Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act

Floor Speech

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this legislation. And I also want to thank my colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for his strong words in support of this measure, which again is something that people in Connecticut are watching anxiously in terms of the actions of this body.

Madam Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record letters of support for this legislation from the Republican Governor of Connecticut, Jodi Rell; the first selectman of the town of East Haddam, Brad Parker; the Republican first selectman from the town of Salem, Larry Reitz; the Republican first selectman of the town of Lyme, Ralph Eno; and also a letter of support from the State of Connecticut's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, all of whom have reviewed this legislation and have, very mindful of the situation that occurred in London, a year ago, have examined the question of whether or not this legislation opens the door to condemnation of eminent domain, and all have expressed their support for the committee bill which is before the House this evening and will be voted on tomorrow

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COURTNEY. Well, again, I don't sit on the Resources Committee, on the day that this was deliberated on, but, I think clearly, and I don't want to put words in the Chairman's mouth, and he can probably answer this when maybe the microphone goes back to him, but my understanding is that basically they wanted to follow the basic statutory format that has worked in all the other designations that this Congress has taken up in the past, and where really honestly there has not been a problem of condemnation or eminent domain of the property owners. But that's the best of my knowledge.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COURTNEY. And in conclusion, again, I'd be happy to submit an excerpt from the Eightmile River Watershed management plan, which again confirms what the zoning and wetland regulations, which ones were examined by the National Park Service and by the committee, again, the 75-foot and the 100-foot setback for wetland permits, which, again, were satisfactory in terms of triggering the anticondemnation provisions of the wild and scenic act, which, again, I think have worked without a hitch based on any data and information, facts or law that the committee staff and the committee leadership has examined.

In conclusion, I just want to thank, again, the leadership of the committee for the work that they've done on this legislation. I hope maybe this colloquy has reassured people that this is not a plan which is about trying to ram through government authority to take people's property rights away. It has been fashioned and designed in a way that accommodates people's input and participation with, again, property owners in strong support of it. Their names were submitted to the committee during the committee process. And again, I want to thank Mr. Grijalva for his leadership on this issue

ADEQUACY OF PROTECTION

An important component of the management plan development process was determining the adequacy of existing protection mechanisms to protect and enhance the watershed's outstanding resource values. Determining adequacy achieves objectives:

(1) Proving that local communities meet the requirements of Section 6(c) of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act.

Section 6(c) of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act states:

"(c) Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the Secretary of Agriculture may acquire lands by condemnation, for the purpose of including such lands in any national wild, scenic or recreational river area, if such lands are located within any incorporated city, village or borough which has in force and applicable to such lands a duly adopted, valid zoning ordinance that conforms with the purposes of this Act. The standards specified in such guidelines shall have the object of (A) prohibiting new commercial or industrial uses other than commercial or industrial uses which are consistent with the purposes of this Act and (8) the protection af the bank lands by means of acreage, frontage, and setback requirements on development.''

Local, state and federal regulations, combined with protected lands and physical constraints to development (i.e. floodplains, wetlands, topography, etc.) create enough of an existing protection scheme to make federal condemnation of lands unreasonable and unnecessary. While no new actions are deemed required by the towns to meet the requirements of Section 6(c), the management recommendations in Section VI are considered critical to the overall long-term quality of the watershed's outstanding resource values.

At the local and state level, a number of key actions underscore the current level of protection and the dedication to river and watershed conservation:

Local upland review areas are in place in all three communities. These are the areas within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses in East Haddam and Lyme, and 75 feet in Salem. Municipal Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commissions can regulate activities in upland review areas that would likely impact wetland or watercourse function. Reviews in upland areas may include assessing and regulating impacts from a proposed activity on hydrologic, water quality and ecological functions.
Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

All three towns have adopted net buildable area requirements in their subdivision regulations recognizing new construction should be compatible with the carrying capacity of the land to sustain it. In addition, Salem requires 75% of the net buildable area be outside of the upland review area, and Lyme requires all of the net buildable area be at least 100 feet back from wetlands and watercourses.

Local communities, working in partnership with local land trusts, the state and The Nature Conservancy, have directly preserved 28% of the watershed (over 11,000 acres of land), and 25% of all river frontage within 100 feet of the 160 miles of river and stream in the watershed.

Source