual loss to these local economies. Some of these reductions occurred because 

with the new land designation, local ranchers have a more difficult time constructing and/or maintaining range improvements because of the restrictions on or 

closing of roads. Additionally, livestock grazing permits that are renewed have been 

appealed by environmental groups seeking to eliminate economic use of the National 

Monument. 

In 2004, in order to assess the economic impacts due to the permanent or temporary non-use of five grazing allotments on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument, Kane and Garfield Counties hired Dr. John D. Groesbeck, a professor 

of economics at Southern Utah University’s School of Business, to conduct an economic analysis. His report concluded that the loss of grazing animal units within 

the national monument clearly left a void in the economies of the Counties, contributing to a reduction in taxable income generated by each County. His report specifically concluded that the loss of approximately 4,000 grazing ‘‘AUMs’’ meant (1) a 

loss of taxable property values for both Kane and Garfield Counties of approximately $745,200; and (2) the loss of annual sales revenue for both Kane and Garfield Counties of $165,763. He also opined that the dollars generated from sales revenue affiliated with the range-fed cattle industry that would have typically provided 

direct funding for each county and their related municipalities in the forms of sales 

taxes and business property taxes would also be lost, including an estimated 

$24,185 in direct government-related funding during 2004 alone, and an estimated 

$264,819 during the 10-year grazing permit term. 

These are real impacts to private landowners and rural local governments from 

‘‘well-intentioned’’ land use designations by Federal agencies or the Congress. Even 

those continuing uses which are to be protected and respected eventually come 

under attack. It is simply not correct to say that designations such as ‘‘National 

Blueways’’ ‘‘headwaters to mouth’’ have no real impact on local landowners and local 

governments. Simply ask the local landowners and governments who live with a 

Federal designation. 

II. OVERVIEW OF SECRETARIAL ORDER 3321

Secretary’s Order No. 3321 establishes the National Blueways System, a program 

designed to ‘‘recognize river systems conserved through diverse stakeholder partnerships that use a comprehensive watershed approach to resource stewardship.’’ The 

system is intended to provide a new national emphasis on the unique value and significance of a ‘‘headwaters to mouth’’ approach to river management, while encouraging stakeholders to integrate their land and water stewardship efforts by adopting 

a watershed approach. To oversee the effort, Order No. 3321 establishes an intraagency National Blueways Committee. There are no State governments, local governments or private citizens appointed to or represented on the committee. 

Furthermore, Order No. 3321 designated the Connecticut River and Watershed as 

the first National Blueway to serve ‘‘as a model for future designations.’’ The desVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:36 Oct 31, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\05 WATER & POWER\05JY17 1ST SESS\7-17-13 P\82129.TXT MARK
25 

ignation included 7.2 million acres. Less than a year later, the Department designated the White River and Watershed (Arkansas and Missouri) as the second National Blueway. The White River National Blueway encompassed 17.8 million acres, 

700 river miles, 30 to 40 Arkansas counties and 1.2 million people. Yet even with 

this impact and while Interior claimed that there were 31 supporting organizations, 

there were only 2 listed local government sponsors and 2 business sponsors, along 

with 11 Federal agency sponsors. There was not one County listed as supporting 

this designation. Once the local public learned of and understood the designation, 

strong objections were issued to the Department. The Designation of the White 

River National Blueway was withdrawn on July 3, 2013. 

Following those designations, the DOI published notice of its Proposed Information Collection: National Blueways System Application, See 78 Fed. Reg. 26062– 

26063 (May 3, 2013), announcing the collection of public information necessary to 

nominate a river and associated watershed for National Blueway Recognition. Despite the fact that 7.2 million acres across four States and 17.8 million acres across 

two additional States had already been designated as Blueways, the May 3, 2013 

Federal Register notice was the very first opportunity for public comment on any 

aspect of the National Blueways program. 

A. There is No Statutory Authority Supporting the National Blueways Initiative 

Although it may not be ‘‘politically correct,’’ it remains a fact that the Federal administrative agencies are created by the Federal Constitution and the U.S. Congress 

and that they are to only act as directed by the legislative body. Article I, Section 

1, of the U.S. Constitution plainly states that ‘‘[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.’’ Even the ‘‘necessary-andproper’’ clause in the eighth section of Article I recognizes that only Congress has 

the power ‘‘[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into 

Execution the foregoing Powers.’’ 

Additionally, to ensure that the Federal Government would not completely subsume the other branches of government and tip the scales of the ‘‘checks and balances’’ created by the Founding Fathers, James Madison presented to the first U.S. 

Congress a series of 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights) to the United States Constitution. After enumerating specific rights retained by the people in the first 8 

Amendments, the 9th and 10th Amendments again spelled out the principle of limited Federal bureaucracy. In light of that principle, the question before this subcommittee should be whether Congress has enacted a statute which would grant to 

the DOI the authority to create the National Blueways Initiative. A review of the 

statutes cited in Executive Order 3321 shows that the answer is ‘‘No.’’ 

Section 3 of Order No. 3321 notes that ‘‘[t]his order is issued in accordance with 

authority provided under the Take Pride in America Act, Public Law 101–628; the 

Outdoor Recreation Act, Public Law 87–714; and the Cooperative Watershed Management Program of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Public Law 

111–11.’’ See Ken Salazar, Order No. 3321 at 2, sec. 3. The same section states further that, ‘‘bureaus within the Interior have a broad panoply of legal authority to 

carry out their respective missions that support enhancing river recreation, undertaking river restoration, and pursuing river protection initiatives to pass on healthy 

rivers to future generations.’’ While this testimony is not an attempt to assail the 

‘‘broad panoply of legal authority’’ for individual program activities provided to the 

Department, the specific authorities cited in Order No. 3321 do not provide broad 

authority for the designation of a ‘‘headwaters to mouth’’ management program that 

includes private, State and Federal land. 

1. Take Pride in America Act 

The Take Pride in America Act, Pub. L. 101–628, 104 Stat. 4502 (1990), codified 

at 16 U.S.C. §§ 4601–4605, states a purpose and intent: 

[t]o establish and maintain a public awareness campaign in cooperation with public and private organizations and individuals— 

(A) to instill in the public the importance of the appropriate use of, and appreciation for Federal, State, and local lands, facilities, and natural and cultural 

resources; 

(B) to encourage an attitude of stewardship and responsibility toward these 

lands, facilities, and resources; and 

(C) to promote participation by individuals, organizations, and communities of 

a conservation ethic in caring for these lands, facilities, and resources. 

See 16 U.S.C. § 4601(b)(1). Even assuming a reading most favorable to the Department, the statute falls well short of providing any authority to specifically ‘‘desVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:36 Oct 31, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\05 WATER & POWER\05JY17 1ST SESS\7-17-13 P\82129.TXT MARK
26 

2Pursuant to sections 460k–1 and 460k–2 of the Outdoor Recreation Act, the Secretary is also 

authorized to ‘‘acquire areas of land, or interests therein,’’ when such areas meet certain criteria, 

and he may ‘‘cooperate with public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals,’’ including accepting donations of real property. The designation of a Blueway should not be used as 

an excuse for the Federal Government to ‘‘acquire’’ private land. 3Sally Jewell, the current Secretary of the Interior, provided the introduction for the President at his press conference announcing the completion of the AGO Initiative in 2011. 

ignate’’ an entire watershed covering vast amounts of private land. In fact, the statute does little more than authorize the Department to instill, encourage, and/or promote public involvement in the stewardship of our Nation’s resources. To argue that 

the statute provides authority for the designation of watersheds concurrent with the 

Department’s independent Bureaus endeavoring to ‘‘align the execution of agency 

plans and implementation of agency programs to protect, restore, and enhance the 

natural cultural, and/or recreation resources associated with designated National 

Blueways’’ is a significant overreach. See Order No. 3321, at 3, sec 6(d). 

2. Outdoor Recreation Act 

The Department also cites to the Outdoor Recreation Act, Pub. L. No. 87–714, 76 

Stat. 653 (1962), codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 460k–460k-4. That statute authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to ‘‘to administer such areas [i.e.—areas within the National Wildlife Refuge System, national fish hatcheries, and other conservation 

areas administered by the Secretary of the Interior for fish and wildlife purposes] 

or parts thereof for public recreation when in his judgment public recreation can be 

an appropriate incidental or secondary use.’’ See id. § 460k. Because designated 

Blueways do not constitute the areas outlined by the statute,2 the Outdoor Recreation Act does not provide the statutory authority for the National Blueways Initiative. Additionally the Outdoor Recreation Act only applies to lands within the jurisdiction of certain Interior bureaus and agencies, not to private land. 

3. Cooperative Watershed Management Program of the Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act of 2009 

The DOI also rests its authority on the Cooperative Watershed Management Program of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–11, 

123 Stat. 1165 (2009), codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1015–1015b. While this statute provides authority for Interior to create and establish a watershed program that emphasizes many of the same goals as the National Blueways System, it remains that 

the program authorized by this particular statute is a specific, separate, and distinct 

program that is currently operated by specific Bureaus within the Department. See 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cooperative Watershed 

Management Program, available at http://www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART/cwmp/ 

index.html (last visited June 25, 2013). Simply, this statute does not apply to the 

millions of acres of State and private lands included with a Blueway’s designation. 

4. America’s Great Outdoors Initiative 

The most disturbing ‘‘authority’’ for the National Blueways Initiative is its undeniable connection to a document entitled ‘‘America’s Great Outdoors: A Promise to 

Future Generations’’ (hereinafter ‘‘AGO Initiative’’). The AGO Initiative was based 

upon a Presidential Memorandum signed by President Obama on April 16, 2010. 

The Presidential Order and its resulting AGO Initiative clearly defines the administration’s view toward using Federal agency fiat, rather than Congressional authorization, to support the goals of the Presidency regarding Federal (and private) land 

and resource management. The Memorandum required the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, the Chair of the Council of Environmental Quality and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct ‘‘listening sessions’’ 

throughout the United States and to prepare recommendations on ‘‘reigniting our 

historic commitment to conserving and enjoying the magnificent natural heritage 

that has shaped our Nation and its citizens.’’ Although public ‘‘listening and learning sessions’’ were held, there was no public comment opportunity pursuant to the 

APA prior to the issuance of the final report in February 2011.3 That report contained 111 pages and hundreds of recommendations to ‘‘begin implementation of 

this 21st century conservation agenda.’’ These recommendations are now being implemented through administrative agency guidance documents (including Secretarial Orders, such as Order 3321). The AGO Initiative is also the source for other, 

equally concerning programs impacting private property and Federal multiple use 

lands. These programs include: 

27 

4 At the end of the Bush II administration, there were 100 National Monuments, located in 

27 States, totaling 12,091,930 acres. President Teddy Roosevelt established the first National 

Monument, Devils Tower, in Wyoming in 1906. President Bill Clinton created the most National 

Monuments, 19 plus the expansion of 3 existing monuments. Only Richard Nixon, Ronald 

Reagan and George H.W. Bush did not create any new monuments under the Antiquities Act. 

Should the Obama plans come to fruition, the amount of land within the National Monument 

system would almost double under one administration. 

a. Secretarial Order 3323: Establishment of the America’s Great Outdoors 

Program 

On September 12, 2012, then Interior Secretary Salazar signed Secretarial Order 

(‘‘SO’’) 3323: Establishment of the America’s Great Outdoors Program to ‘‘formalize[] 

the Department’s America’s Great Outdoors Program with a vision of connecting 

Americans to the outdoors and conserving and restoring America’s land, water and 

wildlife.’’ My concern with the SO is not with its list of lofty goals ‘‘promoting conservation’’ but with the fact that the SO designates 20 specific ‘‘Landscapes of National Significance;’’ 28 different ‘‘Landscapes of Regional Significance;’’ 58 different 

‘‘Rivers and Water Trails’’ and 19 different ‘‘Great Urban Parks and Wildlife Areas.’’ 

The question with the SO is not whether these areas should be protected and conserved, but rather whether the private landowners and State and local governments 

included in these designations even have knowledge regarding these designations, 

let alone support them. It is one thing to conduct public listening sessions at the 

Nation’s college campuses as was done to develop the AGO Initiative, but it is quite 

another to make a wish list of 125 on-the-ground designations without public input, 

including the input of affected State and local governments and private property 

owners. 

b. Secretarial Order 3289: Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 

Another Interior SO is entitled ‘‘Order No. 3289: Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land and Other Natural and Cultural Resources.’’ The only authority given for this SO is Section 2 of the Reorganization 

Plan No. 3 of 1950 (64. Stat. 1262), as amended. This SO suggests strategies to address sea level rise, including the acquisition of upland habitat and creation of wetlands, investment in new wildlife corridors, and consideration of ways to reduce the 

Department’s carbon footprint. The SO also grants additional authority to the 

USGS’ regional science centers, whose original mission was to ‘‘develop[] regional 

science centers to provide climate change impact data and analysis in response to 

the needs of fish and wildlife managers as they develop adaptation strategies in response to climate change.’’ The SO now has expanded that mission to ‘‘synthesize 

and integrate climate change impact data and develop tools that the Department’s 

managers and partners can use when managing the Department’s land, water, fish 

and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources.’’ This mission creep is concerning considering that with a few exceptions, the jurisdiction for fish and wildlife management resides with the individual States and, again with a few exceptions, water is 

owned and managed by the individual States. 

SO 3289 also created a program called ‘‘Landscape Conservation Cooperatives’’ 

(‘‘LCC’’). Among other things, LCCs direct the BLM to focus its land use planning 

efforts on ‘‘conservation and restoration’’ to make ‘‘all lands’’ more resilient to climate change and protect wildlife corridors that cross Federal lands. There are 22 

designated landscapes in America, the boundaries of which did not include any 

input from State or local governments. See Exhibit 1. In this SO, there is also no 

mention of the Taylor Grazing Act or the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, which 

actually set forth Congress’ direction to the BLM for management of the public 

lands. 

c. New National Monument/Antiquities Act Designations 

On February 14, 2010, the public learned that the Obama administration was 

considering limiting the multiple use on over 10 million acres of Federal/public land, 

by possibly designating 14 new National Monuments under the Antiquities Act.4

While the designation of National Monuments is technically to only include the minimum amount of land necessary to preserve America’s ‘‘antiquities,’’ in recent years, 

these designations have been significantly larger and have had a severe negative 

impact on the tax base in many western communities and counties. But because National Monuments are designated under the Antiquities Act pursuant to a Presidential Executive order, there is limited legal recourse in opposing the designations 

in Federal court. 

28 

5The Cooperative Watershed Management Program should not be confused with the December 2012 MOU creating ‘‘large-scale landscape and watershed conservation demonstration 

areas.’’ This MOU cites as its authority, ‘‘This agreement is based on existing authorities including the President’s Memorandum of April 16, 2010: A 21st Century Strategy for America’s Great 

Outdoors, 75 Fed. Reg. 20767 (April 20, 2010), and various authorities within the context of the 

laws or regulations governing specific programs administered by the agencies.’’ The MOU directs 

the nine ‘‘Federal family’’ members to coordinate the already established watershed teams on 

specific ‘‘landscapes and watersheds across the Country.’’ 

d. Secretarial Order 3310: Interior’s Wild Lands Policy 

Another change from the multiple use mandate that was implemented in response 

to the AGO Initiative was Interior’s Wild Lands policy. That policy required the 

BLM, as part of its land use planning duties, to inventory and map lands with wilderness characteristics outside existing designated Wilderness or wilderness study 

areas. These inventories were to be ‘‘integrated’’ into [BLM’s] land management decisions. This policy was strongly criticized throughout the West and was ‘‘de-funded’’ 

by Congress. On or about June 11, 2011, Secretary Salazar withdrew the Secretarial 

Order. 

However, although the SO was withdrawn, the BLM handbook and manual requirements were not changed and the BLM is still complying with the Wild Lands 

SO by complying with the agency’s manuals and handbooks and mapping ‘‘Lands 

With Wilderness Characteristics’’ (‘‘LWC’’). As a specific Wyoming example, the 

BLM, as part of the Big Horn Basin resource management plan, included a layer 

of BLM inventoried LWCs. So while the requirement to ‘‘manage’’ those inventoried 

lands under a specific heading called ‘‘Wild Lands’’ has been withdrawn, the inventories of these lands as LWCs are still noted and included in BLM’s land use plans 

as an information layer, which will inform future agency management decisions. 

B. Assuming Arguendo There is Appropriate Statutory Authority for Order 3321, 

There are Significant Flaws With the Order Itself 

Assuming arguendo that the Department possesses the necessary authority for 

the National Blueways Program, there are significant flaws in the program’s implementation. First, the Department’s materials, specifically the ‘‘Draft Application Instructions,’’ note that for ‘‘multi-state watersheds,’’ only one State sponsor is required, in addition to the Federal Sponsor. Since Blueways consists of multiple 

States and are ‘‘nationally and regionally significant rivers and their watersheds,’’ 

it is probable that most, if not all, designated systems will be comprised of ‘‘multistate watersheds.’’ Given the significant impact of these designations to State and 

local citizens, economies and local governments, any proposed designation should receive a State sponsorship from each and every State, as well as the support of a 

majority of the impacted local governments. Similarly, before any National Blueway 

is designated, Interior should specifically inform and allow adequate time for the entire Congressional delegation of the impacted State(s) to respond. 

Second, the DOI is not required to review relevant local land use and management plans from impacted local governments. Many rural counties and conservation 

districts have officially adopted land use or natural resources management plans 

that reflect the local entities’ position on Federal and/or State land management decisions. Furthermore, Federal statutes, including the NEPA and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act, require Federal agencies making land management decisions to review and discuss any inconsistency of the proposed Federal action with 

local government plans. Where inconsistencies exists, the Federal agency should 

take steps to reconcile its actions with local plans. See e.g. 40 CFR §§ 1506.2 and 

1506.2(d); see also, e.g. 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(9) and 16 U.S.C. § 1604(a). As established 

by the current SO, National Blueways designations violate these statutes. 

Third, the Department’s materials repeatedly note a commitment to address and 

coordinate with local stakeholders. However, the Department’s materials do not define or elaborate on who or what constitutes an applicable stakeholder. In contrast, 

the statute authorizing the Cooperative Watershed Management Programs 5 specifically identifies stakeholders and requires, where appropriate, their participation. 

Example stakeholders in that case include, but are not limited to, representatives 

of: hydroelectric production; livestock grazing; timber production; land development; 

recreation or tourism; irrigated agricultural production; the environment; potable 

water purveyors and industrial water users; private property owners; and local 

agencies with authority within the watershed. At a minimum these same stakeholders should also be notified and included in a decision to designate a Blueway. 

Additionally, the Blueways application instructions require the identification of 

‘‘member organizations, municipalities, agencies, and other stakeholders . . . supporting the proposed recognition as a National Blueway.’’ While broad, the applicaVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:36 Oct 31, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\05 WATER & POWER\05JY17 1ST SESS\7-17-13 P\82129.TXT MARK
29 

tion requirements do not include the identification of organizations, municipalities, 

agencies, and other stakeholders not supporting the proposed recognition as a National Blueway. This is unfortunate given that the Department does not provide notice and opportunity for comment to the public at large. 

Fourth, is the lack of specificity for designation. The Department’s responses to 

questions submitted by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Staff following a 

January 28, 2013 briefing by Interior’s Senior Advisor Rebecca Wodder state that 

‘‘the diversity of the partnership, having a shared vision, goals and objectives, the 

condition of the river and watershed, and having a strategy to integrate land and 

water management actions to achieve shared outcomes are the key elements of the 

evaluation, rather than the mix of public and private land.’’ The concern here is that 

none of the key elements are defined, explained, or measured by any quantifiable 

factors. For example, when evaluating the ‘‘condition of the river,’’ what types of 

conditions make it more or less likely that a proposed Blueway will be designated? 

Explanations of these key elements, including quantifiable factors, standards, or 

thresholds for the evaluation of a Blueway’s nomination, must be defined prior to 

this program moving forward. 

Fifth, following the Secretary’s Order, the DOI entered into a Memorandum of 

Understanding (‘‘MOU’’) with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of 

the Army to ‘‘establish a framework for collaborative efforts to identify and create 

opportunities to work together as partners to accomplish shared, compatible, and 

priority conservation, restoration, outdoor recreation, environmental education, and 

sustainable economic objectives in support of the National Blueways System as a 

whole, and specific designated National Blueways.’’ The MOU established several 

objectives, including: (1) Conserving, protecting, and enhancing the natural diversity 

and abundance of fish and wildlife species, and the ecosystems upon which these 

species depend; (2) restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the Nation’s waters; and (3) Integrating and adaptively managing the 

land and water resources, including agricultural and working lands and waters, 

within the National Blueways System consistent with applicable laws. 

According to the MOU, compliance is to be voluntary and non-regulatory. What 

is concerning is that one MOU objective is taken directly from the Clean Water Act. 

See Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (stating the Congressional declaration of goals and policy as the ‘‘restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.’’). It is 

hard to understand how the objectives in an MOU implementing the AGO Initiative 

and National Blueways can be voluntary and mandatory at the same time. 

Finally, the designation of huge watershed systems buttressed by lofty objectives 

such as: ‘‘restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of the Nation’s water’’ or ‘‘conserving, protecting, and enhancing the natural diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife species, and the ecosystems upon which 

these species depend,’’ will in fact increase the regulatory burden and scrutiny in 

local areas while at the same time removing local control and autonomy. Section 

5(d) of Order No. 3321 states that ‘‘Bureaus within Interior, to the extent permitted 

by law and consistent with their missions, policies, and resources, shall endeavor 

to align the execution of agency plans and implementation of agency programs to 

protect, restore, and enhance the natural, cultural, and/or recreational resources associated with designated National Blueways.’’ This statement is reinforced in the 

Joint ‘‘Memorandum of Understanding,’’ which states that the Secretary’s Order ‘‘directs Interior to align the implementation of all plans and programs in Interior with 

the National Blueways System.’’ This ‘‘realignment’’ of the missions of Interior’s bureaus and agencies will likely have the unintended consequence of focusing regulatory scrutiny and burden, largely from established statutes and regulations, into 

the designated Blueway area, if not by the bureau, but by litigation from radical 

environmental interests. As a result, the non-regulatory program may bring a heavier regulatory hand. Relatedly, this may serve to undermine and replace local governmental control and administration of resource conservation and management, 

with Federal agency mandates and edicts. The Department’s use of designated National Blueways, either independently or in conjunction with other programs created 

by the AGO Initiative, such as Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, should not be 

used to expand the Federal Government’s power into areas currently managed by 

local governmental entities and beyond the Federal Government’s control. 

I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony to you. I would be happy 

to respond to any questions by the committee. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much for 

your testimony, and all of you, for your attendance today. We will 

30 

now go to 5-minute questions from the Members. And the Chair 

will begin with Judge Griffin. 

We were told earlier that the Blueways are voluntary, it is an 

open process, it is a designation in name only. Why is that objectionable? 

Judge GRIFFIN. As long as it is truly voluntary—we participate 

in programs every day that are voluntary. But the—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Did you find it to be voluntary? 

Judge GRIFFIN. I apologize. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Did your community find the designation of 

the White River to be voluntary? 

Judge GRIFFIN. There was no one notified it was even happening, 

so it certainly was not voluntary. It was compulsory. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Justice, was that your impression, as 

well? 

Mr. JUSTICE. There were 16 counties that people around me have 

talked to that their county commissioners had signed letters that 

they knew nothing about this. So if the very people who were responsible for the operation of these counties knew nothing about it 

and signed letters to say such—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So it is voluntary, then, in the sense that it 

is imposed upon you without consultation. 

Mr. JUSTICE. To the best of my knowledge, that is the way to say 

it. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. A new definition of the word, as far as I can 

tell. 

Mr. JUSTICE. The only thing I have ever volunteered for is when 

someone asked me if I wanted to do it and I said yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We just heard testimony that this designation 

would enhance recreational opportunities by giving the river a little 

special recognition, that is all. What is not to like about that? 

Mr. JUSTICE. Well, there was a letter posted on the Department 

of the Interior’s Web site by a lady named Debbie Doss, the Conservation Chair of Arkansas Conservation Coalition. She said this 

was like winning a beauty contest. Well, in a beauty contest, don’t 

you first decide to enter; second, prepare for it; and third, want to 

be judged? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But if it is simply a matter of putting pretty 

signs up saying that this is a National Blueways river, what is 

wrong with that? 

Judge GRIFFIN. Let me point out the wording, Mr. Chairman, of 

‘‘limiting human encroachment into the flood plain.’’ That does not 

seem to be very recreational-minded. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Limiting human encroachment into the flood 

plain, well, that would include things like, what, river rafting and 

fishing and probably all the stuff that Mr. Bacon’s folks do. What, 

exactly, do you do over there in your neck of the woods? 

Mr. BACON. Fly fishing, rafting, kayaking. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well—— 

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Don’t you realize you are encroaching on the 

flood plain in the river? 

Mr. BACON. Yes. 

31 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And it doesn’t bother you that the Federal 

Government is producing a designation that could well end up banning your activities? 

Mr. BACON. I think one key difference in our circumstance, Mr. 

Chairman, than the other members of the panel is that we operate 

almost predominantly on Federal land. We do not have the same 

kind of private land issues—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Let me warn you about the commercial operators that are doing business in the Yosemite Valley and have for 

nearly 100 years. River rafting rentals, bicycle rentals, horseback 

riding rentals, the National Park Service is now seeking to remove 

all of those enterprises from the Yosemite Valley floor. 

And, by the way, the reason that is often stated in meetings is 

because these are commercial enterprises and commercial enterprises are incompatible with the public lands. In fact, they go to 

great lengths to assure us that bicycle riding and horseback riding 

will still be allowed, it just cannot be commercially provided on the 

Valley floor. Wouldn’t a similar policy affect your operation? 

Mr. BACON. It would. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, what do you think of that sentiment, 

that commercial enterprises are incompatible with our public 

lands? 

Mr. BACON. I will not contest that there are case-by-case challenges throughout the country and around the United States where 

public recreation and commercial outfitting is challenged by our 

land management agencies. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, I think that you will find you are taking 

a giant step in that direction and running athwart of a warning 

often given by Ronald Reagan, which was if you get in bed with 

the Federal Government, you better expect something more than a 

good night’s sleep. 

Mr. BACON. Point taken. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Judge Griffin, your testimony talked about 

how the White River Blueways Commission documents targeted 

three hydroelectric dams owned by the city of Batesville, Arkansas, 

because they reduced fish passage. Could you tell me very briefly 

about those dams and what the outcome could have been under the 

White River Blueway? 

Judge GRIFFIN. Each of those create a pool of water, probably 6 

to 8 feet deep. They increase the fishing area and enhance that. 

But also, the critical thing is actually irrigation water and water 

for the substance of people, 25,000 people, that are in that area 

that depend on that pool of water for drinking water. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Ranking Member Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bacon, your 

experience as an outfitter and a taxpayer, do you think it makes 

sense for the variety of Federal agencies who are engaged in management of our Nation’s water resources to better coordinate their 

efforts to support local initiatives and to maximize efficiency? 

Mr. BACON. I would say of course. I think coordination is our single biggest opportunity when dealing with multiple Federal agencies. I would say, most importantly there needs to be a cultural 

change within our agencies to become—specifically we deal with 

the Forest Service almost predominantly, to really put the Forest 

32 

Service in the recreation business and acknowledge that recreation 

is a fundamental component to its mission delivery. 

So, coordination, yes. I agree with that statement. We have to 

make sure that our agencies are in the recreation business, and 

that we do everything on a line-coordinated approach. Ultimately, 

private business, private enterprise using our public lands is what 

is creating the jobs, the economic impact that we have talked 

about. So our land agencies need to facilitate that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Well, nominations for the 

Blueways are submitted by localities to the Department of the Interior. Is that correct? 

Mr. BACON. That is my understanding. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So maybe DOI didn’t totally reach out to every 

single aspect of those that should have been involved, and shame 

on them if they didn’t. 

Mr. BACON. It seems to me, without knowing a lot of the details, 

that there are process issues that the Department of the Interior 

needs to address. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, hopefully this new Secretary will take 

care of that. 

In your testimony, sir, you state 80 percent of the county is federally owned and managed. That is really on par with most of our 

counties in the West. But in your experience, it is a given that in 

a county with substantial Federal land ownership, the economy 

does not have to suffer. Is that correct? 

Mr. BACON. Yes, ma’am. That is correct. We have numerous examples in the Southeastern United States, where we operate. We 

almost have exclusively all Federal lands and create millions of dollars of economic impact. Gatlinburg, Tennessee, for example, is a 

10-square-mile island in the middle of a Great Smokey Mountains 

National Park, and it generates $500 million of direct consumer 

spending, leveraging the national park. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So then it behooves both areas, not only the 

Federal Government, but also entities that know that this might 

happen, to not interfere, but rather inject into the conversation 

things that they feel are important. 

Mr. BACON. Absolutely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Are there ways the working collaborative with 

stakeholders, local, the State, the Federal, and, don’t forget, the 

partners, as you say, in business, people like you, that a community can thrive, even when the Federal taxpayers own substantial 

amounts of land in those areas? 

Mr. BACON. I think the key is alignment within stakeholders. 

Whereas, many different business interests—local interests, government interests, landowner interests—can sometimes be in conflict, here in western North Carolina we find common ground on 

rallying around the travel and tourism industry, specifically 

throughout recreation component of the travel and tourism industry. The rising tide truly does lift all boats. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And, of course, they also value the protection 

of those rivers to ensure their health, and also of the watersheds, 

because it is important to them and to the ag areas. 

Mr. BACON. Absolutely. If it weren’t for the protection of our watersheds, the enhancement of recreation areas, and the protection 

33 

of our natural resources, our guests would not recreate and come 

to the mountains to enjoy all of these wonderful businesses that 

offer services there. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Which is a job creator. Mr. Justice, can you 

give me an exact instance of a new regulation that would have 

been created due to the Blueway designation? 

Mr. JUSTICE. No, ma’am, I can’t, because that has not been defined yet. But the parallel that I made between that and the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverway, I think, is a good indication of what 

could possibly happen. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Could possibly happen. 

Mr. JUSTICE. Yes, ma’am, due to precedent. There have been 

some ideas that some of the regulation of the Blueway is to keep 

our cattle 180 feet away from the river. That completely destroys 

our cattle industry. If you look at the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways to where the conservation department has put boulders 

in front of some of the boating access points, and they have made 

regulations to where you can’t ride horses in the water, completely 

opposite of the way that our rivers should be managed. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, there are some concerns about contamination of river waters, including some of the—I would say manure 

in other river run-off from agriculture. So we need to ensure that 

we protect those rivers for the health of not only the business entities, but also the communities that use it for drinking water. 

And, Mr. Chair, I reserve any balance of my time for later. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We will credit you with three seconds. Mrs. 

Lummis? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Budd-Falen, thank 

you and welcome. Thank you for coming. The order that designated 

this Blueway designation says that nomination of a river may be 

done by any established stakeholder partnership. But it does not 

define this term. Do you think that might allow a far-removed, 

non-governmental special interest to nominate a river, regardless 

of local concern or opposition? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Oh, I absolutely think that, because the order 

doesn’t require any kind of public input, it does not require the 

agreement of the States. Specifically, it does not include any requirement of local government knowledge. A stakeholder could be 

somebody from New York City nominating the Yellowstone River 

in Wyoming. And that would clearly not be right for the people in 

Wyoming. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Now, in your testimony you mentioned that local 

governments already have comprehensive land and water conservation plans. So, my question is, what would happen to this local 

planning under the Blueways implementation if the Federal goal 

conflicts with local conservation plans? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. The way the Blueways order is written right 

now is that the local plan would be subservient and would probably 

vanish. In Wyoming, conservation districts write these local land 

use plans based on State statute with absolute input of all of the 

people in that local area. And it is these people that are going to 

really understand that watershed. Because, clearly, a watershed in 

34 

northeast Wyoming is not the same as a watershed in southwest 

Wyoming. 

And so, what you are going to have with these kind of Federal 

designations is all of these locally carefully crafted on-the-ground 

plans are going to be diminished because you have a Federal Government, top-down, one-size-fits-all from Washington that has not 

worked well for the West in the past, and I can’t believe it will in 

the future. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Ms. Budd-Falen, also in your testimony you suggest that the non-regulatory Blueway designation can be the basis 

for lawsuits. Can you explain that further? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Yes, I can. As this congressional body knows, 

I have been heavily involved in looking at lawsuits from radical environmental groups. Most of these lawsuits involve challenges to 

Federal land use plans. They don’t challenge the land use plan or 

the Federal designation on the merits. They challenge through 

some procedural process. And we have even had testimony and information by these radical groups saying that they are only doing 

this to wear down Federal land managers so they simply do what 

these groups want. 

These kind of designations harm hundreds of people who are trying to make a living on the land. We have to intervene in this litigation. We have done studies based on grazing litigation, where the 

permittees have to intervene in these groups with the Federal 

agencies. It can cost anywhere between $35,000 and $100,000 for 

a grazing permittee to try to intervene in litigation by an environmental group. And, as you know, these environmental groups get 

their funding paid back, in terms of attorneys fees, from the Federal Government. And I can guarantee you that will happen with 

this designation, as it has with every single other either congressional designation or national monument designation or other 

agency designation. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So, even though the Blueways Secretarial Order is 

just that, a secretarial order, is there still a threat of lawsuit and 

litigation? And does it constitute a regulatory burden? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. It absolutely is a threat of litigation because 

if you have a group that does not believe that the Blueway is being 

managed in terms of how the Department of the Interior designated it, because they believe that Interior ought to consider 

more environmental protection or different kinds of recreation, 

there will be Federal court litigation. There is simply no reason to 

not litigate by these groups. And that will absolutely harm the individuals, including the recreationists, who are relying on that permit, or that lease, or that ability to use that land. It is absolutely 

a regulatory burden to have to defend the Federal Government, 

just to get your lease or permit from the Federal Government. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. A quick question for Judge Griffin. The 

stakeholder partnership that nominated the White River, was it 

being driven more by Federal officials or local officials? 

Judge GRIFFIN. It was driven entirely by Federal officials, in concert with programs that were going on with the local people. 

Mr. Chairman, could you indulge me one moment to address the 

Ranking Member’s question? 

35 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Unfortunately, the gentlelady’s time has expired, but we may get to that in a future question. 

Mr. Huffman for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have heard a lot today 

about how this program might lead to certain things, might be interpreted certain ways, could have certain effects that could lead 

to other effects. And I would like to try to dial this back in to what 

has actually occurred thus far in the real world. 

We have heard a question about potentially far-removed NGO’s 

and special interests could sort of parachute in and propose designation of Blueways. Can any of the witnesses tell me about a situation where that has actually happened, where far-removed special interests have come into a watershed and actually proposed a 

designation that was accepted by the Department of the Interior? 

Can anyone identify an example of that? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. How about the suggestion that this Blueways designation could somehow preempt local plans and authorities? Could 

anyone tell me an example of where this Blueway designation has 

been proposed, and that has had some sort of preemptive effect 

that invalidated or trumped local plans and local authorities? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. How about any regulatory effect at all? Can anyone identify any regulatory power that the Blueway designation actually creates for any Federal agency. Anything? 

Judge GRIFFIN. I—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Any specific—yes. 

Judge GRIFFIN. I would like to address that one. And I believe 

you are an attorney by trade, Mr. Huffman? 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Yes, I am guilty of that, yes. 

Judge GRIFFIN. The thing that I see is when the Secretary of the 

Interior, in section 3—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. But, sir, I want to just ask, with all due respect, 

a specific answer to my question, which is can you identify any specific regulatory power that Blueways designation creates for—— 

Judge GRIFFIN. Section three. It implies there are broad powers 

existing to create the—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Implies. Does it create any new authority? 

Judge GRIFFIN. Not that I am aware. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. What about property rights? There 

has been a suggestion that this could devalue or encroach upon or 

violate property rights. Is anyone familiar with a situation where 

a Blueways designation has harmed anyone’s property rights? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. How about water rights? Anyone lost any water 

as a result of the Blueways designation? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Anyone been denied the ability to build something 

because it was alleged to encroach on the flood plain? Anything like 

that? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. What about recreation? Has anyone been prevented from recreating because of a Blueways designation or proposed Blueways designation? 

36 

[No response.] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I am not hearing that. There was a suggestion 

that cattle might be kept 180 feet back if there was a Blueways 

designation. Has anyone ever been told they have to manage their 

cattle differently because a Blueways designation was proposed? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Any specifics? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Any other type of access to a river or a watershed 

that has been affected in any way by the consideration or the actual designation of a Blueways? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Well, it is kind of interesting that we have had 

what is an entirely hypothetical discussion here today about a program that, frankly, has been paused, even though it has not had 

any of the effects that folks have raised as concerns, but has, nevertheless, been paused so that there can be even extra consideration given to make sure that it is compatible with all the different 

stakeholders in these watersheds. But I think there is some perspective and context that we really need to bring to this discussion 

that has been missing from a lot of the testimony that we have 

heard. 

I just have one more question in the time that has been allowed 

from the gentlelady from Wyoming. You mentioned several times 

radical environmental groups. Can you identify an environmental 

group for me that is not radical, or does that just automatically get 

joined in to the name, there? If you are an environmental group are 

you radical, or is there someone out there in the environmental 

community that maybe is not radical? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Actually, I can. If you look at local conservation groups, at groups that are environmental groups that are local 

in a small area and dealing with issues on the ground in that particular area, I do not believe that those groups are radical. The 

groups that I am talking about are groups that are national groups 

that, when you look at their Web site, that they have an agenda 

to drive livestock grazing, timbering, mining, and recreation off the 

Federal lands. And I can actually give you a list of those, if you 

would like them. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I would love to hear the ones that you would have 

at least more trust and confidence in that you would regard as nonradical. 

But, in any event, I just have a few seconds left. Let me reiterate 

that in California we have been working for decades to get people 

out of their bunkers working together to avoid heavy-handed regulation through these collaborative efforts. I think it is a good thing, 

and I would like to see that program brought to our State. I yield 

back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Tipton of Colorado. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to be able 

to enter into the record a letter from the National Cattleman’s Beef 

Association opposing a Blueways designation. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Without objection. 

Mr. TIPTON. For many of the reasons that have been cited for 

concerns that my good friend and colleague out of California cited, 

37 

they are concerned, concerned about the heavy hand of the Federal 

Government coming in. Not through this Congress, not through 

talking to you or talking to me, or any other member of this committee, but by executive fiat making these designations. And 

maybe we can help find a few answers to a couple of the questions 

that you did pose. 

When we look at the White River designation, it is in the incorporating document for the proposed designation under the Blueway 

system to be able to have a 180-foot buffer zone on private property. Judge, would you call that a taking? 

Judge GRIFFIN. That would be a taking, yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Ms. Budd-Falen, would you call that a taking? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Yes, sir, I would. 

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Justice, is that a taking? 

Mr. JUSTICE. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. 

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Bacon, would you consider that a taking? 

Mr. BACON. I am not familiar with it. 

Mr. TIPTON. OK. So the Federal Government, by executive fiat, 

would set themselves up in a position to be able to come in and 

designate 180 foot on either side of a river, to be able to tell you 

what to do with the property. That is a genuine threat. That is an 

actual taking and an impact that is going to have a real impact on 

a lot of our farmers and ranchers. Fortunately, the White River 

was withdrawn from consideration as a Blueways, because the public, the people who actually live there, stood up and said, ‘‘We don’t 

want this.’’ 

You have already testified that no locals were actually incorporated into the discussion. But we are talking about some of the 

outside groups that were maybe coming in and helping to push for 

a designation. Let’s look at the White River, the National Wildlife 

Refuge Association, the Nature Conservancy District, Ducks Unlimited, some good groups. Not arguing that these are bad groups. But 

not all of them are invested in those areas. 

In the West, Ms. Budd-Falen, in the West is water a private 

property right? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. TIPTON. Do you have State laws in Wyoming? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Do you have priority-based systems in Wyoming? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Yes, we do. 

Mr. TIPTON. Do you think it is appropriate for the Federal Government to be able to come in and start upsetting not only State 

law priority systems, but effectively taking private property rights 

through designation? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. No, I do not. 

Mr. TIPTON. You see any solutions? Do you have any comments 

on that, Judge? 

Judge GRIFFIN. I am sorry, Representative Tipton. 

Mr. TIPTON. Do you have some comments? Do you think it is the 

appropriate place for the Federal Government to be coming in and 

upsetting State law, priority-based systems and private property 

rights in regards to water? 

Judge GRIFFIN. Absolutely not, not when 80 percent of the people 

that own land do not wish to participate. 

38 

Mr. TIPTON. Do you see a problem—and is this an arrogance 

typically out of this administration, assuming that everything is 

community property, and that they have a right on high in Washington, DC to come down into Arkansas and to Wyoming, to be able 

to go out through our States and to be able to make designations 

without passing a bill through the Congress? 

Judge GRIFFIN. I think that any designation should have its origin only in Congress. And, thereupon, having vetting in the proper 

legislative process. 

Mr. TIPTON. Maybe we can run through a couple of questions 

here real quick, if you wouldn’t mind. We are a little short on time. 

Under the Secretarial Order creating the Blueways program, can 

any entity nominate? You guys have lived it. 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Yes? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Yes. Any entity can nominate a national 

Blueway. 

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Bacon? 

Mr. BACON. I believe so. 

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Justice? 

Mr. JUSTICE. That is what I believe it says. 

Mr. TIPTON. Judge? 

Judge GRIFFIN. I believe so. 

Mr. TIPTON. OK. Can that entity be a non-governmental entity 

outside the base and not accountable to the State or local governments? We just talked about that. Is that accurate? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. That is accurate. 

Mr. TIPTON. No arguments back on that. Can the National 

Blueway Committee composed entirely of Federal bureaucrats designate a Blueway once it has been nominated through what appears to be a flawed process? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Yes. There are no State or local participants 

at all on that national committee. 

Mr. TIPTON. Any other comments on that? 

[No response.] 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. So, Federal bureaucrats will be the ultimate 

decisionmakers on tri-state areas like the 44 million-acre Yellowstone River watershed, even though landowners, local and State 

governments that manage the land as well are going to be excluded. 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. That is correct. 

Mr. TIPTON. So the Federal Government will come in and do this. 

Well, interestingly enough, we just had a meeting earlier today 

with Secretary Jewell with the Department of the Interior. She 

noted that they were having a pause on the Blueways program, a 

pause on the Blueways program because it is obviously fundamentally flawed. They are going to be looking back to be able to examine this. I would certainly like to encourage you and encourage this 

Congress to stand up for State rights, for the priority-based systems, and the water law and private property rights of the American citizen, and not let this happen by executive fiat. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gosar of Arizona. 

39 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for this 

hearing. 

What I am very disappointed in is the administration couldn’t be 

bothered to provide a witness today. I think we have given plenty 

of testimony from both sides that we needed to have somebody 

from the Interior to actually talk about the implementation of the 

National Blueways program. 

In my district, Rebecca Wodder has been traveling the country 

basically selling folks in our district a false bill of goods and promising Federal dollars in exchange for the Blueways designation. 

That is exactly what occurred in my State. Some well-intentioned 

local officials in my district, looking for any way to get resources 

to preserve the ecologically important Verde River, have expressed 

interest in the program after hearing Wodder’s promises. I am committed to working with those folks on issues pertaining to the 

Verde River, but I am specifically concerned about the Blueways 

designation that would bring the potential burdens that it would 

impose on the resource management in exchange for this funding 

priority at Interior. 

Ultimately, the Department must come to Congress to authorize, 

as many of these guests have said. And these types of overarching 

land and water management decisions are very, very important. 

Ms. Budd-Falen, I mean, trust is a series of promises kept, right? 

Is that a good definition? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Not when you are dealing with the Federal 

Government, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. I am loving that conversation now. So tell me what 

the Federal Government has actually done to uphold our trust in 

the Western States? I grew up in Pinedale, by the way. 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Oh. 

Dr. GOSAR. I am one of those Gosars. 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Oh, cool. 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes, yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. The Federal Government, for example, promised that livestock grazing would not be affected on the Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument. There are now very few 

livestock grazing permits on the Grand Staircase-Escalante, even 

though the proclamation specifically protected livestock grazing. 

But because the bureaucracy of simply trying to renew permits and 

bring permits together, and through a series of litigation by environmental groups, those permits have been eliminated, costing 

those local governments hundreds of thousands of dollars that 

recreation, even in that beautiful area, is never going to replace. 

Dr. GOSAR. We haven’t even started talking about the Endangered Species Act, have we? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. No, sir, we have not. 

Dr. GOSAR. That would have been a great one, folks, to pick up 

over there, because that is implied everywhere. I mean that has 

been an implication on the Federal lands, period, all the way across 

the board. And it has had a disastrous effect on economies, private 

land ownership, and everything else. 

How do you see this, in this specific adjunct, and the way you 

put things together, Ms. Budd-Falen, when you see waters of the 

40 

United States and the designation of the blue waters particularly, 

how do you see those conceived basically over-arching and taking 

jurisdiction from private and State, local jurisdictions? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. The problem is it happens very subtly. This is 

not something that they designate and all of a sudden uses are 

stopped. It is something that happens over a period of years, as bureaucrats gain more power over the people, particularly in the 

West. 

I think we understand it better, because we live with Federal bureaucracies granting everything that we do, whether it is a term 

grazing permit or an oil and gas lease, or whatever is keeping 

these rural communities alive. And so we understand what it is 

like to have the bureaucracy, time after time, be on top of you. 

In the West now we are dealing not only with this, but with sage 

grouse issues, and what happens if the sage grouse gets listed. I 

did listen to Secretary Jewell’s testimony this morning, and she 

talked about how she appreciated the partnerships on sage grouse. 

What she forgot to mention is the sage grouse is also in litigation 

in front of Judge Windmill in Idaho by Western Watersheds. And 

so, all of these partnerships and no matter how good the Department of the Interior thinks the State programs are going, it is not 

going to be Interior that decides it. It is a Federal district judge— 

in this case, in Idaho—because that is where the case is. 

So it is not so much whether Congress thinks this is a good idea 

or a bad idea. When the agencies make these designations, what 

happens is that they take on a life of their own. They totally overtake the rural communities, and then they get litigated in Federal 

court by somebody we can’t fire, and by somebody who gets to dictate how we live. 

Dr. GOSAR. So do you have the ability to have a personal oneon-one discussion with the Secretary of the Interior? Would you 

ever be getting that opportunity? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. I would love that opportunity. 

Dr. GOSAR. That would be nice. You won’t get it. The environmental groups get it. 

But I also want to finish up. I have worked with the Nature Conservancy in the State of Arizona. They have actually come to the 

table with solutions. No isn’t an answer any more. But the Center 

for Biological Diversity believes that they ought to have poets and 

philosophers, instead of science people. And that is some of the 

things that we want to talk about. And I am happy to verse anybody on the opposite side about when we talk about aggressive 

NGO’s. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask Mr. Justice. You testified earlier in regards to the Blueways designation on 

the White River area. Were there any public meetings in Missouri 

that you are aware of? 

Mr. JUSTICE. I am not aware of a single meeting held anywhere 

in the State of Missouri affected by the Blueway. 

Mr. SMITH. So, would it be your belief that it wasn’t a voluntary 

program for the 14 counties in Missouri? 

Mr. JUSTICE. It absolutely was not. 

Mr. SMITH. What is your definition of local stakeholders? 

41 

Mr. JUSTICE. Local stakeholders are local governments and local 

grassroots organizations and land owners that actually have invested their livelihood in making these areas succeed on an economic and a personal level. 

Mr. SMITH. Believe it or not, that is what the Secretary of the 

Interior says, that is why the White River Blueway was created, 

is because of local stakeholders. Yet there was no open public meetings in the 14 counties in Missouri. And there were not any local 

county commissions, of those 14 counties, that were in support. In 

fact, they are all opposed to it. 

Mr. JUSTICE. Right. 

Mr. SMITH. Does that sound like local stakeholders to you? 

Mr. JUSTICE. Absolutely not. 

Mr. SMITH. I think the concern that the individuals—and let me 

know with several of the witnesses there—you are worried about 

Federal Government implementing any kind of program with open 

guidelines. Wouldn’t that be safe to say? 

Mr. JUSTICE. Federal Government without restriction is dangerous. 

Mr. SMITH. Absolutely. We have limited powers. Is that correct? 

Mr. JUSTICE. That is absolutely right. 

Mr. SMITH. And they are defined by the Constitution. I don’t see 

anywhere in the Constitution where it says that we should create 

a Blueway in the White River basin. Do you, Mr. Justice? 

Mr. JUSTICE. I sure haven’t found it, and I have actually read it. 

Mr. SMITH. I don’t. And I spoke with the Secretary of the Interior 

just a couple hours ago, I asked her about this program. And they 

have paused it, like we have mentioned, because they need to get 

to know more about the program. I have been on the job 42 days. 

I am learning this program pretty good. She has been on the job 

for 3 months. She has been there a little bit longer. So I think that 

she should know the program a whole lot better. 

But what scares me is that the lead person that she said is Ms. 

Rebecca Wodder. And she is almost like Lois Lerner, refusing to 

come testify. I would really love for the Obama administration to 

be more open and more transparent. And this is why the people in 

my district are scared to death when the Federal Government is 

trying to come in and implement a new designation with open 

guidelines and not knowing how it is going to affect our property 

rights and our constitutional rights. 

So, I want to thank you all for being here again today. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. We have had a request for an additional round of questions. So let me begin by addressing the line 

of questioning that my colleague from California, Mr. Huffman, 

raised. And that is there doesn’t seem to be any harm or any foul 

here. 

Now, first of all, why don’t you address that, if you would like? 

Judge GRIFFIN. The problem is when section 3 says that these 

agencies have the current law available to make the goals happen 

and 180-foot buffers among all surface waters in the designation, 

which would include ponds, would include lakes, tributaries, to it, 

it implies that power exists currently. And I am telling you it does 

not in any of my experience, and I have a farm background. I have 

cattle. I have row crop. 

42 

We have a 40-foot buffer of Bermuda grass on the Black River 

to help decrease erosion. That was a voluntary program we did. We 

didn’t participate with the government or anybody. 

So, even though it has not happened, the order itself implies— 

and, in fact, states explicitly—they have a panoply of ability to do 

these things, including withdrawing 30 percent of agricultural 

acres that are eligible to be put into conservation programs. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And this is all explicit in the order. 

Judge GRIFFIN. Correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now, the order, so far, has only been applied 

to two rivers, one in Connecticut and then the White River that 

was later withdrawn. So they really haven’t had an opportunity yet 

to apply the explicit provisions of the order that are clear to anyone 

who cares to read them. Is that correct? 

Judge GRIFFIN. Correct, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for bringing 

that back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. It reminds me of something that Abraham 

Lincoln said in his famous house divided speech. You know, he 

said, ‘‘We have to look not only at the law, but also the machinery 

that the law embodies,’’ how it could be used. He says, ‘‘Let anyone 

who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal 

combination,’’ piece of machinery, so to speak, ‘‘compounded by the 

Nebraska Doctrine, the Dred Scott decision, let him consider not 

only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well 

adapted, but also let him study the history of its construction and 

trace, if he can—or, rather, fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of 

design and concert of action among its chief architects from the beginning.’’ 

As you look at this machinery that has been constructed, and the 

history of its construction, and who will be wielding it, and what 

their policies have been, what do you conclude from this Blueways 

order? 

Judge GRIFFIN. I conclude they intend the comply with what its 

intent is, which is to reduce the acres, increase 180-foot buffer 

zones, and within what they believe are current sections of law 

able to do that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And apparently there are some Members of 

Congress who are quite content to allow that machinery to be 

brought into action with the wanton destruction of an untold number of jobs and with enormous damage to local economies before 

Congress does anything about it, and with the clear view, as has 

been stated to this subcommittee, that power is exclusively granted 

to the Congress, not to the Secretary of the Interior. 

Judge GRIFFIN. I believe that, yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I will yield back the balance of my time. Mrs. 

Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing a second round. 

There is a question. I guess the Blue River designation included 

the White River, which apparently they have withdrawn. It has 

been withdrawn. And the fact that the Secretary is pausing the 

whole program is not necessarily because it is flawed. I believe that 

something needs to happen, whether it is because of the questions 

43 

brought forth by Congress or whether it is its impact on whoever 

is bringing up these issues. 

There is only one designated National Blueway, and that is the 

Connecticut River. It encompasses the four States of Connecticut, 

Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. And it serves about 4 million people who live along the river, even going through Springfield, the second largest city in Maine. 

Mr. Bacon, do you believe these citizens do not care about their 

private property rights? And have there been instances of land taking or water taking from the Connecticut River? 

Mr. BACON. I believe they do care about their rights, and I am 

not aware of any issues. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You have kind of hit upon some of the benefits 

that have been very evident with the businesses, creating the jobs 

and creating economy in the area. Why do you think this is so important? 

Mr. BACON. Why Blueways is important? Again, I think, crafted 

appropriately and applied appropriately to communities that want 

it, like our community, we would cherish this kind of designation 

because it recognizes the efforts that a diverse stakeholder group, 

inclusive of private business, local government, Native American 

reservation, public utility, all care about our rivers and waterways, 

and we want to see that kind of recognition program help brand 

the region and have some of the benefits that we have talked 

about, in terms of health and wellness, ecological integrity, recreational benefits, et cetera. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Were you consulted in regard to this designation at all? 

Mr. BACON. No. This has been a completely bottom-up, local 

stakeholder-driven initiative. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So you feel that even though you were not involved, or your agencies or businesses were not involved, it is still 

beneficial. 

Mr. BACON. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mrs. Lummis? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the statutory authority for the National Blueways program, Ms. BuddFalen, you have looked at the statutes. Is there, first of all, any one 

existing statute standing alone that gives the Department of the 

Interior the authority to designate these Blueways? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. No, I have not found a single statute. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And how then, have they justified creating this 

program? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. They actually listed three statutes, and I quote 

‘‘a panoply of other authorities,’’ which I am not exactly sure what 

that means. And most importantly, they listed the America’s Great 

Outdoors Initiative, which was also not created by statute, it was 

created by a Presidential Executive order through college listening 

sessions across the country. So that did not have full public input, 

either. 

But they listed the Take Pride in America Act, which is basically 

a statute that encourages Americans to enjoy the natural resources 

and participate in recreation, but it doesn’t govern anything. 

44 

They cited the Outdoor Recreation Act, which specifically discusses national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, and other 

conservation areas currently administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for wildlife purposes. So that is not statutory authority to 

create this huge Blueways that covers State and private land. 

The third act that they cite is the Cooperative Watershed Management Program of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act 

of 2009. Although that talks about creating watershed programs, it 

is only applicable to very specific bureaus within the Department 

of the Interior. And under those specific authorities, it is very specific as to what each bureau can do. It does not imply to the giant 

Department of the Interior to create a new program. 

That is what they listed as their statutory authority in the order. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So, by cherry-picking or cobbling together these 

different statutes enacted by Congress in different contexts to create the basis for their legal authority, what kind of legal precedent 

is being set by the Blueways order? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. Actually, I believe this is very dangerous 

precedent, because the Federal Government, as Congress knows, 

has very broad authorities that you have set. 

But you also, in your statutes, told them the priorities for their 

authority. And if you now allow agency departments and agencies 

to start picking and choosing what they want to implement and 

why, and creating new programs out of whole cloth, if it starts with 

Blueways, it will clearly go into something else. There is simply— 

you are simply losing control of the bureaucracy, and you are an 

equal branch of government. You should be setting the programs 

and priorities, not some Federal agency that we cannot elect and 

we have no control over. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. Now, turning to Judge Griffin, in 

terms of Federal officials that were driving this thing in the White 

River area, how do you think they were able to convince some of 

the local governments in the watershed to support the Blueway? 

Judge GRIFFIN. They were solicited in hopes of gaining additional 

Federal funding for projects that they were working cooperatively 

currently to achieve. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. So a Federal financial carrot was dangled in 

front of some of the folks that took a bite out of it, right? 

Judge GRIFFIN. That is my understanding from what they told 

me. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And were other groups that are riparian to this 

watershed area consulted? 

Judge GRIFFIN. None that I am aware of. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Now, here is a question for Mr. Bacon. I know you 

testified that in your case the process was a locally determined vision for a waterway. After listening to Judge Griffin and Mrs. 

Budd-Falen, would you call these processes, especially the one for 

the White River Blueway, a locally determined vision for a waterway? 

Mr. BACON. Based on the testimony, I think there are opportunities for the Department of the Interior to improve its processes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Do you think, though, that there were groups that 

should have been included that weren’t? 

Mr. BACON. It would seem so. 

45 

Mrs. LUMMIS. In your case, how did you all ensure that process 

would be inclusive of stakeholders that were riparian to the area? 

Mr. BACON. Exclusive of the Blueways process, we have acknowledged and created a stakeholder group to grow the outdoor recreation economy—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Why exclusive? Why exclusive to the process? 

Mr. BACON. I would say not exclusive, but independent of the 

process. We were going—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes, and why? Why independent? 

Mr. BACON. We were doing it anyway. We think it is important. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. You were doing it anyway? 

Mr. BACON. Yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Tipton. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just had a couple of questions. Ms. Budd-Falen, you made the comment in our previous series of questions when agencies make designations they take on a 

life of their own. And I believe you were just speaking to this 

again. 

Do you have a deep concern if a Blueways program is allowed to 

be able to proceed, it doesn’t stop there, we will see compounded 

rules, compounded regulations? And, if I understood you correctly, 

you have got a deep concern that a rule or a regulation which has 

the impact of law is going to expand far beyond the original intent? 

Ms. BUDD-FALEN. I believe that is exactly the case. And I believe 

if you simply look back on the pattern of other designations, including designations like Wild and Scenic and Wilderness that are created by Congress, that those take on a life of their own, regardless 

of the sideboards that are put on it. They just take on a life of their 

own because of bureaucracies or because of Federal court litigation. 

Mr. TIPTON. Judge, you have dealt with a lot of local issues. 

Have you seen that to be a tendency out of the Federal Government, that once a program is initiated it doesn’t stop, it just expands and grows and has impacts on the local community? 

Judge GRIFFIN. It seems to become a living, breathing entity of 

its own. 

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Justice, any comment? 

Mr. JUSTICE. Well, I completely agree with that, that it does 

grow. But another thing that I would like to point out is that one 

of the things that the Blueway designation said—one of the reasons 

they were enacting this was because of the positive steps that local 

people were taking, and local groups were taking in conservation. 

Well, that just shows that we were doing it already, because we 

were motivated to do it for ourselves. We weren’t motivated to do 

it for some higher power of Federal Government. So we are taking 

care of it. We don’t need this. 

And I must disagree a little bit with Mr. Bacon when he said 

that this was a positive thing, we wanted the recognition, we wanted to be recognized for this. We don’t. We want to be left alone. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you. Thank you for that. And, Mr. Bacon, I 

am just interested a little bit maybe in your business. Do you have 

to have a permit? 

Mr. BACON. We do. 

Mr. TIPTON. For your permit? 

46 

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIPTON. Does the Government have the right to be able to 

rescind the permit? 

Mr. BACON. Under some circumstances. 

Mr. TIPTON. Some circumstances. And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, 

I would like to maybe broaden this discussion just a little bit from 

my end. 

We not only have Blueways, but we also have the national forests as a conditional use of permit requiring ski areas in my part 

of the country and your part of the country, farmers, ranchers, who 

have paid for and developed water rights that are coming off the 

public lands, because in Colorado it all comes off of public lands. 

If they do not comply, they are going to have to sign over their 

water rights in order to be able to get that permit. 

This is a control reach by the Federal Government, and I see the 

two series that are working in unison, actually: conditional use of 

permit followed up now by Blueways and you had brought up—and 

I believe we are going to be having some hearings and talking with 

Secretary Jewell, hopefully, in regards to the sage grouse—we are 

seeing the West being greatly challenged by the expansive and 

heavy hand of the Federal Government, and the impact that is 

going to have on our communities and the future of our ability to 

be able to raise our families, and for moms to be able to take care 

of those families. I don’t think that we can overstate that. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I applaud you for holding this hearing. And 

again, I would like to thank all of the panel for taking the time to 

come in and testify. I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I thank you. I believe that concludes the committee’s questions. I again want to thank the witnesses for their indulgence of the committee’s schedule today. Mr. Bacon, I think, 

may have had to postpone a flight. Thank all of you for your service to the committee. 

And the Chair would also like to thank our assistant committee 

clerk, Mr. Riely Weaver, for generously donating his free time to 

assist our—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chair, is he in training? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I think he is already trained, as a matter of 

fact. 

At any rate, if there is no further business to come before the 

committee—and also, just a quick warning, you may get additional 

questions by the committee members. The committee record will be 

held open for 10 days to receive additional comments. And, with 

that, if there is no further business, this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional Material Submitted for the Record} 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL BLUEWAYS SYSTEM

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Interior) on the National 

Blueways System. 

47 

Healthy rivers and watersheds are among America’s most loved national treasures. These resources are vital to local economies, to enjoyment of the natural world, 

and to the quality of the environment on which we all depend. Healthy rivers and 

watersheds provide jobs and revenue for local communities, enhanced opportunities 

for outdoor recreation and tourism, reliable supplies of clean water, flood and 

drought protection, habitat and migration corridors for fish and game, and other 

valuable economic, social and ecological services. Across the country, local groups, 

communities, individuals, businesses, tribes, conservation districts and State and 

local governments have been working to protect their rivers and watersheds for 

their economic and ecological values. 

ESTABLISHMENT

To recognize and support these locally led efforts to sustain the economic, recreational, and natural values of rivers and watersheds of national significance, then 

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar signed Secretarial Order #3321 on May 24, 

2012, establishing the National Blueways System. The National Blueways System 

is intended to recognize and support exemplary river and watershed partnerships 

that request this recognition. These partnerships collaborate, cooperate, and promote nationally significant rivers and their watersheds that are highly valued as 

economic, recreational, social, and ecological assets by the communities that depend 

on them. National Blueways are locally envisioned and led by diverse stakeholder 

partnerships consisting of the communities, organizations, and agencies that have 

an interest in the welfare of their river, its watershed, its resources, and the public. 

National Blueways partnerships use a landscape-scale approach to river conservation that integrates land and water stewardship efforts within a working landscape 

from headwaters to mouth and across entire watersheds. 

The National Blueways System is a voluntary program intended to highlight and 

support successful collaborative strategies for sustainable river and watershed resources led by diverse stakeholder communities and organizations. Inclusion in the 

National Blueways System recognizes and supports river system stewardship efforts 

that enhance abundant conservation, environmental education, recreation, and economic opportunities. This recognition program is intended to reward the work of 

stakeholder partnerships and provide Federal support to increase collaboration 

among diverse partners. A National Blueways System also will help coordinate Federal, State, tribal and local partners to promote best practices, share information 

and resources, and encourage active and collaborative stewardship of rivers and 

their watersheds across the country. 

In these ways, the National Blueways program is intended to support conservation efforts and bolster valuable economic growth and job creation providing longterm value for the American people. The success of the stewardship of these rivers 

is an important component of the America’s Great Outdoors initiative, which supports a community-driven conservation and recreation agenda for the 21st century. 

The Secretarial Order was issued in accordance with authorities provided under 

the Take Pride in America Act, Public Law 101–628; the Outdoor Recreation Act, 

Public Law 87–714; and the Cooperative Watershed Management Program of the 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Public Law 111–11. In addition, the 

agencies within Interior have a broad panoply of legal authority to carry out their 

respective missions that support enhancing river recreation, undertaking river restoration, and pursuing river protection initiatives to pass on healthy rivers to future 

generations. 

The Secretarial Order directs Interior agencies to collaborate in supporting the 

National Blueways System to the extent permitted by law and consistent with their 

missions and resources. It also establishes an inter-agency committee (the National 

Blueways Committee) to provide leadership, support, and coordination to the program. The committee includes representatives of Interior and its agencies, including 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey, in addition to representatives of the Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) and the Army (Civil). In January 2013, Interior, USDA, and the Army (Civil 

Works) signed a Memorandum of Understanding demonstrating continued support 

by these agencies of the National Blueways System and, in particular, enhancement 

of river-oriented outdoor recreation and education, natural resource stewardship, 

and sustainable economic development at a watershed-scale. 

RECOGNITION OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER

Simultaneously with the issuance of the Secretarial Order, then Secretary Salazar 

recognized the long-standing, exemplary work of local stakeholders and, at their reVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:36 Oct 31, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\05 WATER & POWER\05JY17 1ST SESS\7-17-13 P\82129.TXT MARK
48 

quest, designated the Connecticut River and its watershed as the first National 

Blueway to serve as an inspiration and model for future designations. The 410 mile 

long Connecticut River and its 7.2 million-acre watershed covers parts of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, and its watershed includes 

the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, which contains sub-boreal 

forests, floodplains, a major migratory pathway, and a globally recognized wetland. 

The Connecticut River is also an important economic resource to the 2.4 million 

residents and 396 communities in the watershed. Annually, 1.4 million people enjoy 

the recreational opportunities presented by the watershed, including National 

Recreation Trails, scenic byways, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Natural 

Landmarks. These and other recreation opportunities contribute an estimated $1.0 

billion to local economies, according to the Trust for Public Land. 

The Connecticut River National Blueway designation recognizes and supports 

over a half century of successful and expanding local and regional collaboration between local, State, and Federal Governments, organizations, landowners, and numerous other stakeholders. In response to an invitation from Secretary Salazar to 

identify top priority recreation and conservation projects for President Obama’s 

America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, the Governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire and Vermont identified the Connecticut River and Valley, and 

sought ways to partner with Federal agencies on collaborative conservation in the 

Connecticut River watershed. The designation recognizes the efforts of more than 

40 organizations and agencies working together for nearly a decade to shape and 

pursue a vision for a healthy Connecticut River and its watershed. Support for this 

recognition has been positive and sustained. 

RECOGNITION OF THE WHITE RIVER WATERSHED

The nomination for the White River Watershed to be recognized as a National 

Blueway was made on August 24, 2012, by a diverse, locally led watershed partnership which included a wide array of State and local stakeholders involved with the 

White River and its watershed in Arkansas and Missouri. The National Blueways 

Committee found that the White River Watershed met the criteria for National 

Blueway recognition, and on January 8, 2013, then Secretary Salazar added the 

White River Watershed in Arkansas and Missouri to the National Blueways System. 

The proponents of this nomination hoped that designation would be a catalyst to 

promote connecting the conservation actions of the upper watershed in the highlands with the floodplain systems of the lower watershed, and would foster new 

partnerships, strengthen existing relationships, connect communities, engage stakeholders, and benefit the local economies. However, in letters dated June 28, 2013, 

and July 2, 2013, the State and local stakeholders involved with the nomination of 

the White River Watershed as a National Blueway requested that the designation 

be withdrawn. 

Because the National Blueways program is a locally led program, on July 3, after 

receiving letters from these stakeholders, and with the concurring recommendation 

of the National Blueways Committee, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell withdrew the designation. 

BENEFITS OF RECOGNITION

Recognition as a National Blueway for rivers and watersheds of national significance is intended to promote and conserve economic, recreational, and natural values of healthy river systems from source to outlet and across watersheds. The National Blueways program does not establish a new protective status or regulation 

of lands, either public or private, nor does it impose use limitations or other requirements. The Secretarial Order establishing the program was clear in stating its intent that the Blueways recognition does not authorize or affect the use of private 

property, nor be the basis for the exercise of any new regulatory authority. Instead, 

recognition as a National Blueway is a means of identifying the collaborative efforts 

of stakeholders and, by virtue of that recognition, encouraging support for existing 

local and regional conservation, recreation, and restoration efforts. Within Interior, 

it is also a means of coordination among our various bureaus with ongoing Federal, 

State, tribal and local activities. 

The program is an example of a multi-agency/organization partnership addressing 

the full variety of seemingly unconnected activities necessary for successful landscape-scale conservation. 

National Blueway recognition is intended to expand the opportunities for stakeholder organizations involved in a watershed-wide initiative, and to help make the 

Federal Government a more effective partner through enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration. This coordination is intended to improve ecosystem 

49 

services and, in the long term, increase the sustainability of natural resources and 

dependent local economies, providing a better quality of life for residents of the watershed. 

The National Blueways program is entirely voluntary, and private landowners, 

local groups, local communities, businesses, State and local government agencies, 

are free to choose to not participate in any assistance programs or initiatives undertaken by the stakeholder partnership. 

Such benefits are already starting to emerge from the Connecticut River designation including expanded participation of stakeholder groups and better coordination 

among the many groups that share similar programs and goals but may not have 

worked together given the size of the watershed. A Memorandum of Understanding 

between DOl, USDA and Army (Civil Works) was signed in September 2012, committing Federal agencies with land and water management responsibilities in the 

Connecticut River watershed to work together, consistent with each agency’s priorities and legal authorities, to support the stakeholder partnership’s efforts to enhance recreation, conservation, education and economic activities. An online river 

atlas is under development for use by stakeholders to share information with the 

public about Blueway-related activities and opportunities on the river. 

CONCLUSION

Enjoying and protecting the Nation’s lands and waters is an American value that 

crosses regional, demographic, and political lines. The voluntary partnerships fostered under this program encourage a broad range of stakeholders from Federal, 

State, tribal, and local governments to non-profit organizations, private landowners, 

and businesses to work together toward a vision of healthier rivers and watersheds 

that benefit the economy and conservation. The administration is committed to encouraging innovative partnerships in communities across the Nation, expanding access to rivers and trails, maintaining wildlife corridors, and promoting conservation 

while working to protect historic uses of the land including ranching, farming, and 

forestry. The National Blueways System supports and recognizes exemplary partnerships promoting a landscape-scale approach to river conservation within a working landscape. Interior is proud of these shared accomplishments, and looks forward 

to what can be achieved in the future through these partnerships. 

Æ