The American Heritage Rivers Initiative: Hearing Committee On Resources House of Representatives

THE AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS INITIATIVE
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1842, TO TERMINATE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMERICAN HERITAGE RIV-
ERS INITIATIVE
SEPTEMBER 24, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 10570
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

45912 u WASHINGTON : 1998
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO , Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina Rico
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada SAM FARR, California
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held September 24, 1997 .......................................................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bonilla, Hon. Henry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 110
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of Cali-
fornia, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 11
Cannon, Hon. Christopher B., a Repesentative in Congress from the
State of Utah, prepared statement of .......................................................... 11
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Idaho .......................................................................................................... 1
Additional material submitted for the record by .................................... 169
Emerson, Hon. Jo Ann, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Missouri ..................................................................................................... 23
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25
Furse, Hon. Elizabeth, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, prepared statement of .................................................................... 7
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington .................................................................................................... 21
Herger, Hon. Wally, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California ....................................................................................................... 15
Hunt, Hon. James B., Jr., Governor, North Carolina, letter to Board
of Directors, Riverlink .................................................................................. 197
Hutchinson, Hon. Asa, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Arkansas, prepared statement of ................................................................ 113
Johnson, Hon. Nancy, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Connecticut .................................................................................................... 12
Kanjorski, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Pennsylvania ................................................................................................. 26
LaHood, Hon. Ray, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illi-
nois, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 111
Pallone, Jr., Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey ................................................................................................ 3
Paul, Hon. Ron. a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
and Hon. Bill Archer, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas, letter to President Clinton ........................................................... 189
Reyes, Hon. Silvestre, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas .............................................................................................................. 32
Scott, Hon. Robert, a Representative in Congress from the State of Vir-
ginia ............................................................................................................... 19
Smith, Hon. Lamar S., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas, prepared statement of .................................................................. 112
Stearns, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the State of Flor-
ida ................................................................................................................... 18
Statement of Witnesses:
Blomquist, Dan, Montanans for Multiple Use, Kalispell, Montana ............. 97
Bright, David L., Sr., Harrison, Arkansas ..................................................... 92
Further information submitted by ........................................................... 236
Chavis, Mayor Larry, Richmond, Virginia, prepared statement of .............. 6
(III)
IV
Page
Statement of WitnessesContinued
DeVeny, Bill, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, Boise, Idaho ........................ 81
Ealy, David Allan, Perrysville, Indiana .......................................................... 83
Hoover, Lois Van, Idaho Multiple Land Use Coalition, Yellow Pine,
Idaho .............................................................................................................. 64
Kustra, Robert, Governor of Illinois, prepared statement of ........................ 3
LaGrasse, Carol, Property Rights Foundation of America, Stony Creek,
New York ....................................................................................................... 85
Lynch, Robert S., Central Arizona Project Association, Phoenix, Arizona .. 62
McGinty, Kathleen, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality, Executive
Office of the President, Washington, DC .................................................... 29
Moss, Linda Bourque, Western Heritage Center, Billings, Montana ........... 99
Nelson, Reginald William, Richmond, Virginia ............................................. 102
Pendley, William Perry, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Denver, Col-
orado .............................................................................................................. 60
Ross, Gordon, Coos County Commissioner, Coos County, Oregon ............... 79
Samuel, Peter, Schuylkill River Greenway and Heritage Corridor,
Wyomissing, Pennsylvania ........................................................................... 94
Smith, Desmond K., Trans Texas Heritage Association, Alpine, Texas ...... 66
Sundquist, Hon. Don, Governor, Tennessee ................................................... 199
Young, David, Buncombe County Commissioner, Asheville, North Caro-
lina ................................................................................................................. 76
Yturria, Mary A., Brownsville, Texas ............................................................. 119
Additional material supplied:
Budget Options for American Heritage Rivers .............................................. 308
Central Arizona Project Assoc., letter to Mr. Young ..................................... 337
CEQ, Memorandum to Distribution, Ray Clark, CEQ .................................. 306
Clinton discloses plan to improve waterways, The Washington Times ....... 305
Council on Environmental Quality ................................................................. 276
CRZLR, Inc., letter to Mr. Young .................................................................... 322
Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, letter to Ms. McGinty ................................ 159
Kruse, Charles E., President, Missouri Farm Bureau, and others, letter
to Mr. Ray Clark ........................................................................................... 332
Letter to the Executive Office of the President, Council on Environ-
mental Quality ....................................................................................... 162
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., and Hon. Dan Coats, letter to Ms. McGinty ......... 323
Missouri Levee and Drainage District Assoc., letter to Mr. Young .............. 324
Owyhee County Commissioners, letter to the Executive Office of the
President, Council on Environmental Quality ........................................... 164
Resources Committee, American Rivers Heritage, obtained from CEQ ...... 311
River, fisheries, recreation, business, and conservation orgranizations let-
ter opposing H.R.1842 .................................................................................. 132
Text of H.R. 1842 .............................................................................................. 274
Trans Texas Heritage Assoc., letter to Ms. Karen Hobbs ............................. 334
Voting motion on Dept. of Interiors Appropriation Bill ................................ 131
Winona, Minnesota, City Hall, letter to Mr. Young ...................................... 330
Communications submitted:
Blue Ribbon Coalition Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho .............................................. 255
County of Buncombe, text of Proclamation .................................................... 199
Seattle Times .................................................................................................... 137
Tri-City Herald ................................................................................................. 138
Watershed Projects in Coos County ................................................................ 204
HEARING ON H.R. 1842, TO TERMINATE FUR-
THER DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTA-
TION OF THE AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS
INITIATIVE
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1997
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12 p.m., in room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen Chenoweth
presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HELEN CHENOWETH, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [presiding] The Committee on Resources will
come to order.
The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on my legisla-
tion, H.R. 1842, which is a bill to stop the American Heritage Riv-
ers Initiative.
I would like to welcome our witnesses, many of whom have trav-
eled thousands of miles to get here, and two of my constituents
from Idaho, Lois Van Hoover, representing the Idaho Multiple
Land Use Coalition, and Bill DeVeny, representing the Idaho Farm
Bureau Federation. We also have a number of Members of Con-
gress today, and I welcome you all.
Im honored to be here in the chair today, and I greatly appre-
ciate Chairman Don Youngs allowing me to conduct this hearing.
Ive been looking forward to it, but it seems to me that something
is wrong with the picture that were going to be seeing today
wrong procedurally. We are doing things exactly backward.
Generally, and if things are in correct constitutional order, it is
the legislative branch of government that creates the programs and
the executive branch that carries them out. Here, though, with the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative, theres been a complete and
literal flip-flop between the roles and duties of the Congress and
the Clinton Administration. Instead of Congress making the pro-
posal and the administration commenting on it, it is the Clinton
White House dreaming up the initiative, and we, the Congress, are
the ones commenting. We are actually in the position of taking tes-
timony, not on the creation of a new program, but on how to stop
one.
This initiative clearly violates the doctrine of separation of pow-
ers as intended by our Founding Fathers. And as James Madison
(1)
2
wrote in Federalist No. 47, The accumulation of all powers, legis-

lative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one,
a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective,
may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
My colleagues, this American Heritage Rivers Initiative is being
thrust upon the American people in the exact manner James Madi-
son warned us against.
I introduced H.R. 1842 on June 10, shortly after President Clin-
tons American Heritage River Initiative was first published in the
Federal Register. This legislation, which is co-sponsored by 38
Members, would prohibit Federal agencies from spending any
funds on this unauthorized, unappropriated, and intrusive pro-
gram.
On Sept. 11, and with no consultation with the leadership of
Congress, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13061 direct-
ing 12 Federal agencies to implement this program. Many Ameri-
cans are disturbed by this arbitrary use, and many would say
abuse of Presidential authority.
I, along with millions of other Americans, was shocked and ap-
palled that President Clinton would use so Draconian a process to
rob people of their constitutional rights and patently ignore the leg-
islative branch of government. However, I should not be surprised
by this display of power. After all, this is the same administration
which locked up 1.7 million acres in Utah without even consulting
Utahs Governor and their congressional delegation, not to mention
other State and local officials.
Its also the same administration that proposed a $64 million
buyout of a mining property in Montana to a Canadian company
without consulting the Montana Governor and its congressional
delegation, or the U.S. Congress. This program is illegal, has not
met public requirements, misappropriates funds Congress man-
dated for other purposes, and usurps individual water rights, pri-
vate property rights, and the sovereignty of all 50 States. It defies
the imagination how President Clinton could ram this initiative
down our throats, despite massive resistance outside the Wash-
ington, DC beltway.
In addition to the violation of water and property rights, what I
find very, very troubling is how an agency like CEQ, with a budget
of only $2.4 million, can run a program like the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative, which costs by very conservative efforts $4 mil-
lion to $7 million every year so far. Where is the money coming
from? And who appropriated it? Who authorized it to be spent like
this?
No place in U.S. Statutes can you find the phrase, American
Heritage Rivers Initiative, and no place can you find the position
of a river navigator or the term river community. And this leads
me to wonder whether the Anti-Deficiency Act of 1982, which pro-
hibits and proscribes criminal sanctions for the expenditure of Fed-
eral funds for unauthorized purposes, is implicated.
And certainly one is left to wonder if this meets the requirements
of 31 U.S.C. 1301(a), which states, Appropriations shall be applied
only to the objects for which the appropriations were made.
Beyond the constitutional and legal questions raised by the exec-
utive order, there are some fundamental questions that I share
3
with many of my colleagues. If this program is 100 percent hon-

orary, voluntary, and non-regulatory, then why is it being done by
the Federal Government and with no less than 12 agencies?
If it is 100 percent voluntary, why does the program not explic-
itly require that the Federal agencies get written permission from
private land owners before their land is included within an Amer-
ican Heritage Rivers designation?
And why did the Council on Environmental Quality totally ignore
the request of 55 Members of the House, who requested that the
public comment period on this initiative be extended beyond Au-
gust 20?
I look forward to hearing Ms. McGintys response to these and
other questions, and I also look forward to hearing from other wit-
nesses today.
Mr. Chairman, Ithe Chair now recognizes the Ranking Mem-
ber, Mr. Pallone, for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRANK PALLONE, JR., A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY
Mr. PALLONE. Well, thank you for the title, Madam Chairman.
Let me first, if I could, request unanimous consent to include in
the record four documents. One is a statement from Lieutenant
Governor Bob Kustra, of Illinois, who was an invited witness but
couldnt make it; second, testimony from Mayor Larry ChavisI
guessof Richmond, Virginia; third, statements from Representa-
tive Furse and Representative Gejdenson, and, finally, a letter
from, wellAmerican RiversIm not sure exactly what that refers
to, but American Rivers. I would ask unanimous consent to include
those.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Governor Kustra follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB KUSTRA, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, ILLINOIS
Mr. Chairman. Distinguished members of the committee. I want to thank you for
the opportunity to address what I believe is a very important issue not only for my
state of Illinois but for the country in our efforts to improve our rivers and streams.
Just as our rivers and watersheds cross many governmental boundaries, our ef-
forts to revitalize these resources must be a partnership of local, state and Federal
efforts. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative proposed by President Clinton in
his State of the Union Address, and detailed 2 weeks ago, provides us with a great
opportunity for us to navigate through what some have seen as a river of bureau-
cratic red tape in getting the help and assistance we need for river improvement
at the state and local levels.
We are currently in the process of preparing our nomination of the Illinois River
Watershed for such designation.
The strength of this new initiative is that it will help us better coordinate Federal
services and assistance. The Illinois River watershed is a vast Z5,000 square mile
area encompassing 55 of our 102 counties. Approximately 80 percent of the rivers
watershed is within our states jurisdiction, which is an asset; however, Federal
agency programs in the watershed area also have a strong impact on the ecosystem,
from navigation to soil conservation, from Chicago to St. Louis.
The improved service delivery, technical assistance, coordination of Federal in-
volvement, and work toward our local communities objectives will be key benefits
this initiative can provide our Illinois River Watershed should we receive this des-
ignation.
Simply put, we see this initiative as providing coordination for a revitalization ef-
fort that will benefit not only our state but the entire nation as well.
4
This initiative embodies what many have said is a fundamental role of our Fed-
eral Governmentto complement local and state initiatives. We support this pro-
gram for the following reasons:
1. The American Heritage Rivers initiative is voluntarywe initiate whether
to participate or not. We realize the importance of the Federal Government in
joining our state and local partnership in progress. No one has forced our hand
in this matter, and should we receive this designation we may exit the program
at any time.
2. It is locally drivenour communities throughout the 55 counties of the Illi-
nois River Basin are currently at work with their efforts to improve the water-
shed. Those that live, work and play along the river know whats best for this
vital resource. They will not give up their right to dictate the future of a river
that has shaped the history of their communities. There will be no takeover
under this Initiative.
No one, however, can underestimate the technological and informational re-
sources that the Federal Government can provide to our local efforts. This ini-
tiative enables us to look to the Federal Government as a clearinghouse of
knowledge and expertise in river improvement and revitalization. For towns
like Havana, population 7,000, and larger cities like Chicago, this is an enor-
mous opportunity to put the Federal Government to work for them, not the
other way around.
3. There are no new regulations or rules dictated by the Federal Government.
Contrary to what some critics of this proposal say, we find nothing in the mate-
rials that recommends further restricting what our local communities can or
cannot do with their efforts along the river.
4. There is also a great opportunity under this initiative to learn what the
Federal Government is doing right and what it is doing wrong as it relates to
our rivers and streams. Through this initiative, the Federal Government will be
listening to state and local communities that have lived with Federal Govern-
ment involvement in the past. This dialog and interaction at the local level will
enable the Federal Government to study and improve how it provides assistance
to communities throughout the nation.
Unfortunately, not all view this initiative in a positive light. It has been described
as a program unleashing United Nations troops patrolling the Illinois Rivers curv-
ing path. The program has been portrayed as a new Federal land-use scheme,
that the Federal Government will control all land use and will police this initiative
by aerial photography and satellite surveillance.
We have seen nor heard anything from the Federal Government that would indi-
cate they are interested in pushing us around in Illinois. What they are interested
in doing is maintaining the quality of one of this Nations most important rivers.
Furthermore, there is nothing in our plans for the Illinois River that could be de-
scribed as a take-over, or that is in any way going to take land away from anyone.
While some may see controversy, we see opportunity in the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative. We feel the Federal Government is needed here to be a partner,
not a manager or boss.
To understand why I believe this initiative is important to my state, one must
understand the integral part the Illinois River and its watershed have played in our
state, regional, and indeed national histories.
The Illinois River flows diagonally across the State of Illinois, beginning southeast
of Chicago and joining the Mississippi near St. Louis. Eighty percent of the lands
that drain into the Illinois River are in the State of Illinois. Because of the ways
we have used the river and the land, the river has experienced both decline and
recovery.
In fact, the National Research Council, which is associated with the National
Academy of Science and the National Academy of Engineering, named the Illinois
River as one of three river-floodplain ecosystems in the United States that are prior-
ities for restoration.
Throughout the history of our nations expansion westward, the Illinois River and
its tributaries have served as a major transportation highway for goods and prod-
ucts.
More than 50 percent of the commercial traffic on the Mississippi River above
St. Louis comes from the Illinois waterway;
More than 60 million tons of commodities are shipped on the Illinois River annu-
ally;
Approximately one half of the 1.4 billion bushels of corn produced in lllinois trav-
el the Illinois waterway; and
5
Ninety percent of our states population live and work within the Illinois River
basin.
The Illinois River was once unparalleled in this country as a natural resource. But
since the turn of the century, as the states population and economic base grew, the
Illinois River has experienced profound changes.
By the 1950s, virtually all aquatic vegetation had vanished from the Illinois River
and its backwater lakes due to water pollution and modified water levels. As a re-
sult fish, mammals, waterfowl, clams, and other related life forms declined dras-
tically. Without the vegetation, sediment was no longer anchored to the bottom of
the riverbed and lakes, but rather was stirred up in the water by wind and boat
movement.
To this point in the states history, agricultural productivity soared, as did popu-
lation growth and urban growth. The increasing movement of soil from the land,
due to channelized streams, eroding streams, and land conversion greatly increased
the amount of sediment reaching the Illinois River.
Since this time, agricultural practices have been modified to keep more of the pro-
ductive soil in place. Industries and municipalities have markedly improved sewage
and wastewater treatment methods under the Clean Water Act.
As of 1995, more than three-fourths of the states farmland is at T, the tolerable
rate of soil loss where soil building processes replace the amount of soil lost. In the
Upper and Lower Illinois River Basins, more than 4.2 million acres of cropland are
in conservation tillage systems.
The Illinois River and its backwater areas occupy about one-third of the flood-
plain, of which 47,000 acres are in state and Federal ownership and 34,000 are
owned by private sporting clubs. Forests along the Middle and Lower Illinois River
are among the largest remnant forest ecosystems in the state north of the Shawnee
National Forest. Today more than 20 communities rely on the waters of the Illinois
and its tributaries for their drinking water, and sportfish and waterfowl populations
are growing.
Citizen action in the Illinois River watershed also is widespread and diverse in
communities like Meredosia with a population of just under 1,200 and in the Chi-
cago suburbs 100 times the size of Meredosia.
The Chicago River, for example, is enjoying unprecedented attention for restora-
tion and economic development. More than two hundred miles south, citizens in
Meredosia have created a River Museum and annual Riverfest celebrating the riv-
ers past abundant fish, fowl and mussel populations that supported substantial har-
vests. In the early 1900s there were 15 factories along the Illinois River manufac-
turing buttons from mussel shells. In partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the areas backwater lake is being restored through active management,
providing habitat for migrating waterfowl. Walking paths and economic develop-
ment are results that celebrate the rivers past as well as Meredosias future.
Despite the seemingly remarkable recovery, the future of the watershed and the
river corridor are truly imperiled.
Each year more than 14 million tons of sediment are transported through the wa-
tershed. More than half of this sediment load is deposited in the Illinois River Val-
ley, and the balance is carried to the Mississippi River.
Most backwater lakes have lost more than 70 percent of their storage capacity,
destroying wildlife and recreational areas. In northeastern Illinois, during a recent
20-year span, land conversion for residential purposes grew by nearly 50 percent
while population increased by less than 5 percent. Erosion control is needed on 4.1
million acres of cropland in the Upper and Lower Illinois River Basins.
Stormwater management is a vexing problem throughout the watershed. Sudden
flooding, from both large and small storm events, occurs due to past alterations to
speed water from the land. Swiftly moving waters take more sediment, carving
away at stream banks.
The sediment, coupled with unseasonal flooding, yield a river system less capable
of managing its sediment through a natural pattern of deposition, drying and com-
paction. Operation and maintenance of the navigation system is increasingly dif-
ficult, due to accumulation of sediment in the channel and rapidly fluctuating water
levels.
The diversity of interests and stake holders throughout the watershed is evident
in reviewing the history of the region. When issues and interests overlap and com-
pete, disagreements often arise about which management approaches to take.
Yet, despite this diversity, there is strong agreement that the future condition of
the watershed of the Illinois River and its tributaries will greatly influence the re-
gions capacity for navigation, recreation, economic prosperity, and ecological bal-
ance.
6
We recognize that for our state, region and nation, if this important highway can-
not be traveled, if this great recreational outlet cannot be utilized, and if this nat-
ural resource cannot be preserved, then our health is indeed in jeopardy.
Over the past 2 years, we have brought competing interest to the table to discuss
ways to protect and restore the river, and we produced comprehensive management
plan guided by principles rooted in fairness and emphasizing a volunteer approach.
In January as we unveiled this Integrated Management Plan for the Illinois River
Watershed, I said, There are no quick fixes or easy outs. Its time to roll up our
sleeves and get to work, putting aside political and professional differences. We face
a long-term commitment to seeing that this vital economic, ecological and aesthetic
resource is improved for future generations.
We have begun putting the recommendations of our plan in place. We know that
this is a partnership of state and local entities, working with our private sector.
Carrying out these recommendations will go a long way toward saving the Illinois
River for future generations. In the future, we must monitor our progress and evalu-
ate our efforts, and we certainly must never forget just how important and fragile
this river is.
I see the steps we have taken at the state and local level as providing the basis
for a unique partnership with our Federal Government through the American Herit-
age Rivers Initiative.
Some 87 years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt viewed the Illinois River and
its valley from the scenic bluffs of Peorias Grand View Dive. He said, I have trav-
eled all over the world, and this is the worlds most beautiful drive.
It is our hope that the American Heritage Rivers Initiative and our state and local
efforts already underway will once again enable passers-by to remark on the beauty
of this great natural resource.
We have everything to gain by acting now to save this vital natural resource and
everything to lose if action is not taken.
Again, I want to thank this Committee for the opportunity to address its members
today and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chavis follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CHAVIS, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Good morning ladies gentlemen, Chairman Young, Congressman Miller, members
of the Resources Committee and all others who have taken the time to be with us
here today.
Thank you for allowing us to address you todayfor the opportunity to tell you
from a grass-roots and urban perspectivejust what the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative has already done for localizes up and down Virginias historic James
River. Positive changes are happening on our river: changes brought about well in
advance of any possible designation for the James as an American Heritage River.
Vice-Mayor Baskerville and I are here today as representatives of the James
River Heritage Partnership.
We are a dedicated group of well over 150 individuals, representing
20 counties, 9 cities, 2 towns, 2 Native American Tribes,
8 regional planning district commissions,
dozens of non-profit agencies dedicated to outdoor recreation and natural re-
source protection, historic preservation and cultural awareness
dozens of riparian corporations, and most importantly
the hundreds and hundreds of private citizens in the communities along the
James who are supportive of our efforts.
The mere fact that we have all come together to achieve a common goal is unprec-
edented in the history of Virginia. Given the states unique political structure
which often separates rather than unifies localitiesworking togetheras we are
nowis the exception and not necessarily the rule. From this perspective, the Amer-
ican Heritage Rivers Initiative has already worked wonders for us.
On Friday of last week, the city of Richmond welcomed Senator Charles Robb and
the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater to the banks of the James River.
This was a golden opportunity for members of the Partnership to show our guests
the exciting, innovative programs happening along the James. The American Herit-
age Rivers Initiative affords riverfront cities like Richmond a chance to rediscover
the vital roots of their downtowns, to once again nurture and enjoy riparian land
that for years has either been isolated or underutilized.
Along the James River, we have
Extensive and ongoing waterfront development activities at Hampton Roads and
Lynchburg,
7
Cooperative initiatives among all 19 soil and watershed conservation districts in
the James River watershed to develop The Chesapeake Bay Tributaries Strategy.
Habitat restoration programs aimed at restoring and protecting the summer
nesting grounds of the bald eagle, and year-round populations of striped bass, shad
and river herring
None of these initiatives are being developed, I might add at to expense or exclu-
sion of our corporate neighbors along the James, many of whom contribute signifi-
cantly to river stewardship programs in addition to the important contributions they
make to our regional economies.
The members of the James River Heritage Partnership are working together to
develop active programs that highlight the economic, cultural and natural re-
sources of this important river, which represents the common wealth of our many
diverse heritageswhether European, African, or Native American
We are working together to
Gain designation for the entire James River, from its headwaters at Irongate in
Botetourt County to where the River flows into Chesapeake Bay at Hampton Roads,
450 miles of some of the most scenic lands in the entire country
We are working together to
Be among to first ten rivers to be rightly called an American Heritage River
We are working together because the river will continue to impact us all.
Since President Clinton announced this initiative during his 1997 State of the
Union message the program has had its detractors. It is to the opponents of the
Presidents Initiativesome of whom we respectfully address this morningthat I
submit the following points for consideration:
First and foremost, The American Heritage Rivers Initiative does not seek to
jeopardize the rights of riparian property owners whether they are large cor-
porate citizens so vital to the regional economy of western, central and/or Tidewater,
Virginia or to the small farmers or other private individuals who own land adjacent
to the river
The Initiative does not seek to
Advocate for the imposition of any new federal mandates or regulations that
would in any way hamper the rights of riparian localities to make their own land
use decisions.
For these reasons and so many others that time does not allow me to expound
on, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative represents the potential for positive
working relationships between federal agencies and local communities dedicated to
being good stewards of their rivers. We sincerely hope that what you have heard
today will enable you to make the right decision and allow for the American Herit-
age Rivers Initiative to go forward.
We thank you very much for the chance to give voice to our support of the Presi-
dents Initiative. The City of Richmond anticipates great and lasting benefits to all
Virginians should the James achieve the status of an American Heritage River. A
status I might add that it greatly deserves.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Furse follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH FURSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF OREGON
I appreciate the opportunity to express any strong support for the American Her-
itage Rivers Initiative.
President Clinton announced this initiative as a way to assist local communities
in realizing the goals of revitalization they have for their own rivers. By providing
a supportive Federal-local partnership, this voluntary initiative will essentially help
local people help themselves. The initiative involves no regulations, no Federal man-
dates, and no unwilling participants. Instead it helps communities tap into the myr-
iad of resources available to restore and protect the environmental, cultural, rec-
reational, and historic values of their favorite waterway.
Not only do I support the American Heritage Rivers Initiative in general, I specifi-
cally am supporting the nomination of the Willamette River, which flows through
the heart of Portland, as one of the ten selected American Heritage rivers.
Oregonians remember the days when the Willamette was one of the most polluted
rivers in the country. The waters of this river were so choked with pollution that
when live fish were put in a basket and lowered into the river to check the water
quality, it took only a minute and a half for the fish to die. Oregonians remember
the phrase they used as youngsters to describe swimming in the riverthe Willam-
ette River strokea phrase which refers to the fact that they would have to clear
a path through the floating sewage debris in the water before they could swim.
8
But those days of neglect are gone and now the Willamette is the focus of a mayor
campaign of restoration and protection. This effort has widespread local support and
has been endorsed by Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, Oregon state agencies, the
city of Portland, Portland Audubon Society, the Student Watershed Research Project
at the Saturday Academy, the Willamette Riverkeepers and countless other organi-
zations and citizens.
These Oregonians hope to capitalize on the assistance that would be provided
through the American Heritage Rivers Initiative to turn their dream for the Willam-
ette River into a reality.
I support these efforts to restore the Willamette and I support the American Her-
itage Rivers Initiative, which will help foster this and other local efforts to revive
and celebrate the rich river heritage of this country.
[The information referred follows:]
9
10
Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. And Madam Chairman, let me say

that I am opposed to your legislation, and I am very much sup-
portive of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. I have to say
very emphatically that my constituents, and not only in my dis-
trict, but throughout the State of New Jersey, are very excited
about this initiative and, frankly, I think, would be just as shocked
to think that there is opposition to it as I think you are shocked
to think that it would proceed.
So, I guess it sort of indicates that there is a big discrepancy, you
know, maybe in different parts of the country or in different
ideologies. But I do want to stress that this is something that a lot
of people are excited about and are very much in favor of, not only
in my district and in New Jersey but, I think, throughout the coun-
try.
And I think the reason for that is very simple. Our country has
been built around our Nations rivers. From the very beginning riv-
ers served as an essential means of transportation, as a conduit for
trade and commerce, and as a source of unlimited recreational op-
portunities.
The goal of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, as an-
nounced by the President in the State of the Union address and as
outlined in two separate Federal Register notices and an executive
order that you mentioned that was signed by the President earlier
this month, is to support communities in their efforts to restore
and revitalize the economic, historic, cultural, recreational, and en-
vironmental values of their rivers. Its really not something, I
think, that you can argue about in terms of the purpose of the ini-
tiative.
And, again, I would stress, this is a non-regulatory program. The
American Heritage Rivers Initiative imposes no new Federal regu-
lations. Its also a domestic initiative. The American Heritage Riv-
ers Initiative does not give foreign governments or international or-
ganizations any role or authority over these rivers.
But really, most importantly, and I know that the Chairman
mentioned it, but I have to stress again that this is a purely vol-
untary program. Local communities must nominate their own river
for designation as an American Heritage river and must define
their own plans for the river. In order to receive a designation, the
nomination must have broad-based support from the local commu-
nity, and its my understanding that if the river nomination does
not have the support of the Member of Congress from that district,
it will more than likely be denied a designation as an American
Heritage river.
If theres a river community in any Members district that does
not want to participate in this initiative for any reason, the com-
munity does not have to participate. Im certain that those commu-
nities which are looking to have rivers designated would welcome
the reduction in competition. I have to say that, actually, when I
told some of my constituents that there were a lot of Members in
Congress who were opposed to this, in some ways they were happy
because they figured, well, maybe that means theres less competi-
tion; there wont be as many candidates.
The bottom line on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is
that it is really a prime example of good government at work. The
11
initiative is going to reduce overlapping efforts among Federal

agencies, cut bureaucracy and red tape, and spur economic develop-
ment in local communities.
And I think thatI know that the Chairman mentioned the
Council on Environmental Quality. That is really what I think the
job of that council is. I mean, the whole purpose of the council and
what I have seen them do, not only in this case, but in many oth-
ers, is to simply try to reduce red tape, to cut bureaucracy, to basi-
cally bring together Federal agenciesI know the Chairman men-
tioned 12. In a way, that makes it more likely that a project moves
forward in a collective way without having to go through a lot of
hurdles.
And Ive seen the Council on Environmental Quality most re-
cently work very effectively in this way with an effort to put an end
to the dumping of toxic dredge materials off the coast of my district
in New Jersey. On September 1, we actually announced the end of
the dumping of toxic dredge material. Kathy McGinty was there in
New Jersey to announce it, and if it wasnt for the Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality and their work in trying to basically sift
through all of these different Federal agencies and come to a con-
clusion and get everybody collectively to come to a consensus, we
would still have that dumping of toxic dredge material.
So, I think the purpose of the CEQ is pretty clear. I dont think
its to create more bureaucracy or to get around Congress. I think
its just the opposite. Its to try to bring Federal agencies together
to establish a consensus, and I think this American Heritage Riv-
ers Initiative is just another example of that.
None of these things are going to proceed without consensus, and
I am certain that any Member of Congress could veto the proposal
in their district and it wouldnt even get to the CEQ unless there
was broad bipartisan support for the river being designated.
I would yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. And without objec-
tion, I will also enter into the record the opening statement of Mr.
Ken Calvert, my colleague from California.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Remarks on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
I thank the Gentlelady from Idaho for bringing this issue before us today. The
current Administration has consistently been waging a war on the West, treading
on private property rights and the western way of life. Unfortunately, the Adminis-
tration has once again gone too far with the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
I am shocked that the Administration blatantly tried to skirt around the democratic
process by enacting the American Heritage Rivers Initiative without receiving Con-
gressional approval. And carried this injustice one step further by shortening the
required public comment period.
I cosigned the letter to the Council on Environmental Quality Chairwoman Katy
McGinty advising her to extend the comment period, and I am proud to be a cospon-
sor of H.R. 1842, which would not only put a stop to further implementation of this
initiative, but also cease all funding. The War on the West has gone on for too long,
and its time we put a stop to it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Are there any other opening statements?
With that Id like to just proceed, then, to the Members that we
have in front of us. Im very pleased that youre here; that dem-
12
onstrates a lot of good interest, and I look forward to your testi-

monies.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Chair? Helen?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. Yes, Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Id be curious to know, as were discussing this
issue with various witnesses, whether or not, especially Members,
whether or not they have an interest for rivers in their own dis-
tricts to be designated as opposed to rivers outside their district;
if you would, please.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you please repeat that? Im sorry, Mr.
Radanovich.
Mr. RADANOVICH. I just want to make sure that any Member
that is on record for supporting or opposing Heritage Rivers indi-
cates that they have a special desire for rivers in their own dis-
tricts or rivers in other Members districts.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. We will, if there is no objection
from the Congressman who will be testifying, we would like for you
to indicate whether you are supporting rivers in your own district
or the issue in general.
So, I would like to recognize the Honorable Nancy Johnson, first,
for her testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NANCY JOHNSON, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CON-
NECTICUT
Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, and thank you, Madam
Chairman for this opportunity. I appreciate your holding this hear-
ing.
I am a strong proponent of the designation of the Connecticut
River Basin as a national heritage river. It is the largest river
basin in New England. It covers four States, and so on and so
forth.
But my testimony today is in support of the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative. I respect the comments you made about how this
was developed and the lack of communication, and I regret that.
But I want to address myself to why I think this innovative ap-
proach is reallywhy it has been so embraced in New England and
why there is so much enthusiasm for it among the local commu-
nities that I represent, all kinds of groups of people that I rep-
resent, because they really see it as an opportunity to better pre-
serve the historic, cultural, economic, and environmental value of
the rivers.
For the first time the small towns are seeing the values of the
rivers, and so theyre beginning to think that this could contribute
to their economy. So there are a lot of ideas out there; theres going
to be a lot of development. We need to makeI mean, I want to
make sure that the development is harmonious with environmental
preservation goals as well as economic revitalization goals, and so
do the towns. So, we are a densely populated part of the country.
We have small towns, and so along the river there are many towns.
You know, on some of the western rivers there are not so many
towns along the river. There are lots of towns along our river, and
so cooperation and coordination is extremely important, but its
also hard. Small towns cannot afford the kind of sophisticated per-
13
sonnel that can find, literally, the resources that we have already
appropriated because theyre inwhatsix or eight different Fed-
eral agencies. So, we have resources out there. We have technical
assistance out there, but a little town with no expertise has a very
hard time finding these programs, integrating them, coordinating
with the town next to it.
And, truly, the opportunity here for a whole river basin to be
able to have one person in the bureaucracy who knows that river
and knows their problems and knows what people upstream are
doing and what people downstream are doing is really just an
would be an extraordinary help to us; the problems inter-agency,
the problems with a single agency.
We have had a tremendous success rehabilitating the river front
in Hartford, and the river front in Hartford on both banks now has
parks, recreational facilities, and amphitheaters at Riverfront
Plaza. Its become a real economic driver for the city. The area now
attracts major sporting events like professional water skiing com-
petitions, but also was the site of the champion bass fishing tour-
nament. Now who would associate that with Hartford, Connecticut?
Nobody in their right mind, a few years ago.
So, we have dealt with the river in a way thats good for the river
and good for the economy of this urban area. But the Hartford
river front project could never have gone forward if they hadnt
been able to get money from other places to get the sophisticated
personnel. It took them 18 months to get the permit to just do a
walkway across the river for pedestrians.
So we really do need to be able to cut through the red tape. We
really do need to be able to do inter-agency cooperation. Little
towns need somebody out there who knows the whole river and
whats being done and can provide them with that kind of help.
Let me just conclude, because I dont want to take too much of
your time, but I spent 10 years working with this Committee to get
the Farmington River designated as a wild and scenic river under
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program. And it took a long
time, because in my part of the Nation local government is very,
very strong, and people are very jealous of local power. And they
were afraid that if you studied the river and you designated the
river, you would control the river.
So, our designation legislation required a Committeethis was
when Reagan was president his first termand we had representa-
tives from every town on the Committee. The Department of Inte-
rior used to look at me and say, We dont do it this way. We dont
do it this way. I said, You dont understand. We have to do it this
way, because thats the way we govern in New England.
Anyway, out of it we came up with a designation bill, then, that
has set the model for New England, so now we have more rivers
designated, but it is completely different than the old designation
law because it retains the power to control development and prop-
erty rights and all those issues along the river. And those towns
committed themselves to a river preservation plan that the Depart-
ment of Interior said would meet the wild and scenic river criteria,
but it protected the local communities from that fear that the Fed-
eral Government would do to them that which they did not want
done to them.
14
But it also gave the Federal Government support and gave the
towns the support and the technical assistance and, in fact, the
money to study the river in its initial phase that we needed in
order to get a healthy river management plan and economic devel-
opment plan in place. So, we have a unique local-Federal partner-
ship under the wild and scenic rivers program through working
with a part of the country that is absolutely committed to local con-
trol. So they see this as no new resources, no new authority, no
new mandates, but an opportunity to have somebody help them
break through the bureaucracy and the inter-agency barriers to de-
veloping and preserving our river.
So, its that part of it that I support. Were excited about it. We
think were the best application, and, as I say to the administra-
tion, you dont ever want to have a rivers program thats only west-
ern or only southern. And for a long time wild and scenics didnt
have any designations in New England, so I hope, at least, the des-
ignations under this program will represent benefits across the Na-
tion.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY L. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you as a committed supporter of the American Herit-
age Rivers Initiative.
Ever since President Clinton announced his intention to create this program, I
have been among its leading supporters because this innovative approach is just
what my local communities need to restore and revitalize their rivers and water-
fronts. I recognized the promise this initiative holds for the historic, cultural, eco-
nomic and environmental value of rivers such as the Connecticut River in my home
state, simply by enabling local communities to gain better access to scattered Fed-
eral resources to achieve community defined goals.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is about making the Federal Government
a better partner with local communities in river conservation and revitalization ef-
forts. The program will assist river communities to gain timely and coordinated ac-
cess to existing programs and resources. The objective here is to provide better de-
livery of Federal services in such a way that is not only approved by local residents,
but is designed by local residents. It is entirely a bottom up program. For my fel-
low Republicans, this should represent a welcomed departure from more traditional
conservation programs in that it moves away from the usual Federal command and
control approach toward empowering local communities and supporting local initia-
tives.
Many of the supporters of H.R. 1842 cite their fear of an impending Federal land
grab and the loss of private property rights as justification for blocking this pro-
gram. But that will not happen under this initiative. This is an entirely voluntary
program. Even the published notice in the Federal Register stated that The initia-
tive will create no new regulatory requirements for individuals, or state or local gov-
ernments. The President reiterated this just 2 weeks ago in a September 11 press
conference in which he said, Every step of the way, the initiative will be driven
by the needs and desires of the communities that choose to participate. There will
be no Federal mandates, no regulations, no restrictions on property holders rights.
I believe the opposition to this program is based on a misunderstanding of its
structure and differing regional needs. This program rests on the principle of local
control and seeks to break through the bureaucratic barriers that currently block
local access to existing Federal resources. Those barriers are real and paralyzing to
small towns without sophisticated personnel and are particularly daunting to groups
of small towns that want to coordinate development projects. Because we are an old
and densely populated part of the nation, our river towns value this support to
make cooperation easier and reduce bureaucratic and interagency barriers to need
resources. The goal of this program is to improve the efficiency of government pro-
15
grams and promote economic growth in river towns. Those I represent welcome this
new opportunity.
This initiative is as much about the future as it is about our past. I point to the
Connecticut River and the new Riverfront in Hartford, Connecticut. On both banks
of the river, parks, recreational facilities, amphitheaters and a riverfront plaza have
been completed or are under development. This is providing a tremendous economic
boon for the city. The area now attracts major sporting events like professional
water ski competitions and championship bass fishing tournaments. When Bud
Light sponsored a triathalon in 1992, it brought in more than 1100 athletes from
more than 30 states with an estimated local economic benefit of $4 million. The
American Fisheries Society will bring its national convention to Hartford in 1998
with an expected economic benefit of $2 million.
The Riverfront was recognized by the prestigious American Rivers organization as
being one of Americas most improved urban rivers due to its phenomenal economic
revitalization. And yet when you talk with those who were responsible for this
change they can tell you how much red tape they had to deal with to move ahead
with restoration or revitalization efforts. As successful as the Riverfront has been,
it too had to contend with lengthy bureaucratic delays even though it was in con-
stant consultation with the relevant agencies. It took the 18 months to receive ap-
proval from the Army Corps of Engineers to build a simple walk bridge. The River-
front on the Connecticut River and other waterways like it would enjoy even greater
success with the assistance that comes from receiving the designation of being an
American Heritage River.
For the sake of the local communities that surround our great rivers, I urge the
members of this Committee to support this voluntary approach to the preservation
of river areas of historic and environmental value, to the expansion of cultural rich-
ness and to the economic revitalization of our great river basins as they run through
old cities and pre-revolutionary towns alike.
I thank the members of the Committee and hope that my testimony will cause
you to reevaluate this sensible conservation program.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Nancy Johnson. I appreciate your
comments.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Herger.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WALLY HERGER, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALI-
FORNIA
Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the
Committee, for this opportunity to express my strong support for
your legislation and to share my strong concerns regarding the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
And let me state at this time, on behalf of an overwhelming
number of constituents who have contacted me over the last sev-
eral months, our northern California district stands very strongly
in opposition to any rivers being declared so under this Act within
our northern California district.
This initiative sets a terrible precedent for overriding local in-
volvement in land use, planning, and zoning issues, and totally dis-
regards authority of established community governments. It also
poses a serious threat to the rights of private property owners
across the Nation. Seventy percent of the total land base in the
United States is owned by private individuals. By implementing a
program that requires increased Federal intervention in private
property use and enjoyment, this initiative sets up a situation ripe
with the potential for abuse.
Traditionally, the Federal Government has allowed private prop-
erty owners free use and maintenance of their land, so long as it
does not interfere with the use and enjoyment of surrounding prop-
erty owners. This initiative, however, bypasses established proce-
dures and interjects the Federal Government into the planning and
16
zoning processes historically undertaken at local levels as a func-

tion of properly elected local government.
Planning and zoning activities have developed along a finely bal-
anced set of practices and principles that ensures each individual
in the community first, has the right to be heard and, second, that
he or she has the right to reasonably use his or her property. By
allowing this Federal intervention, the Clinton Administration
interjects the Federal Government in the local decision process and
forces private land owners to subjugate their own land use interest
to that of the Federal Government.
How is this accomplished? To begin with, the Executive Order
fails to define how much land and how many jurisdictions will
make up the land base of the nominated rivers. Furthermore, the
person in charge of administering the designated river, called a
river navigator, would be appointed solely by the President. By dis-
regarding existing political boundaries and by appointing another
Federal agent, whose job is held only at the behest of the Presi-
dent, residents of the river community are left with no political re-
course to address damages suffered as a result of the river designa-
tion.
Through tradition and well-established legal practices, the Su-
preme Court has granted States and communities the authority to
institute local planning and zoning commissions. Under this valid
authority, these commissions follow a well-defined process to de-
velop a master plan for their communities. This master plan is
shared with the public. Proper notice is given. Comments are sub-
mitted and hearings are held. Then the master plan is voted on
and officially adopted.
Unless this process is followed, and members of the public are
given the opportunity to participate, comment, and vote, the courts
have held time and time again that any regulatory zoning ordi-
nance pursuant to the master plan is considered invalid.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative, on the other hand, com-
pletely disregards this process and unilaterally throws out more
than 100 years of land use, planning, and zoning laws. In addition,
once an area is designated, there is no mechanism in place to allow
the community to undesignate itself. Without this power in place,
the Presidents designation of a river as an American Heritage
River becomes permanent.
In effect, this initiative therefore imposes an Escalante monu-
ment on the different rivers every year. And with 70 percent of this
Nation owned by private individuals, it will do so in many areas
where no Federal interests currently exists. According to adminis-
tration officials, however, we have nothing to fear, quote: This is
a voluntary program, close quote. They say that only serves to,
quote, facilitate cooperation between communities and the Federal
Government, close quote.
We are all in favor of the benefits of facilitated cooperation; how-
ever, there is a cost involved that I do not believe the American
public is willing to pay. I do not understand how adding another
agency to the Federal bureaucracy makes anything easier for local
communities. Why, in an age where we talk about re-inventing gov-
ernment do we turn around and create more of the same? What
communities really need are for current Federal agencies to live up
17
to their existing duties and are more accountable to their steward-

ship.
Madam Chair, and members, over the last couple of months I
have continually heard from the citizens of my rural northern Cali-
fornia district regarding this issue. American Heritage Rivers had
become one of the hottest topics in my area. I am here to relay my
constituents overwhelming sentiment opposing this initiative, and
urge this Committee and this Congress on their behalf to make
sure that not a penny is spent on its implementation.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify at your hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herger follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee for this opportunity to
share my concerns regarding the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
This initiative sets a terrible precedent for overriding local involvement in land
use, planning, and zoning issues, and totally disregards authority of established
community governments. It also poses a serious threat to the rights of private prop-
erty owners across the nation. Seventy percent of the total land base in the United
States is owned by private individuals. By implementing a program that requires
increased Federal intervention in private property use and enjoyment, this initiative
sets up a situation ripe with the potential for abuse. Traditionally, the Federal Gov-
ernment has allowed private property owners free use and maintenance of their
land so long as their activities do not interfere with the use and enjoyment of sur-
rounding property owners.
This initiative, however, bypasses established procedures and interjects the Fed-
eral Government into the planning and zoning processes historically undertaken at
local levels as a function of properly elected local government. Planning and zoning
activities have developed along a finely balanced set of practices and principles that
ensure each individual in the community first, has the right to be heard, and sec-
ond, that he or she has the right to reasonably use his or her property. By allowing
Federal intervention, the administration interjects the Federal Government in the
local decision process and forces private landowners to subjugate their own land use
interests to that of the Federal Government. How is this accomplished?
To begin with, the executive order fails to define how much land and how many
jurisdictions will make up the land base of the nominated rivers. Furthermore, the
person in charge of administering the designated river, called a river navigator, will
be appointed solely by the President. By disregarding existing political boundaries,
and by appointing another Federal agent whose job is held only at the behest of the
President, residents of the river community are left with no political recourse to ad-
dress damages suffered as a result of the river designation.
Through tradition and well-established legal principles, the supreme court has
granted states and communities the authority to institute local planning and zoning
commissions. Under this valid authority these commissions follow a well-defined
process to develop a master development plan for their communities. This master
plan is shared with the publicproper notice is given, comments are submitted and
hearings are held,then the master plan is voted on and officially adopted. Unless
this process is followed, and members of the public are given the opportunity to par-
ticipate, comment and vote, the courts have held time and time again that any regu-
latory zoning ordinance instituted pursuant to the master plan is considered invalid.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative, on the other hand, completely disregards
this process and unilaterally throws out more than 100 years of land use, planning
and zoning laws. In addition, once an area is designated, there is no mechanism in
place to allow the community to undesignate itself. Without this power in place, the
Presidents designation of a river as an American Heritage River becomes perma-
nent. In effect, this initiative therefore imposes an Escalante Monument on ten dif-
ferent rivers every year, and with 70 percent of this nation owned by private indi-
viduals it will do so in many areas where no Federal interest exists.
According to administration officials, however, we have nothing to fear. This is
a voluntary Program, they say, that only serves to facilitate cooperation between
communities and the Federal Government. We are all in favor of the benefits of
facilitated cooperation, however, there is a cost involved that I do not believe the
American public is willing to pay. I do not understand how adding another agency
18
to the Federal bureaucracy makes anything easier for local communities. Why, in
an age where we talk about reinventing government, do we turn around and create
more of the same?
What communities really need are Federal agencies that live up to their existing
duties and are more accountable for their stewardships.
Mr. Chairman, and Members, over the last couple months I have continually
heard from the people of my rural Northern California district regarding this issue.
American Heritage Rivers has become one of the hottest issues in my district. I am
here to relay my constituents overwhelming sentiment opposing this initiative and
urge this Committee and this Congress, on their behalf, to make sure that not a
penny is spent on its implementation.
Again thank you for this opportunity to testify at this hearing.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Herger. I appreciate your tes-
timony.
The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Cliff Stearns.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CLIFF STEARNS, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. STEARNS. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, and let me
just say Im delighted to be here and have the opportunity to
speak. As you know, and perhaps members of the staff know, that
I am a co-sponsor of your bill to terminate the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative.
My colleague from Connecticut mentioned the good that this
billthat the intention of the American Heritage Rivers has with
it. Let me point out that all of usall of uswant to care about
our national rivers and waterways, but the administrations plan
does it without the participation of Members of Congress and the
State legislatures.
I pose this question for the Members of Congress: Would you like
to have this country run by notices in the Federal Register?
Wouldnt you like to have an opportunity for debate on the House
floor and the Senate, and then we advise the President? Well, what
the President did is notify the people that he was going to establish
this program in the Federal Register. And as youll recall, this pro-
posal was only allowed a 3-week pubic comment instead of the re-
quired 3 months. But there was a lot of objection; a lot of people
didnt understand, so it was extended from June 9, 1997 until Au-
gust 20, 1997.
Clearly, many people in my State, in my congressional district in
Florida, were very concerned. There was some talk about desig-
nating the St. Johns River, which is in the State of Florida, and
it is a beautiful river. But the question became, What about private
property owners, people who are close and contiguous to the river?
Who would decide if their property was going to be impacted? How
would they have a say-so?
And, you know, when you looked at the recent Federal Register
notice, there was one page offered of vague and nebulous language
about water rights, land use, planning, and water quality stand-
ards. But it did not address the fundamental issue of how a private
land owner can be excluded from a designation. You own the prop-
erty, you dont want to be a part of it, you dont want to abide by
this, quote, river navigator.
So the real question is, Are private property owners going to be
impacted? And why wont the administration bring it through Con-
gress and let us have a bill and debate it, instead of notifying all
19
the people of this fine land that their going to do X-Y-Z in the Fed-
eral Register?
Now as you know, the Senate had a vote yesterdaylast week
concerning this, by Senator Tim Hutchinson, and he simply said,
Lets require that all private land owners that abut the affected
rivers be notified of this proposed designation. There was great de-
bate on this; it did not pass.
But I think its incumbent upon us, who have been elected by the
people, who represent the people, to say to ourselves, Lets not let
the Federal Register decide what were going to do in this country.
Dont let a water management within a State decide and apply for
permanent Federal regulation and designation without the State
representative, the State senator, the Governor, the Congressman,
and the Senator having some say-so and debate it openly. If the ad-
ministration wants to push this, come to Congress, ask for funding.
Dont strip out funding from 13 different Federal agencies and use
that money under clandestine operations to push the American
Heritage Rivers program.
Because they continually say, Well, its not going to cost any
money. Its all voluntary. But theyre taking money from all these
different appropriations, and thats how theyre doing it. So lets
ask the administration to come back to Congress and propose their
bill, and lets talk about it. The administrations claim continually
to say that this is voluntary, and this is something that can be de-
bated on a local level sort of sidesteps the issue that Congress
should be involved, and the Governors, as well as the State sen-
ators and State representatives.
So, obviously, Madam Chairman, I support H.R. 1842, and I
think this is an attempt by the administration to sidestep Con-
gress, just like they tried to do with Fast Track and some of these
other agreements where theres not the participation. And, so, I
hope your bill passes. I hope many of the people on my side will
realize that they have a fiduciary responsibility to speak out and
try and let Congress take an act and implement this before the ad-
ministration does it without our vote. Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. It was good to hear
your testimony.
And the Chair now recognizes The Honorable Robert Scott. Mr.
Scott.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT SCOTT, A REP-

RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you Madam Chairman, members of the Com-
mittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
speak about the importance of preserving the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative set forth by the President in an Executive Order
issued earlier this month.
The preservation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is
important, because just the designation of a river as an American
Heritage River alone will serve as a catalyst to increase tourism,
economic development, environmental protection, and preserve our
heritage with virtually no additional resources, other than whats
already been appropriated.
20
This initiative builds on existing community efforts, both public

and private, and provides coordination with Federal agencies to
further enhance efforts for economic revitalization, environmental
protection, and historic and cultural preservation.
Im sure that there are several excellent candidates for designa-
tion as American Heritage rivers, and one is the James River in
Virginia. And in response to the gentleman from Californias in-
quiry, thats in my district and one that were very excited about.
The communities surrounding the James River, including many of
those in my district, are excited about this opportunity and are ag-
gressively seeking designation as one of the first rivers in the Na-
tion to be designated an American Heritage river, and fittingly so.
The James River is Americas first river. The first forts and
farms and churches and villages, even the first hospital in the
English-speaking colonies, were all built along its shores. From the
first settlers at Jamestown, to the battlefields of the Revolutionary
and Civil Wars, to the dry docks of the Newport News shipyard
and other shipyards along the James River, the James has played
an important role in the development of this country.
The James River watershed, covering approximately 25 percent
of the State, has provided significant opportunities for river-related
industries along its 340-mile course for centuries for its sur-
rounding communities, including tourism, national defense, ship-
building, commercial fishing, agriculture, and more recently, Vir-
ginias growing industry, the wine industry. It is home for the
worlds largest natural harbor in Hampton Roads, a harbor which
easily accommodates Americas biggest ships, the 90,000-ton air-
craft carriers.
Communities surrounding the James have made a tremendous
headway in restoring its grandeur. They have spent hundreds of
millions of dollars on projects to improve the water quality in an
effort to preserve the James and to promote a healthier Chesa-
peake Bay. Efforts include the Virginia History Initiative, a public-
private partnership to develop the historical resources and tourism
in Virginia, and the James River Days, held since 1995 for white-
water races and clean-up days and historical re-enactments. So
communities of Virginia are committed to preserving the James.
While there are numerous initiatives on the State and local level
to enhance the James, at present there is no collective plan of ac-
tion with regard to river-related activities. The American Heritage
River designation will serve as a catalyst to transform the current
piecemeal approach of individual local programs into a program
with a broader agenda, whose purpose is to assist in the historic
preservation, the environmental protection, and economic revital-
ization along the entire James.
The 30 localities along the length of the river, along with their
respective planning district commissions, are actively involved in
the planning and consideration of efforts to gain designation for the
James as an American Heritage river. The effort is currently being
led by the James River Heritage Partnership, a coalition of govern-
mental, civic, and business leaders from 20 counties, nine cities,
two towns, and two Indian tribes.
I would, therefore, urge your skepticism of any efforts which
would stand in the way of the effort to combine Federal, State, and
21
local resources in the pursuit of a comprehensive approach in re-

storing Americas rivers for current and future generations. Far
from being a Federal take-over, this Executive Order sets forth co-
ordination of existing Federal resources with those communities
who voluntarily wish to apply to participate in the program.
For those States or communities which have concerns about the
program because of perceived interference from the Federal Gov-
ernment, I would offer this simple advice: Dont apply. I implore
you not to prevent other communities from taking advantage of
what others would want to pass up.
Americas first river, the James River, wants to and deserves to
be designated as the first American Heritage river. Thank you very
much.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
And the Chair now recognizes Doc Hastings, from Washington.
Mr. Hastings.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASH-
INGTON
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for allowing me to
testify before your Committee this morning in support of H.R. 1842
and to tell you of my opposition to the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. I would like to express my strong support for the meas-
ure before you which would stop, I believe, all further development
and implementation of the Presidents American Heritage Rivers
Initiative.
Let me emphasize this point, that this is simply not a new regu-
lation; rather, it is an entirely new program that should be author-
ized, or at the very least debated, by this Congress. This is not only
a new way of delivering Federal services, but it also provides for
a new Federal service. Let me emphasize that point: Its not a new
way to deliver Federal services, but it is, indeed, in my mind, a
new Federal service. And if this program is truly a better way to
deliver Federal services, why dont we just authorize this new de-
livery system government-wide?
How will this program help or hurt local residents and private
property owners? How will this new program affect the funding of
different agencies that are involved? These are questions that are
normally answered during the thorough debate that Congress en-
gages in when new programs are laid before us. However, this ad-
ministration is attempting to circumvent the constitutional role of
Congressoversight and approval of new programsand in my
mind, to prevent an open and fair discussion regarding the Amer-
ican Heritage Rivers Initiative.
In addition, this administration does not have a stellar record
when it comes to protecting private property rights and ensuring
local decisionmaking authority in important regional actions. For
example, in central Washington, which is part of my legislative or
congressional district, we have seen this administration attempt to
control regional land use on a massive scale through the Columbia
Basin Ecosystem management project. That proposal would,
through new regulations, control over 70 million acres in the
Northwest.
22
Last year, the administration attempted to regulate eastern

Washington by designating the entire region a sole-source aquifer.
Well, since the sole-source aquifer designation hasnt taken hold
and the ecosystem management project appears to have slowed
downand I might say mainly through the actions of the Congress
in the funding areathis administration has found a new way to
impose their bureaucratic regulations in the Westthe American
Heritage Rivers Initiative.
All new proposals of this scope should be debated by Congress,
period. Without a fair and open debate, how can we know what the
true intent is of the program? The simple answer is, is that we
cant, and that is precisely the reason why I urge this Committee
to favorably approve H.R. 1842. We must stop this new initiative
before the administration finally succeeds in thwarting the will of
Congress and the U.S. citizens, and usurping control of our land by
passing countless new regulations.
And Madam Chairman, I would like to submit for the record two
articles, an editorial from the Tri-City Herald in my district, and
a newspaper article from the Seattle Times talking about the prob-
lems that the tri-city area is having with the land transfer prob-
lem.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HASTINGS. And I bring it to your attention for this reason.
In the last Congress we passed legislation to allow along the Co-
lumbia River, which is one of the great rivers in the country, trans-
fer of Federal propertyspecific Corps of Engineers propertyto
the local entities, and there are five local entities that are involved
in this.
This article of August 17 and the editorial of August 17, point
out the difficulties that these local communities are having in get-
ting the Corps of Engineers simply to sit down and transfer the
land. Now I bring this to your attention because, undoubtedly,
somebody is going to come up here in favor of this initiative and
say, This is precisely what the American Heritage Rivers Initia-
tive is supposed to resolve.
Well, I would conclude this: Why is it that we have to have an-
other government nanny, if you will, to oversee what government
is supposed to do for people in the first place? So, if somebody were
to come up here and say that this is precisely what this new initia-
tive is all about, to take care of all of the problems in the tri-city
area on the Columbia River, I hope one of you will ask the question
of why we have to have this government nanny to oversee what
government is supposed to do for people in that area.
So with that, Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for this
hearing, and thank you for the opportunity to allow me to testify
this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for allowing me to testify before your Committee this
morning in support of H.R. 1842. I know you have several more witnesses and Ill
keep this as short as possible.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, H.R. 1842 would stop all further development and
implementation of the Presidents new program, the American Heritage Rivers Ini-
23
tiative. And let me emphasize that point. This is a new way of delivering Federal
services but it also provides a new Federal service. And if this program is a better
way to deliver Federal services, why dont we authorize this new delivery system
government wide?
How will this new program help or hinder the local residents and private property
owners? How will this new program affect the funding of the different agencies in-
volved?
These are questions that are normally answered during the thorough debate that
Congress engages in when new programs are laid before us. However, the Adminis-
tration is attempting to circumvent the Constitutional role of Congressoversight
and approval of new Federal programsand prevent an open and fair discussion re-
garding the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Furthermore, the Administration does not have a stellar record when it comes to
protecting private property rights and ensuring local decision-making authority in
important regional actions. In Central Washington alone, we have seen this Admin-
istration attempt to control regional land use on a massive scale through the Inte-
rior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. This proposal would, through
regulation, control over 70 million acres in the Northwest. Last year, the Adminis-
tration attempted to regulate Eastern Washington by designating the entire region
a sole source aquifer.
Since the Sole-Source Aquifer didnt work, and the Ecosystem Management
Project appears doomed, the Administration has found a new way to impose their
bureaucratic regulations in the Westthe American Heritage Rivers Initiative. All
new proposals of this scope should be debated by Congress, period. Without a fair
and open debate, how can we know the true intent of the program? The simple an-
swer is, we cant. And that is precisely the reason I would urge you to approve H.R.
1842. We must stop this new initiative before the Administration finally succeeds
in thwarting the will of the citizens and usurping control of our land by passing
countless new regulations.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing and allowing me to testify.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hastings, and without objec-
tions, we will accept into the record the documents that you sug-
gested.
I would love to hear from Mr. Reyes, but it looks like were just
going to be able to run and make the vote. We have three votes
coming up, and Mr. Reyes, I think it will take about a half-hour;
there are three procedural votes. We will recess temporarily, and
then be back in 30 minutes; we look forward to hearing from you
then.
[Recess.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Committee will come to order. The Chair
now recognizes The Honorable Jo Ann Emerson, from the State of
Missouri. Ms. Emerson.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JO ANN EMERSON, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Chairman, and members of the Com-
mittee, I want to first thank you for holding this hearing on an im-
portant subject that is of great interest to many, many of my con-
stituents in southern Missouri, and for allowing me to testify.
As you certainly know, there is great concern among the public
about exactly what this initiative entails and many yet unanswered
questions about exactly what is being proposed.
Ill get right to the point, because I know you have other wit-
nesses that you would like to hear. In my opinion, the Executive
Order signed by the President on September 11 of this year, while
well-intentioned, Im sure, has the potential to seriously erode one
of our most fundamental rightsthe right of property ownership.
While the broad goals as outlined by the President and the Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality to help communities protect their
24
river resources in a way that integrates natural resource protec-

tion, economic development, and the preservation of historic and
cultural values are laudable and things we all support, there are
still many questions to be raised about exactly what is being pro-
posed.
The problem, as I see it, is that we have an Executive Order
that, originating from the executive branch, has not gone through
the committee process and has lacked any congressional review.
Had it not been for the strong interest of this Committee and other
Members, including myself, to request that the ridiculously abbre-
viated comment period be extended, I have no doubt that this pro-
posal would have moved forward quietly within the walls of the
White House with few, if any, Members of Congress aware of it. So
I applaud you for being out in front and really paying very close
intention.
Second, this proposal is far-reaching and broad in its mandate.
Its my understanding, from what I have read, that funding for this
initiative would come from nine Cabinet departments, and, in addi-
tion to that, there is proposed funding from a number of agencies,
including the EPA, the NEA, the NEH, and the Advisory Council
of Historic Preservation. I think that in these times of making our
government smaller and more efficient, I can hardly see how a pro-
posal that includes nine Cabinets and numerous other agencies is
in step with our efforts to streamline government.
In addition, it is my contention that, from the outset, this pro-
posal has been controlled by environmental groups that have tried
on many occasions to stop economic development, navigation, flood
control, and any other activities on our Nations inland water sys-
tem that may be contrary to their agenda.
I know that most of the meetings held by the CEQ were domi-
nated by the input of what I call preservationist-type environ-
mental groups, and while I was not invited to participate in one of
these meetings, a very close friend of mine, but who is an extreme
environmental activist, I might say, did attend and warned that
this could, in fact, be a black hole.
I know that none of my constituents were invited to attend, as
well, and while I applaud being able to have public hearingspeo-
ple notified through the Federal Register via Heritage Rivers web
sitemost of the people in my district dont have computers, and
I dare say that they wouldnt know to look in the Federal Register,
as Im sure few people in the country would know to do.
Madam Chairperson, the entire eastern boundary of my congres-
sional district borders the Mississippi River, and the Missouri
River runs through the middle of the Show-Me State just to our
north. Both of these rivers have proved vital for our State, our re-
gion, and our countrys commerce and productivity. Citizens of Mis-
souri have fought many, many battles over the years, most recently
the Midwest floods of 1993 and 1995.
We have battled many, many proposals to let our network of lev-
ees and flood control structures give way to ill-conceived ideas of
allowing our rivers to run their natural course along their original
flood plains. So, quite naturally, you can understand why were a
little leery, to say the least, of proposals that claim to, quote, en-
25
hance, end-quote, our rivers. Enhancing can take on a variety of

meanings, depending on who is leading the enhancement.
Ive heard from literally hundreds of constituents throughout
southern Missouri who are adamantly opposed to the creation of
this new bureaucracy. Im also very pleased, Madam Chairman,
that you have introduced legislation to prohibit any Federal fund-
ing to be used to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initia-
tive, and the hundreds of constituents who have contacted me have
asked me to support your legislation, which I have proudly done.
Its also my understanding that Senator Hutchinson offered an
amendment to the Interior Appropriations during floor consider-
ation in the Senate that called for land owner consultation and
input, a clear definition of a river community, and to make the ini-
tiative subject to the existing provisions of the Clean Water and
Safe Drinking Water Acts. Unfortunately, it failed by a few votes,
and I must say that I thought that the Senators amendment was
certainly very responsible, and Im very sad that it did, in fact, fail.
In closing, Id like to state for the record that most citizens in
my congressional district are not necessarily opposed to most of the
concepts in this initiative. Everyone wants to revitalize commu-
nities, bring in economic development, and make our cities and
towns more productive places in which to live and work. But, as
you may know, Missouri is the Show-Me State, and we feel like we
have yet to know and to be shown exactly how this plan is sup-
posed to work. Until my constituents have a clear understanding
of how this may or may not directly impact them, theyre going to
remain naturally skeptical and largely opposed to this initiative.
So I thank you again, Madam Chairman, for allowing me to tes-
tify on this important issue, and I stand ready to help in any way
and would be glad to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Emerson follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JO ANN EMERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF MISSOURI
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I want to first thank you for holding this hearing on an important subject that
is of great interest to many, many of my constituents in Southern Missouri and for
allowing me to testify. As you certainly know, there is great concern among the pub-
lic about exactly what this initiative entails and many yet unanswered questions
about exactly what is being proposed.
Ill get right to the point because I know you have other witnesses that you would
like to hear. In my opinion, the Executive Order signed by the President on Sep-
tember 11th of this year, while well-intentionedIm surehas the potential to se-
riously erode one of our most fundamental rightsthe right of property ownership.
While the broad goals as outlined by the President and the Council on Environ-
mental Quality to help communities protect their river resources in a way that in-
tegrates natural resource protection, economic development and the preservation of
historic and cultural values are laudable and things we all support, there are still
many questions to be raised about exactly what is being proposed.
The problem, as I see it, is that we have an Executive Order that, originating
from the Executive branch, has not gone through the committee process and has
lacked any congressional review. Had it not been for the strong interest of this Com-
mittee and other Members, myself included, to request that the ridiculously abbre-
viated comment period be extended, I have no doubt that this proposal would have
moved forward quietly within the walls of the White House with very few, if any,
Members of Congress aware of it.
Second, this proposal is far-reaching and broad in its mandate. It is my under-
standing that funding for this initiative would come from 8 Cabinet departments in-
cluding the Departments of Defense, Justice, Transportation, Agriculture, Com-
26
merce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior and Energy. In addition, there is
proposed funding from a number of agencies as well: EPA, NEA, NEH and the Advi-
sory Council of Historic Preservation. In these times of making our government
smaller and more efficient, I can hardly see how a proposal that includes 8 cabinets
and numerous other agencies is in step with our efforts to streamline government.
In addition, it is my contention that from the outset, this proposal has been con-
trolled by environmental groups that have tried on many occasions to stop economic
development, navigation, flood control, and any other activities on our nations in-
land waterway system that may be contrary to their agenda. I know that most of
the meetings held by the CEQ were dominated by the input of what I call preserva-
tionist-type environmental groups.
Mr. Chairman, the entire eastern boundary of my congressional district borders
the Mississippi River, and the Missouri River runs through the middle of the Show-
Me state just to our north. Both of these rivers have proved vital for our state, our
region, and our countrys commerce and productivity. The citizens of Missouri have
fought many battles over the past few years due to the Midwest floods of 1993 and
1995. We have battled proposals to let our network of levees and flood control struc-
tures give way to ill-conceived ideas of allowing our rivers to run their natural
course along their original flood plains. So quite naturally, we are a little leery, to
say the least, of proposals that claim to enhance our rivers. Enhancing can take
on a variety of meanings depending on who is leading the enhancement.
I have heard from literally hundreds of constituents throughout Southern Mis-
souri who are adamantly opposed to the creation of this new bureaucracy. Mr.
Chairman, our colleague and a valued member of your Committee, Mrs. Chenoweth,
has introduced legislation, H.R. 1842, to prohibit any Federal funding to be used
to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Congress should act upon
this bill soon and without delay. It is my understanding that Senator Hutchinson
offered an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill during floor consideration
that called for landowner consultation and input, a clear definition of a river com-
munity, and to make the initiative subject to the existing provisions of the Clean
Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. Unfortunately, it failed by just a few votes.
In closing, I would like to state for the record that most citizens in my congres-
sional district are not necessarily opposed to most of the concepts in this initiative.
Everybody wants to revitalize communities, bring in economic development, and
make our cities and towns more productive places to live and work. But as you may
know, Missouri is the Show-Me state and we feel like we have yet to be shown ex-
actly how this plan is supposed to work. Until my constituents have a clear under-
standing of how this may or may not directly impact them, they will remain natu-
rally skeptical and largely opposed to this initiative. Thank you, again, Mr. Chair-
man, for allowing me to testify on this important issue and I stand ready to help
in any way that I can.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mrs. Emerson. I appreciate your
testimony, and we will certainly stay in touch.
Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes The Honorable Mr. Kanjorski. Thank you
for being here.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you very much, Mrs. Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAUL KANJORSKI, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYL-
VANIA
Mr. KANJORSKI. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the hearings
today, and I look at this as an opportunity to really analyze what
the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is all about.
First, if I may say, to be facetious, I had suggested that maybe
we do an amendment to the Presidents order and disqualify every-
one west of the Mississippi River and south of the MasonDixon
line, with the exception of the James River of Virginia.
I understand the fierce individuality of the West and the South,
and I think since were all one Union we have to take that into con-
27
sideration. But the effort and the openness expressed by the ad-
ministration in putting together the American Heritage Rivers Ini-
tiative, I think, is to be responded to in a remarkable way and not
in a conflicting way.
I look at this whole approach as intelligently, for the first time,
analyzing what should be done with our waterways. And let me say
that I come to it as a resident of one of the major old rivers of
Pennsylvania, the Susquehanna River. It has suffered through both
feast and famine, if you will. It provided the mechanism for travel
that sparked the coal and the wood of the Industrial Revolution of
America. And it has been badly misused and abused to the point
now that it is, in my area of Wyoming Valley in northeastern Penn-
sylvania, the major industrial polluter of the Chesapeake Bay be-
cause of the old mine operations and the leakage therefrom of acid
mine water and the various spoilings that occurred as a result of
bad mining practices of 150 and 100 years ago.
I look at the opportunity of the Heritage Rivers to rekindle and
refocus the spirit of local communities and local people to solve a
problem that has been long there and ignored. Now, I look back at
Europe and I compare it to America, and I say, Thats why the
challenge.that I would like to congratulate the administration
about.
We have a window of opportunity here. Its a very short period
of time, perhaps a decade or two, and after that, the land masses
along our rivers will be exposed to private ownership to the extent
that any attempt to use some natural methods and methodologies
of cleaning the water, such as re-manufacture of wetlands, will be
lost.
All a Member of Congress has to do to understand this is travel
through Europe, and particularly the great Rhine River of Ger-
many. There is absolutely no way that the river can be reconsti-
tuted into clean water in any other way but a manual and very ex-
pensive cleaning process, simply because, through density and pop-
ulation expansion, there are no lands along the river available any
longer to natural uses for water cleanliness.
So I urge that we support what its doing, and I think as Mr.
Scott said, those Members of Congress, those States and those com-
munities that either fear black helicopters or fear some conspira-
torial intention of the U.S. Government, let them wait for the sec-
ond or the third round. Theres nothing wrong with that.
Those of us in the industrial Northeast and Midwest, that under-
stand that we have a limited time of opportunity to solve the prob-
lems along our rivers or forever lose their benefits, should be given
the opportunity to act now.
The major compliment, I think, toward the entire endeavor is, it
isnt re-instilling government; it isnt a new program. Its rein-
venting government in its finest way. There isnt a Member of this
Congress that cant appreciate the fact that regardless of all of the
projects and all of the programs that we fund and put into place,
sometimes we suffer from Catch22 results. They just dont get
done, or they dont get done properly.
This whole concept of a navigator is not something to be feared.
Its something to be taken into consideration in terms of, Its gov-
ernment at its best. Its going to use the programs and the projects
28
that are out there, but theyre going to be used in a more efficient
and a more effective way and a more focused way. I only wish that
we could take this example, study it for several years, and perhaps
apply the navigator approach to economic development.
You know, I sit on the Banking Committee, and Ive been heavily
involved in economic development programs in this country for the
last 13 years. And the one thing I can tell you that is lacking in
all of these programs is the inability to have the money focused
and placed and targeted in those areas that most need it, and the
reason being is those areas usually lack the grantsmanship and the
talent and the focused ability to know what programs are out
there, how they can be used, and how they can be utilized for eco-
nomic development. And the same thing is very true about the nat-
ural resources of this country.
In Pennsylvania, so unlike other States in the Union, we have
2,400 municipalities in Pennsylvania. Along the Susquehanna
River, theres got to be, in Pennsylvania alone, more than 700 mu-
nicipalities and probably 18 counties.
Theres absolutely no way in the world that they can come to-
gether and have an impact on that river unless they are coordi-
nated and focused by the intentions of the Federal Government,
the State governmentand then, with all the tools possibleand
then the navigator. It is a hope for us that this will be an oppor-
tunity to re-focus people and to take us out of the political struc-
ture of the 19th Century and, indeed, lead us to the 21st Century
so that we can be competitive.
And if we can take a natural resource, such as a river, and ac-
complish that end, we will accomplish two things. We will have
saved our natural resources, the beauty of our river, and the
healthfulness of our river, but also it will be a great tool for eco-
nomic development, and it will be a great tool for reinventing gov-
ernment, even at the local level, which, quite frankly, contrary to
most of my colleagues in Congress, I sort of fear the concept of
devolution.
We devolve power to where? To the States? To local govern-
ment?that at this point in Pennsylvania, 95 percent of our mu-
nicipal governments have a population of less than 3,500 people
and no professionalism at all at the local level. At the State level,
where they refuse to take the responsibility of the administration
of programs and projects that are presently in existence in the Fed-
eral Government, and lose the wherewithall and the support of the
moneys that are available?
All anyone has to do to understand and appreciate the benefits
of the American Heritage Rivers concept is to come to Pennsyl-
vania, and you dont have to come to my district in Pennsylvania.
You can go to any river in any district in Pennsylvania, and youll
fast appreciate that this concept of reinventing government, that
this administration is instilling through this program, will provide
an efficient and effective way to use existing programs that really
accomplish an end and will have objectives that can be tested.
I urge this Committee to put aside partisanship, put aside ide-
ology, put aside philosophies that may be held because of the par-
ticular regions or areas of the countries or propensities we have
when we come. And if you in the West, if those in the South, that
29
cannot see the benefit of this program, let them stand aside. Let
us show the way in the Northeast, as we did for independence and
liberty in this country, once again, that we have a window of oppor-
tunity to save our resources. Let us do it, and do not pass the pend-
ing legislation to inhibit that program.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Kanjorski. I really appre-
ciated your comments. By the way, how would you like some
wolves in Pennsylvania?
Mr. KANJORSKI. Some
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Wolves.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Wolves?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Or grizzly bears.
Mr. KANJORSKI. I think, Madam Chairman, that we have some
wolves in Pennsylvania, but they have two legs.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. By the way, I really did appreciate your com-
ments. Im not sure how black helicopters fall into the logic of this
whole thing, but I guess that remains to be seen.
Mr. KANJORSKI. I hope the Chairman will appreciate thats all fa-
cetious, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kanjorski follows:]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do want to let you know that we do have an-
other vote. This is a day when it seems were being called on a lot
of votes. We just have one up, and its on agreeing to the legislative
branch appropriations conference report. So, we will temporarily
adjourn the Committee, and be back in just a little bit, probably
about 15 minutes.
I appreciate your patience. We may have this pattern evolve for
the rest of the afternoon, but we will continue. Thank you very
much.
[Recess.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The meeting will come to order. Ill now intro-
duce our next panel, which consists of Ms. Katie McGinty, Chair
of the Council on Environmental Quality.
But before we continue, I would like to explain that I intend to
place all witnesses under oath, and this is a formality of the Com-
mittee that is meant to assure open and honest discussions and
should not affect the witness or the testimony given. I believe that
all of the witnesses were informed of this before appearing here
today, and they have each been provided a copy of the Committee
Rules.
Ms. McGinty, if you would stand, please.
[Witness sworn.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Ms. McGinty, would you please proceed with
your testimony?
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN McGINTY, CHAIR, COUNCIL ON EN-
VIRONMENTAL QUALITY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESI-
DENT, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. MCGINTY. Thank you, Congressman.
Madam Chairman, and members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today on the important American Her-
30
itage Rivers Initiative, and concomitantly, to express the adminis-

trations strong and unequivocal opposition to H.R. 1842, that kills
the initiative, and in our mind deprives communities of the impor-
tant support that they would otherwise be entitled to.
Madam Chairman, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative rep-
resents a historic opportunity for all of us to support our citizens
efforts to revitalize their communities. American Heritage Rivers
focuses on the powerful link between healthy rivers and healthy
communities. As prescribed by the National Environmental Policy
Act, the initiative is built on the fact that environmental, cultural,
historical, and economic goals are inextricably linked, and that citi-
zens voices must be heard and must be the drivers in Federal ac-
tion.
Why, rivers? Because, Madam Chair, as Mayor Richard Reardon
said of Los Angeles River, Rivers often represent the heart of our
citys spirit or our communitys spirit. Rivers, with their beauty,
their history, their lore, their central economic force, provide a cen-
terpiece and organizing principle around which disparate elements
of a community can and do come together to work toward the eco-
nomic, cultural, and environmental revitalization of their place,
their home.
Madam, Ive had the privilege and opportunity to see this happen
in every part of our country. My own home town is Philadelphia,
and I will tell you 20 years ago the Delaware River, the waterfront
there, was not a place that you particularly wanted to becrime
and drugs, trash and decay.
But as our Nations bicentennial approached, that river, the
Delaware, captured our imaginations. It had a story to tell, we re-
alized: Penns landing, George Washingtons crossing. It was part
of what made our country, our city, great indeed. Philadelphians,
then, were determined to take that waterfront back, push the push-
ers out, and restore the historic buildings. Revitalizing that water-
front then compelled action to take back Front Street and then Sec-
ond Street and Third, until now, the entire downtown area is thriv-
ing and is very much alive.
Chattanooga, Tennessee: In 1969, Chattanooga was voted Amer-
icas dirtiest city. Today, Chattanooga is hailed as a miracle city
and one of Americas most livable. And where did that whole ren-
aissance start? Well, it started with one high school student who
said, The Tennessee River is a special and valuable resource. Why
dont we celebrate it by putting a first-of-its-kind fresh water
aquarium on its banks? They did, and now that aquarium and, in-
deed, the entire city is world-renowned.
St. Paul, Minnesota: I visited there recently with Mayor Norm
Coleman and some 20 other mayors from the upper Mississippi re-
gion. They gathered because of their tremendous enthusiasm about
this program. Mayor Coleman has taken to calling renaming St.
Paul, St. Paul on the Mississippi, and he will tell you in no uncer-
tain terms that re-connecting the city with this wonderful river and
this wonderful resource was recently the single most important fac-
tor in his effort to convince a major software manufacturer to lo-
cate back in the city, bringing jobs back to that city. The river, re-
stored, makes that city an attractive, exciting, unique, and ex-
tremely compelling place to be.
31
Members of the Committee, this spirit is alive all over our coun-
try. We are blessed because it gives us the opportunity to grow and
thrive together. We should be celebrating this spirit. Youve heard
from Members of Congress today who are spearheading efforts
around the country, and you will hear from citizens from Texas,
from Montana, from North Carolina, from Pennsylvania. We should
celebrate their spirit, as the American Heritage Rivers program
does. It would be a tragedy, indeed, if H.R. 1842 were enacted, and
this Committee were to vote to crush the work of those citizens.
Madam Chairman, I would like to offer some declarative state-
ments about this program, because its helpful to clarify, I think,
in simple terms what this is and what it is not. What it is, it is
100 percent voluntary. Communities dont have to participate, and
after participating, at any time, a community can opt out. It is 100
percent locally driven. This is purely a bottoms-up process. Wheth-
er to participate and the plan for participation are completely
under the control and in the hands of local citizens.
Its 100 percent non-regulatory. There are absolutely no new reg-
ulatory requirements or restrictions of any kind that will be im-
posed on an individual or State or local government through this
initiative. It is 100 percent in compliance with, and, indeed, it is
compelled by the National Environmental Policy Act which charges
us with stopping these false choices between the economy and the
environment and, instead, integrating all of those considerations in
every action we undertake.
And, finally, it is 100 percent directed by the Presidents and
Vice Presidents effort to reinvent government. This initiative is a
directive to Federal agencies to serve citizens better than they
have, to do more with less, to cut red tape and bureaucracy so citi-
zens can access resources that they have paid for in an efficient
and effective way. The Federal agencies are eager to serve citizens
in this manner, and to us in the administration it is incomprehen-
sible that we would want to tell them that they should not do so.
What this program is not: It is not an attempt by Federal agen-
cies to take on new authorities or responsibilities; rather, it is an
effort to execute current authorities, as agencies should, in a coher-
ent and coordinated way. It is not an attempt to take anyones pri-
vate property. Private property rights will in no way be adversely
affected in this effort. And to dispel any notion to the contrary, in
conversations with various Members of Congress, the final program
incorporates language on this matter penned by President Ronald
Reagan.
Finally, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is not a program
of the United Nations, and no foreign governments will be involved
in this in any way.
Madam Chairman, this is a positive initiative. It is based on
principles that this Committee has espoused. It is locally driven; it
cuts bureaucracy and red tape; it brings economic and social con-
cerns into the environmental picture. Purely and simply, it is gov-
ernment at the service of citizens.
It is, indeed, incomprehensible to us in the administration why
we would want to crush this effort and with it the work of thou-
sands of citizens across this country. Thats what H.R. 1842 would
32
do, and that why, respectfully, Madam Chairman, the administra-

tion does strongly oppose the legislation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinty may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Ms. McGinty.
The Chair now recognizes my colleague, Mr. Reyes. Im glad you
could join us.
And Ms. McGinty, if you dont mind, I would like to call on the
Congressman to give his statement now. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SILVESTRE REYES, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. REYES. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Its been kind of an
interesting day here on the Hill. I appreciate this opportunity.
Madam Chairman, and members of the Committee, I am here
today to oppose H.R. 1842, which would terminate the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative announced by President Clinton in his
State of the Union speech earlier this year.
Madam Chairman, Ill get right to the point. Communities that
dont want to participate should not. People who do not want to
support this initiative should not. But Members of Congress who
would prevent communities like El Paso in the 16th district, which
I represent, from participating, should not, as well.
Maybe the rivers in your district are as clean as they need to be.
Maybe everyone in your district has running water. Maybe the cit-
ies in your district have all the tourists they want, and maybe your
economy is thriving and the unemployment is low. Maybe you dont
need anyone to coordinate efforts to make the best use of existing
Federal programs. Thats nice for those that can afford that, but it
doesnt help my district or the Texas border region, which spans
more than 1,250 miles and is marked the entire length by the Rio
Grande River.
According to a report issued this year by the Texas Water Devel-
opment Board and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Com-
mission, the Texas border region needs about $2.5 billionthats
$2.5 billionfor improvements to water and waste water systems.
More than 47,000 people in this region have no water service at all.
Four counties in this region need 80 percent of the necessary im-
provements. One of those is El Paso, the most populous county in
the Texas border region and the county which I represent.
I am a very strong supporter of the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative for the following reasons. No. 1, it is voluntary and lo-
cally driven. No. 2, it creates no new regulatory requirements, and
No. 3, it uses existing Federal resources to assist communities like
ours.
I am satisfied that the concerns of the opponents of this initiative
have been addressed, and that I am working very closely with my
colleagues in Texas to submit a proposal to designate the Rio
Grande River as one of the first 10 rivers to be designated through
this initiative. Working through the Council of Governments, we
have developed a statement of principles and a memorandum of
agreement for this proposal for the communities who choose
again, I say who chooseto participate.
33
We believe this designation will accomplish three basic things.

One, it is using existing Federal resources, which will help each
community to estimate its water resources and its needs for the
next 50 years by providing technical assistance. No. 2, it is using
existing Federal resources which will help each community in their
efforts to seek Federal support for local projects that preserve the
regions history, culture, and recreational resources. And, finally,
No. 3, using existing Federal resources, it will help each commu-
nity create and enhance its potential for increased tourism.
Finally, I want to point out that earlier this year the Texas legis-
lature passed a major overhaul of our States water law. Commu-
nities and regions need help as they work together to meet the
water needs for our future. Under the law signed by Governor
Bush, the Rio Grande River was cited as a special case, and State
agencies were instructed to seek Federal assistance to help commu-
nities along the Rio Grande River. To quote Winston Churchill, I
will leave you with this one thought: Give us the tools and we can
finish the job.
Madam Chairman, El Paso needs the tools that the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative has to offer. I urge you and this Com-
mittee to allow us to have these tools, and, therefore, I strongly op-
pose H.R. 1842, and I appreciate this opportunity to testify before
your committee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reyes follows:]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Reyes. I know that your time
has been fragmented, and I very much appreciate your being here
and appreciate your testimony.
Mr. REYES. Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I wanted to ask you, how many miles of the
River does your district cover?
Mr. REYES. Our district?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes.
Mr. REYES. Our district probably encompasses aboutIm going
to guessabout 80 miles; I think its 84, but its about 80 miles.
One of thejust to elaborate a little on your questionone of the
important aspects of this initiative that I think it will provide for
El Paso, and really, the El PasoJuarez region, is it will allow us
to utilize existing resources to clean up our water and our water-
shed area along the Rio Grande River.
This is an opportunity that I think is unique, because since we
share an international boundarya city of 700,000 on our side of
the border with a city of 2 million peopleit will provide us an op-
portunity to work together to make the best possible usage of some-
thing that, historically, has been used to designate our differences.
It brings together our region and our community to utilize it to the
best of both of our abilities, both on the Mexican side and the
United States side.
I have had an opportunity to discuss it with leaders on the Mexi-
can side of the river, and theyre excited about an opportunity that
finally would give us an initiative where we could clean up the
water, would promote tourism, and finally participate in the long-
range process that impacts not just El PasoJuarez, but also all of
the communities that the river serves until it empties into the Gulf
of Mexico.
34
So, 1,250 miles ultimately would be affected by just our initiative

in the El PasoJuarez region.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just wonderedI was just handed by Con-
gressman Bonilla his news release stating that he was in support
of my bill, and he represents 800 miles of the river. And so, there
are certainly a lot of different opinions coming out of Texas.
Mr. REYES. Welland you know, just to clear up that, because
I have had a number of conversations with our colleague, Congress-
man Bonilla. The Laredo area supports the initiative. Theyre fac-
ing essentially the same situation the El PasoJuarez region faces,
because theyve got Laredo on one side of the international bound-
ary and Nuevo Laredo on the Mexican side. Theyre very excited
about this opportunity to get this designation to be able to consoli-
date efforts, not just federally on our side, but internationally with
Mexico for the benefit of that whole region.
So, there is, I guesseverybody knows this is not an issue thats
unanimously agreed to or opposed. It depends on what the local
perspective and what the local possibilities may be. So, with all due
respect to my colleague, Congressman Bonilla, there are areas
within his district that are in support of this initiative.
Mr. Cannon.
Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I did have just one quick question for
the Congressman. If the Rio Grande was designated, or part of it
was designated as an American Heritage river, how many congres-
sional districts would touch on to the area that would be des-
ignated that way?
Mr. REYES. In Texas, there would be five. It would be Congress-
man Ortiz, Congressman Hinojosa, Congressman Rodriguez, Con-
gressman Bonilla, and myself, in Texas.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Again, Mr. Reyes, thank you very much for
your testimony and for being here with us.
Mr. REYES. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair will now recognize the members for
questions with Mrs. McGinty, and the Chair first recognizes Mr.
Cannon.
Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
The last time you were here, Ms. McGinty, we talked about poli-
tics and the political implications of this kind of program. You are
aware, I believe, that my concern is that having a river navigator
who is tied to the administrationthis, or whatever following ad-
ministration we havewould have the ability to pressure or punish
or reward certain areas of the country or certain congressional dis-
tricts, depending upon whether youre looking at it as a Presi-
dential election or a congressional election.
Since we had that discussion, have you had a chance to think
about the potential implications of the use of this program? What
were doing here is were creating a system, as you say, to cut red
tape. That means focusing resources out of a broad program run by
people who respond to Congress into a narrow process, which may
well have significant political clout behind it. Have you considered
the implications of that? And how would you expect to avoid having
that happen?
35
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, the point very definitely is to have those

agencies working at the behest of local citizens, that citizens would
be in the drivers seat. Since our earlier hearing here, we have also
worked on the concept of the river navigator and have added in the
final program a provision which states that the local community
will put together the job description, if you will, for the river navi-
gator. That persons role and responsibility will be, again, driven
by the local community. So we have added that.
Mr. CANNON. Pardon me, but every community is going to want
the maximum number of dollars, and, therefore, the description is
going to be exactly what an administrationthis or a Republican
or any other administrationwould want. And to the degree that
a President has the ability to look over the country and strategi-
cally plan how to affect districts, if hes willing to ally the power
of his office with the particular river navigator, the navigator is
going to be doing what the city wants. Thats why it would be an
effective tool.
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, Id also, though, remind us that a commu-
nity, any community, is not going to be a part of this program at
all in order for that scenario to eventuate, unless they have elected
to become a part of this program. So that, for example, if you have
in mind that this is a political tool and places will be chosen
around the country for political favor, that is, I think, pretty well
precluded by the notion that its not top down. Communities par-
ticipate bottom up.
Mr. CANNON. But many communities will want to participate in
a program where they can cut the red tape
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes.
Mr. CANNON. [continuing] and shake money out of current pro-
grams. So youre going to haveeven though, I think, that if you
listen to the testimony and whos interested, we have a very dif-
ferent problem on the Rio Grande River, as Mr. Reyes just talked
about, from what we have in most of the rest of the West. We have
a very different problem in the Northeast, where mining has been
terrifically destructive, where we have brown sites. So we have
very different problems around the country.
Nevertheless, virtually every city is going to want to be able to
shake some of that cash loose, and in the end I dont seeI dont
think youre being responsive to the question. How is it that youre
going to create a context for the river navigator to operate that
doesnt allow him to also reward or punish people or regions politi-
cally.
And lets take, for example, over the next three years or so, be-
fore the next Presidential election, I suspect that youre going to go
through two or three iterations of awarding these initiatives. That
would mean 10 in 1998, 10 in 1999, and probably 10 in the year
2000.
Ms. MCGINTY. Unless this program kills us first.
Mr. CANNON. Pardon me? Well, thats what we hopethats what
some of us hope, of coursewith some reason, I think.
[Laughter.]
Mr. CANNON. But Mr. Reyes has just testified that five districts,
five congressional districts, would be affected in Texas alone.
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes.
36
Mr. CANNON. My guess is youre going to average three districts.

If you have 30 rivers or systems named as an American Heritage
Rivers under the initiative, that would be in the ball park of 90 or
100 congressional seats. That is a terrific amount of narrow par-
ticular contact. Every President, as I said before, Republican or
Democrat, has tried to boost the economy appropriately to enhance
his likelihood of getting re-elected. That is such a tempting tempta-
tion, and I think that this administration has shown that it is will-
ing to submit to those temptations in the past.
How on earth could we look at this program and say that we can
protect that from happening?
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, I just can, I guess, itemize the things weve
tried to do to insulate this from politics. One, again, is that it is
bottom-up; its not top-down. Thats one.
Two, what the river navigator him or herself will be able to do
will be described and prescribed by the local community.
Three, we have also added the notion of a blue ribbon FACA
panel will be brought together to help in the selection of these
things. So it wont just be the administration making this
Mr. CANNON. Will that panel have oversight or just be part of the
selection process?
Ms. MCGINTY. We will have out for comment what the role of the
FACA should be. Certainly, it will have a major role in the selec-
tion.
Mr. CANNON. OK. Could I ask unanimous consent for another
couple of minutes, please?
Mr. CANNON. So what youre saying is what you said before, but
I dont think it responds to what I believe is the fact. Every city,
every community, every river basin community is going to want
money.
Ms. MCGINTY. Sure.
Mr. CANNON. And, therefore, they are not the people to control
how the goodies are passed out by a river navigator who can easily
have highest-level access in this administration or any other ad-
ministration. Where is the safeguard that will keep the integrity of
the programs that are going to be rated for these narrow commu-
nities which will want the money? They will want the rating to
have because they get a disproportionate particular benefit.
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, let me respond in this way, because I think
it relates to questions that have also been asked previously by this
Committee, and that is, that to the extent youre envisioning a sce-
nario where programs can be channeled toward a certain commu-
nity as opposed to another one, there is nothing in this initiative
that can touch the criteria that are written in law and regulation
for every program thats authorized and appropriated by this Com-
mittee or others in the Congress.
Mr. CANNON. Pardon me, Ms. McGinty, because my time is lim-
ited, but what youre doing, what you have said, your stated objec-
tive is to cut red tape?
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes.
Mr. CANNON. Now the red tape is the process that protects the
integrity of how we dish out money in America. What youre sug-
gesting is that were going to cut the red tape on the one hand, but
37
it wont be cut in such a way as to give a disproportionate benefit

that has a political ring to it, and I dont understand. Those are
inconsistent positions. In other words, you want to do with this bill
what seems to me to open the Pandoras box of political favor-
itisma wharf goes here, not there; this is a Democrat or thats
a Republican; he gets the benefit; the district doesnt. It seems to
me that youre creating my case for me by the way youre answer-
ing the question.
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, I mean, I would assume that there is plenty
of red tape that can be cut before we get to the essentials of a pro-
gram. Indeed, I think this Congress has stated many times that
there is at least a little bit of inefficiency out there that maybe we
could work on eliminating, and were trying to do that.
Mr. CANNON. And, frankly, the inefficiency is significant, but it
doesnt go to what I think may create a much greater inefficiency
by cutting out the safeguards. And what I havent heard yetand
of course weve talked about this before, but I have not yet heard
anything, any part of the program, any context that will protect
this program from the whims or desires of a powerful President in
an election year, and that concerns me greatly. There are many
other concerns that I have; we dont have time to go into those.
But how could I support a program that is tailormade to slit the
purse and drop money where it will have the most political impact?
I think thats improper, and thats why I oppose your program and
support this bill.
Ms. MCGINTY. The last thing Id just say is the oversight role of
this Committee, and every other committee on Capitol Hill, will
certainly be there and retained, in order to oversee how the various
programs are being
Mr. CANNON. That oversight would be dramatically different if
the Congress was controlled by the same party as the administra-
tion. This Democratic administration or a Republican administra-
tionthe intensity of the desire to oversee is not there, and this
is not a little thing; this is a huge political impact.
And I apologize, Madam Chairman, for going overtime here.
Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And welcome, Ms. McGinty, to the panel. I am also vice chair-
man of the Western Caucus, and would like to extend an invitation
to you to visit with our Western Caucus at some time in the
future
Ms. MCGINTY. Thank you.
Mr. RADANOVICH. [continuing] if youd like.
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Previously to coming to Washington, I was a
Mariposa County supervisor in California, a small county of about
15,000 people. Mariposa has about 1,500 people in it. And through
my work on the planning commission and also the county board of
supervisors, we were able to bring into the county general plan a
small creek called Mariposa Creek, which drains into the San Joa-
quin River, which eventually drains into San Francisco Bay, and
38
did it without Federal participation. I have to tell you that I object

strongly to this initiative.
And I wanted to bring that up along with the other examples
that you had brought up that were originated without Federal par-
ticipation. And Im afraid that something like this initiative is a bit
like what happened in the crime bill a few years ago with midnight
basketball, that was brought up in one community in an urban
area; it was a great idea for a school district somewhere to open
up the gyms to people all night. It ended up being an idea that
somebody got a hold of, made a Federal program out of it, and we
realized that a one-size-fits-all-type approach to some of this stuff
was just foolish.
And I have to admit that I feel the same way about this initia-
tive. I would rather, if the administration is concerned about the
rivers in this country, that they would realize that you actually get
better environmental protection by encouraging private property
incentives and local control, and not through Federal programs.
And, you know, most of the people that testified in favor of the
Heritage Riversin fact, Ive got the list of those States, the people
that testified for it, and how much Federal ownership is involved
in their States. I come from California; 44 million acres are owned
by the Federal Government, which isCalifornia is a big State, but
that totals 48 percent of our land mass. And we had a gentleman
from Pennsylvania testifying about the fact that maybe some peo-
ple in the West are fearful of black helicopters and all these other
things, but Pennsylvania is less than 5 percent owned by the Fed-
eral Government; New York is .5 percent; Virginia is a little bit
more, somewhere between 5 and 20 percent. Connecticutmy
friend Nancy Johnson was testifying for itless than 1 percent of
Connecticut is in Federal ownership. Texasmy good friend from
Texas comes from a State where about 5 percent or less is owned
by the Federal Government.
And my advice to any of them is that, if you want to take care
of an issue, the last person you want involved in it is the Federal
Government, and its almost a smack in the face to your citizens
to not understand why you cant come up with these solutions on
your own, as evidenced by your examples that you pointed out
prior to going into the development of the Heritage Rivers.
So what I would like to see, in my view, the administration do
is encouragefor example, in California there was an air quality
issue for the San Joaquin Basin. As you know, its ringed by the
coast range and the Sierra Nevadas. In order to address the prob-
lem, the counties got together and formed a joint powers agreement
to deal with the problem. So this was intrastate, which may be a
little bit different than the gentleman from the Rio Grande, who
has an international border to deal with, but it was an issue where
the counties took care of their own problems through a joint powers
agreement. I would venture to guess that would be probably the
same solution for Nancy Johnson in Connecticut, and most of the
other people that are in there.
And rather than developing a new program like this, and having
a river navigator and some of these things, youre more better off,
I think, encouraging communities to begin to realize what are the
assets in their own communitiesthese rivers and these things.
39
I come from a State, again, thats 48 percent federally owned.

The tiny river that Ior the tiny creek that I had a hand in help-
ing out is connected by about 3 hours drive to the San Francisco
Bay. People that are in and around the San Francisco Bay are not
necessarily conducive, nor are they very well-informed as to whats
best for the riparian nature in my own area. Those rivers in be-
tween, too, also drain through the San Joaquin Valley, which is
some of the richest farm ground in the United States, which, by
current Federal policy, is going to lead to the urbanization of that
valley and the degradation of that environment, simply because we
have got a community that is not close to the resource, and which
I feel is the future of environmentalism, and thats why its nexus
should be around local control and private property rights, because
those people that are so closely attached to the environment know
how to take care of the environment better than those that are far
away.
Conversely, those people that are farther away from the environ-
ment and live in urban areas are less subject to flighty ideas of na-
ture and environmental protection, promoted by people that are
really out of touch with good environmental protection. And so to
develop another Federal program, rather than encouraging whats
going on in the first place, I think is counterproductive. And thats
why I object toactually in support of Ms. Chenoweths bill, but
also object strongly toI think its a novel approach on the part of
the administration to deal with a serious issue. And I think if you
want to be really serious, you need to begin to deal with ways to
encourage people to do what theyre doing already.
Ms. MCGINTY. Madam Chair, if I might respond? I see the lights
on.
Theres much in what you said, which is what we are at least en-
deavoring to do here, and I would very much welcome the oppor-
tunity to visit with you to discuss it in more detail, but let me just
hit on a couple of the points that I think you so well-articulated.
The effort here is to have local people connected with their envi-
ronment, their economic resources, identify what they consider to
be their challenging, and to plan the vision for their own future.
But the only point is that, in response to that, shouldnt those com-
munities have access to the resources that they are paying for,
whether it is, as you suggest: Can they get information on what are
their economic assets? Are there data bases that can help them to
analyze that? What about the qualities of their river and the wa-
tershed area?
The fact is that there are technical resources, financial resources,
that are deposited in these various Federal agencies, but it is hard
for local communities, struggling with their own issues and prob-
lems, to be able to go to the myriad of agencies and demand those
resources.
Mr. RADANOVICH. If I can respond just briefly and have a little
more time, Madam ChairI wouldntlet me comment on that,
and that is to say that it is not the issue of access to information;
it is the inspiring of local citizens to see that happen with their
40
own local communities. You cant develop a Federal program that

accomplishes that.
Ms. MCGINTY. Agreed, but this program will not take that to a
community. Again, its a community inspired to come together that
comes to us and submits an application. This is locally driven. And,
in fact, since the President announced this initiative, many commu-
nities have become inspired to pull together themselves and to say,
hey, were proud of our place; we can compete for this. And they
are coming bottoms-up to us; were not going top-down to them. It
is their initiative.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, all I can say is that I dont want the peo-
ple of the Bay Area coming to my small community in Mariposa
telling me how to run a river.
Ms. MCGINTY. And under this program, they will not be able to.
They will not be able to submit an application under this program.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Farr.
Mr. FARR. Thank you very much. Im very interested in this
issue, and I think Im very surprised at what Im hearing in this
hearing today, statements that people have made, including some
of my colleagues from California. I, like you, served in county gov-
ernment and went on to serve in the legislature and chaired the
local government committee, which had jurisdiction over 6,000 gov-
ernments in California, and formed the Tourism Caucus in the
California legislature. And when Ive been back here, Ive formed
the National Scenic Byways and All American Roads Caucus,
which is made up of Republicans and Democrats from around the
country.
And I just notice, looking down the list, that all the people that
oppose this legislation, none of them have a Scenic Byway or All
American Road in their district. So I guess you havelike Winston
Churchill said: the greatest thing to fear is fear itselfby people
who havent realized what benefits can be derived.
And let me understand this. This is a bottoms-up process. It
doesnt exist without people coming and petitioning and wanting a
Heritage River, isnt that correct?
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes, it is correct.
Mr. FARR. And if you come to the government right now and try
to petition for anything, you have all different departments you
have to go to, and what youre trying to do is consolidate in one
stop? I mean, its interesting that the same people who support fast
track oppose this kind of position of trying to have fast track in the
government bureaucracy, so that you can get a decision.
So what youre trying to do is two-part. One is initiate from the
bottoms-up an application for a Heritage River, and if that applica-
tion is approved, then consolidate the decisionmaking process so
that they can get answers to questions quickly without having to
say that youve got to go to 13 different doors and different depart-
ments to get a response; is that correct? Thats all it really does?
Ms. MCGINTY. Thats pretty much it, yes, sir.
Mr. FARR. Well, then, where is all this fear? I mean, everybody
I know is trying to get more help to try to promote our outdoors.
I mean, the last time I checked, tourism in America, I never found
a tourist that went out to look at oil wells and real estate signs.
41
Mega-Trend says that the biggest economy in this country in the

outdoors is watchable wildlife, and that more people are looking at
wildlife than all the national professional sports in this country. I
mean, its a big, big economy.
Mr. Radanovich, who opposes this Federal idea, comes out and
lobbies for Federal water supports for his crops, lobbies for Federal
money to promote wine sales overseas, lobbies for cotton subsidies,
lobbies for help for the famous Federal Yosemite National Park in
his district, lobbies for moneys for the road to get to Yosemite, and
has I think stated very well that he was able on a county board
of supervisors to protect the riparian corridor of a creek. And,
therefore, you dont need the Federal Government to protect
creeks
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Id remind the gentleman from California that
the issue is American Heritage Rivers
Mr. FARR. And Im getting to that. This is exactlyyouve made
my point, that this is not called the American Heritage Creek; its
called the American Heritage River because the river runs through
it. It runs through a lot of stuff, sometimes even more than one
State. So you need a Federal role in order to protect the river.
And I guess what Im worried about is that the legislation sug-
gests that weve got to go out and fear something that the commu-
nity has to start in the first place. I thought we were the ones that
supported local government and local control. Why are we trying
to tell our communities that they cant come to Washington and
ask for help with trying to do something thats a lineal in effect.
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes, and I do want to just underscore that this is
completely at the initiative of communities. I have to echo what
Congressman Scott said before me, which is if a community does
not want to participate, they simply should not apply. There is
enough interest in this program that there will be plenty of com-
munities who do need the resources, as Congressman Reyes has
said, to be able to revitalize their economy and bring life back into
their communities.
Mr. FARR. Well, I am verywe are very involved in the National
Scenic Byway and All American Roads, and its gotten so much
popularity because of the fact that if you protect the right, the sce-
nic viewshed of these highways, and you keep them rural and you
keep them in their natural state, people can see the great America
experience, and then Congress Members from those districts lobby
like mad in ISTEA to protect it, in a caucus weve formed to do it.
Because why? Its jobs; its not just pretty scenery. Its more em-
ployment; its more visitation; its more opportunity. And I would
just hope that people who think that theres some kind ofthat
this is a siege of local control, this is a threat of local control, are
just upside-down in that attitude. You know, theyre the same peo-
ple that will come hereI see theres a lot of city and county folks
that come here; they come here and lobby for all kinds of Federal
help, for community block grants, for highway money, for housing
money, for all kinds of stuff, and the Farm Bureaus included. I sit
on the Agriculture Committee; I watch it all. And then they turn
around and think that this is going to be some kind of threat.
I can guarantee you, I represent the central coast of California.
We get no Federal subsidies in agriculture, and we do a better job
42
of agriculture than anybody. We also have the California coast of

Big Sur and Monterey and Carmel, and these towns are towns that
would support this in a quick minute, because its going to be more
jobs and more opportunity and better for the local economy. I think
the Presidents doing a great job, and Im really proud of the work
youre doing for the President.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I want to thank the gentleman from Cali-
fornia. I do want to remind the gentleman from California, with re-
gard to the fast track comment, the President is in favor of fast
track and the President is in favor of the American Heritage Riv-
ers, and I wont yield
Mr. FARR. And there is fast track in this bill.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Excuse me. And, also, I wanted to let you
know that Congress did crate a Pennsylvania oil field heritage
area, so apparently the politicians believe that people still go look
at oil fields.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, if the Chair would yield, tooif you dont
mind, the only statement that I want to make is its not an issue
of fear; its an issue of howwhat is the best way to take care our
environment? And a program coming from Washington, in my view,
does not encourage what I think the future of environmentalism is,
and that is local control and private property incentive.
Mr. FARR. And thats why we created national flood plain insur-
ance, because local control could not deal with flooding rivers.
Mr. RADANOVICH. This is with regard to rivers, and Id let my
statement stand.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much. These are the times
that try mens souls with regards to votes on procedure about every
15 minutes, and I know your souls are being tried; the soles of my
feet are being tried. I wore the wrong shoes today.
But, anyway, I am very sorry; we are called for another vote.
This vote is on a motion to adjourn, and as far as I know, unlike
last time, it will only be one vote, and as such, well probably be
back in 15 minutes, and we will then resume with questions from
Mr. Schaefer. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Committee will resume with questioning
from Mr. Bob Schaefer from Colorado.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. McGinty, wel-
come to the Committee.
Mr. SCHAFFER. I wanted to just say I was encouraged actually by
the comment you made, I believe it was, to Mr. Cannon about
theor maybe it was Mr. Radanovich; I dont recall at the mo-
mentabout accountability with respect to the Congress
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes.
Mr. SCHAFFER. [continuing] and our involvement in the Heritage
Rivers Initiative, and so on; that our role as overseers or the over-
sight capacity this Committee has does, in fact, give us a certain
amount of leverage. And so I would like you to expound on that a
little bit more, if you would, about how you envision that taking
place at some other point in time, if maybe a year from now we
find some irregularities to which we might object, and how you
43
would envision our interaction taking place in a way that would re-
sult in meaningful progress.
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes. Well, just as an example, there may be a
community that, as part of their plan, for example, would like help
in accessing brown fields grants. That would be one part of their
plan. Theyve got an abandoned industrial site on a riverfront; they
would like grant money to help revitalize that. They go to the river
navigator and they say, This is something were interested in.
How can you help us to pursue that objective? And the river navi-
gators job would be to facilitate their work with the Environmental
Protection Agency to secure a brown fields grant.
Now this Committee or the appropriate committee on Capitol
Hill that has oversight on EPAs budget, and the brown fields pro-
gram in particular, would retain that oversight if the Committee
felt that that particular community was not the proper recipient of
a browns field grant. And that all is intact.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Were actually moving in a little bit different di-
rection. I mean specifically with respect to the Council on Environ-
mental Quality
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes.
Mr. SCHAFFER. [continuing] and the implementation of this Act.
Because what this question and this bill is all about is just the
cash, frankly, at this point and whether the Congress has any rec-
ognizable role, at least on the administrations viewpoint, in the
dollars associated with implementing the plan.
Let me just direct my comments that way. How much is the pro-
gram going to cost?
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, there are no new or additional funds that
are involved in this program at all because the program is only
about coordinating programs that are otherwise authorized and ap-
propriated by Congress.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Were talking about 10 new, potentially 10 em-
ployees, new employees a year? I dont know what all other addi-
tional costs that are associated with just the organization, and so
on, but there must be some sense of what the expenditures involv-
ing this initiative amount to. Can you tell us what that might be?
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, the staff that have been involved in this ini-
tiative to date, and the ones that will continue to be involved, are
already Federal employees charged with programs and responsibil-
ities that bear on river revitalization. Thats what they do. They
are now doing it in a coordinated fashion. Thats the difference.
Mr. SCHAFFER. So the program is free to the American taxpayers;
is that what Im hearing?
Ms. MCGINTY. No, it is not free, because there are endless num-
bers of programs authorized and appropriated by the Congress that
exist and that will be coordinated through this initiative.
Mr. SCHAFFER. For 10 river coordinators or 10 navigators, as
they are called, which will bethey may be employed in some
other agency or department presently. When you bring these re-
sources through the coordination of the Heritage River Initiative,
do you have any estimate on what the cost of the initiative would
be, of that consolidation would be? How much money are we
Ms. MCGINTY. No, I understand. We do not expect there would
be any additive cost, because the persons involved in this initiative
44
are already Federal employees charged with these responsibilities.

We will be asking those employees to do more, but thats part of
the reinventing government initiative; its do more with less, and
weve had success in asking employees to do more with less.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mrs. Johnson from Connecticut, when she spoke
earlier, mentioned that one of the projects in Hartford, Connecticut
was held up for a considerable amount of time because it took 18
months to get Federal permit.
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes.
Mr. SCHAFFER. When it comes to asking Federal employees to do
more, wouldnt one example be speeding up the time it takes to get
a permit from the Federal Government were they are currently and
without the need for a new program?
Ms. MCGINTY. Absolutely, and thats why this isnt a new pro-
gram; it is expediting, making more efficient, the programs that
are out there and existing.
Mr. SCHAFFER. If in a year from now this Committee may have
questions about the budgeting, the funding, associated with the ini-
tiative, how would you propose that the Congress deal with the
costs associated with the initiative?
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, I am certainly, and will be, responsive to the
Committee at any time. And in addition, again, each of the agen-
cies that will be participating are certainly obliged to be, and will
be, responsive to members of the Committee and to the Congress
in general.
Mr. SCHAFFER. I appreciate the commitment for responsiveness.
Back on June 4, this Committee sent a letter to you asking for a
comprehensive review of all budgetary reprogramming required in
fiscal year 1998 be provided to the Committee. As of today, we
have not received any kind of response. Are you aware of any re-
sponse that you have given us with respect to that letter?
Ms. MCGINTY. The response given at the hearingand Ill reit-
erate it here todayis that there will be no need for reprogram-
ming. We have not reprogrammed in 1997. We will not request any
reprogramming in 1998, but we will submit that to you formally in
writing as well.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Have you submitted anything to us so far?
Ms. MCGINTY. Not in writing, no.
Mr. SCHAFFER. On July 3, this Committee requested to provide
detailed accounting of all travel costs, per diem, and meeting costs
for the Federal agency personnel involved in the American River
Heritage River stakeholders meetings that have already been held
throughout the United States during April and May. We have not
received any response to that inquiry. Are you aware of any re-
sponse that you might have made that we may not have received?
Ms. MCGINTY. Im sorry, Im not aware of the inquiry, but I cer-
tainly will look into it.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Do you think its possible that there were travel
costs, per diem, and other meeting costs associated with those
stakeholder meetings?
Ms. MCGINTY. I would assume so, yes. I mean, we were imme-
diately responsive to any invitation from any person in any part of
the country to come and hear concerns and/or to provide further in-
formation for those who want to participate in the program.
45
Mr. SCHAFFER. Back on July 31 of this year, this Committee re-

quested that you provide detailed answers to questions for the
record on the Committee with respect to the American Heritage
Rivers Program, and that, the meeting that we had on July 15, and
those questions were directed at the Council on Environmental
Quality, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Ag-
riculture. Your agency was requested to coordinate the responses
to those questions. As of today, we have not received any response
from the Council on Environmental Quality. Do you know if
thats
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes, thats what I was originally referring to. We
responded orally. We will respond in writing very soon.
Mr. SCHAFFER. What has occurred in the interim between those
previous meetings and today, unfortunately, is that the administra-
tion has gone ahead with an Executive Order and that rules have
been suggested in The Federal Registerall outside of the ac-
knowledgment of these three written inquiries on behalf of a con-
gressional committee. So I really go back to my original question
on accountability and oversight. When you reassure this Com-
mittee that there will be an opportunity for exchange and that this
kind of exchange is the way that we exercise accountability on be-
half of the American taxpayers, Id just merely point out that it
isthat my confidence that that will occur is eroded somewhat be-
cause of the several efforts that this Committee has made just to
get simple and basic information that we have not received; the co-
operation and coordination has not occurred on a Committee basis,
and the administration has gone forward anyway with an Execu-
tive Order and with rules in the Federal record, and has essentially
ignored the House of Representatives and the Resources Com-
mittee.
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, I would say, sir, with all due respect, we,
ourselves, visited on this issue, and you raised several issuesall
of which were addressed in coordination with your office imme-
diately by my office, and they are reflected in the final program.
Whether it was your questions concerning water rights or your
questions concerning local land use decisionsall of those we im-
mediately responded to. The program details that are in the final
program here are very responsive to issues that were raised by
Members of Congress.
In addition to what I had referred to before, Congressman Skeen
had raised a question about property rights, and in coordination
with him, the program now has language penned by President
Reagan that he agreed to and that is now here. So when it comes
to the substantive programmatic details, we have been very respon-
sive, and the program reflects the very valuable input of this Com-
mittee and other committees.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, Im more than willing to acknowledge and
commend you for the communications youve had with individual
members of the Committee. I dont want to detract from that be-
cause I believe that to be also important. But with respect to ac-
countability and oversight, you specifically mentioned this Com-
mittee, and this is the Committee that deals with resource-related
topics. My status as a Member of Congress is notis nowhere near
the status of a sitting committee with a chairman and members
46
that are appointed and formally appointed, and so on. That is the
context with which I think you raised your assurances of account-
ability and the questions that I asked regarding the specific inquir-
ies, written inquiries, that were made through this Committee that
were ignored.
So why is it, do you believe, the American public should place
any confidence in this oversight and accountability relationship
that the Congress has with the administration, when the three doc-
umented examples of requests for information have gone unan-
swered, and in the meantime the administration moves far ahead
anyway with Executive Orders and rulemaking within the Federal
Register?
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, I would say, sir, that todays proceedings are
strong evidence of the vigorous oversight role and the tenacity of
this Committee to be very much involved in this program, and to
make sure that oversight is being conducted.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Lacking other members, Madam Chairman, may
I ask unanimous consent for a little more time?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Absolutely.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me ask about the 90-day comment period.
The comment period ran from May 19 to August 20, as I recall.
There was a request fromI dont know; it seems 20from 55
Members of Congress to extend that comment period further. That
request was rejected, and Id like to ask you why that request was
not honored.
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes, there were equal requests not to extend the
comment period, both from the House and the Senate, many Mem-
bers saying that their communities were anxiously awaiting this
program, wanting to participate and asking us, in light of the fact
that we had had more outreach and communication and public
comment on this initiative than almost any initiative that one can
think of, that it was time to move on and not to delay and frustrate
communities who were waiting to participate.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, notwithstanding the opinions or the dif-
ferences of opinions by Members of Congress, the decision was
made, nonetheless, to not extend
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes, with this
Mr. SCHAFFER. [continuing] the comment period, and thats the
decision that Id like you to defend.
Ms. MCGINTY. And thats what I am trying to do. There were two
requests to extend the comment period. We responded positively to
the first request, and we did extend the comment period for more
than 60 days. When the second request came, at that point after
we had had more than 90 days of public comment, when the second
request came, there were equal requests saying, Please dont frus-
trate the citizens in my community any longer. They have been
waiting since the Presidents State-of-the-Union Address in Janu-
ary of the year. Its time for the delay to stop and lets move on.
And we thought that the proper balance was, having respected
those who wanted delay in the first instance, that respect was due
to those who were vigorously opposed to further delay in the second
instance, and that was a fair way to move forward.
Mr. SCHAFFER. So in the second instance, the requests for addi-
tional extension of theor extension of the comment period were,
47
in your opinion, just not as persuasive as those to close the com-

ment period at the 90 days? Is that accurate?
Ms. MCGINTY. Especially given the fact that we had 90 days of
comments; we had visits with more than 100 Members of Congress;
we traveled to every region in this country where there were public
hearings. I personally had traveled to every place I was invited to
come and hear from communities who are interested in this. The
outreach on this is extensive, which is why I answered your earlier
question about whether or not there were expenditures in travel on
this program: There certainly have been, because we have been
enormously responsive to those who have wanted to comment and
to be heard on the program.
Mr. SCHAFFER. During the comment period, the report that you
published suggested there were approximately 1,700 comments re-
ceived, and throughout the course of the appendix of that as well
I think its appendix 2it gives a summary of what some of those
comments were, and kind of categorizes them. But nowhere in this
report does it suggest how many were for, how many were against,
how many comments were negative or positive, and so on. Is there
any kind of recording or tally of those for or those against, of the
1,700 comments that you received during that 90-day period?
Ms. MCGINTY. I do believe we have that analysis, and I can pro-
vide it. I dont have itthe numbersoff the top of my head.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, can you tell us generally? Was it evenly
split, overwhelmingly in favor, or overwhelmingly opposed?
Ms. MCGINTY. I cant give an estimation of it. There were com-
munities who were strongly in support of it; there were individuals
who were vigorously opposed, and I think we heard from some of
that representation today, as well as those who were in favor.
Mr. SCHAFFER. I just find it somewhat remarkable that you dont
even have a sense of whether the respondents were somewhat fa-
vorable, mixed, opposed. Even if it seems to be a close call, that
would seem certainly an indicator for the need for caution.
Ms. MCGINTY. No, theres definitely difference of opinion with re-
gard to this initiative, and I think this hearing has been very in-
structive in elucidating where there is difference of opinion. So I
would notlet me be clear. The comments were not 100 percent
positive. The only thing I am hesitating to do here is to put an
exact number on how many were positive and how many were neg-
ative. There is definitely difference of opinion with regard to this
initiative.
Mr. SCHAFFER. The State constitution in my State suggests
thatthis speaks more to the substance of the programthe State
constitution in my State, and I know many western States as well,
is very clear that the allocation of water rights and the establish-
ment of water rights and appropriations in my Statetheyre es-
tablished in the Constitution. Theyre within the domain of States.
My take on the whole concept of local control here is perhaps dif-
ferent than others might be. When I read the 10th Amendment,
suggesting that powers not specifically enumerated to the Federal
Government in the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the
people, city government isnt mentioned in there for some reason,
and neither is the counties, and so on.
48
Now, as it turns out, in my State there is great deference to

counties and local governments, but I guess the question is, the
emphasis here seems to skip over the State level of government on
the establishment of a Rivers Initiative in the designation, and re-
lies upon communities and municipalities, neighborhoods, or what-
ever the case may be.
In a semi-arid State like Colorado, there is wide disagreement,
as you might imagine, even between communities within a State.
Communities fight over water routinely under our State provisions.
Now we manage to negotiate those and to arbitrate those very well
as a State with several years of history as a State in developing
those water laws.
I guess my concern is the neglect of a statewide approach on the
river process. You have given the veto authority, or suggested that
it exists, for Members of Congress. What about a United States
Senator
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes
Mr. SCHAFFER. [continuing] on a statewide basis or a Governor
or a State legislator votinglegislature voting by resolution?
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, let me say several things. First of all, in
terms of the veto, a Senator will have the right to exercise that
veto as well as the Member of Congress in whose district this river,
or stretch of river, might run. In addition, The Federal Register no-
tice makes clear the authorities of the State and also the necessity
of having State support. It itemizes, for example, letters of endorse-
ment from not just local governments, but State and tribal govern-
ment. It also makes clear, as it says here, of course, any projects
identified in the nomination packet must undergo applicable State
review processes.
After our conversations, it also makes clear that the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative, for example, may not conflict with mat-
ters of State or local government jurisdiction, and then itemizes
some of those things that you were helpful in elucidating. So there
is a very strong emphasis on that throughout the program.
Mr. SCHAFFER. And I appreciate those. That gesture, I assure
you, is appreciated; that those comments were considered as a re-
sult of the individual meeting that you and I had.
The thing about rules established in the Federal Register is that
theyre pretty easy to change, and how about opting-out
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes.
Mr. SCHAFFER. [continuing] after a program is established? Is it
your intention that a Member of Congress can have a Heritage
River delisted or removed from the program after the program is
established, and has that been provided for? And any individual,
for that matter, who might find their land or their farm or their
water rights associated with the program, how do they go about
opting-out and protecting themselves?
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, the Member of Congress certainly, as I had
previously articulated, is afforded in this program a veto right in
terms of the existence or the participation in this program. In addi-
tion to that, in light of the comments
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thats after the existence of the program?
Ms. MCGINTY. Its a veto authority that the Member of Congress
would retain throughout the existence of the program. In addition
49
to that, we have provided that at the time of the nomination or se-

lection of a particular river that the community also would dictate
to us their procedures for opting out. Any community that becomes
part of this program can opt out at any time, and moreover, the
procedures through which that will be accomplished we will not
dictate, but the community themselves will decide how that process
would be effectuated.
Mr. SCHAFFER. The community as a wholeso that does not in-
clude an individual farmer or rancher or water rights-holder; is
that correct?
Ms. MCGINTY. Unless a particular community said, well, the way
were going to opt out of this is that if any particular member of
the community says they no longer want their community to par-
ticipate, then we want to opt out; under those circumstances, we
would say thats fine.
Mr. SCHAFFER. You know, it happens every day in the West, and
I suppose throughout the rest of the country, too, that a munici-
pality or a county, unfortunately, intrudes upon the rights of an in-
dividual. Right now I think most local elected officials are very re-
sponsible. I mean, just be clear about that. But on occasion, there
is a zoning issue or some water rights-related matter, where a mu-
nicipality and an individual rights-holder come in conflict.
What this seems to do here, as you described, is in fact gives a
local government entity a certain amount of authority that they
presently do not have over another rights-holder, whether it be
property rights or water rights. Again, going back to how the Tenth
Amendment reads and has been stated, that these rights belong to
the States or to the people, and Im concerned that the people part
of that seem to have no recourse if they decide they want to opt
out of a program that they do not wish to be a part of, which youve
described as non-regulatory.
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, again, they do have every right to opt out,
and they will prescribe the procedures through which theyll opt
out. We will not tell them how they can or cant opt out. It will be
purely up to
Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me just ask the other way, just to be sure:
Is it possible, under the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, that
a farmer or a rancher or a water rights-holder might find them-
selves within the boundaries of a Heritage River designation and
be unable to opt out of the designation?
Ms. MCGINTY. If they are able toif the community says, here
are the procedures through which we want to opt out of this pro-
gram, and theyre procedures A through Z; procedure M involves an
individual landowner comes and petitions and says, We dont want
to be part of this anymore. That will govern the process.
Mr. SCHAFFER. So if a community comes up with a recommenda-
tion that excludes the ability of a property rights-holder to remove
himself from the process, you will empower that community
through the initiative, through this Executive Order; is that cor-
rect?
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, again, we have to keep in mind what this
initiative does. If there is any part of it that an individual land-
owner is not supportive of, to go back to this: Any protect needs
to undergo applicable State and local review processing. So if that
50
owner right now has a right under State or local law to say no to
particular project, that right is still there, and theres nothing in
this initiative that changes the rights of those local landowners in
any way.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Im really hoping my questioning helps you un-
derstand the confusion you stated when you started outthat you
dont understand why anybody would oppose this, because it seems
so free and open and voluntary, and so on. What we are nailing
down here in this one example a situation where a landowner or
a water rights-holder might find themselves within the boundary
of a Heritage River Initiative and be bound by rules that presently
do not exist, by new authority that has been created by this Execu-
tive Order that empowers a local community in a way that they are
not empowered presently.
Now even though they follow local meetings and go through the
routine process of public hearings, and so on, the fact remains that
the communities today that were speaking about do not have the
authority to establish a Heritage Rivers designation in a way that
compels the FederalIll finishin a way that compels the Federal
Government like we are here. That is the new authority that this
represents and the real threat that landowners, ranchers, farmers,
water rights-holders are very concerned about, and downstream or
people with senior water rights in headwater States like mine.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. MCGINTY. But there are no new rules that come with this
program or new authorities. Theres no new regulation or regu-
latory program of any kind that an individual is not subject today
that they would be subject to tomorrow, if their particularthe
place where they lived was designated an American Heritage River.
There is nothing from a regulatory or a legal point of view that will
be different tomorrow than it is today for that individual.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Schaefer, I thank you for your ques-
tioning, and I do want to let you know that, should you wish to
have another period of questioning, we will go for another round.
Mr. SCHAFFER. I appreciate your tolerance on that, Madam
Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Ms. McGinty, when you were before the Com-
mittee before, you mentioned thatand, again, you reiterated the
fact that anyone who wanted to opt out could. And along that line,
I wanted to present to you a letter from our entire Idaho delega-
tion, Senators and Congressmen, saying our whole State wants to
opt out, and two letters from the Idaho Farm Bureau, and then a
letter from the Awahee County commissioners. Thats a county
down in the southwest corner of Idaho, and so we would like to
present those to you at this time. And we would like a written re-
sponse to all of the letters, and most especially the delegation let-
ter.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. What is your oral response to the delegation
letter?
Ms. MCGINTY. Thank you very much.
[Laughter.]
Ms. MCGINTY. I will respond immediately, but I assume that this
is a statement that communities in Idaho will not be participating
51
in this program, and youve exercised a veto, and I think thats just
fine. This program isnt for every community, and if the commu-
nities of Idaho dont want to be part of it, thats their choice.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. So you will accept no nominations from Idaho;
right?
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, I guess I would return the question. I would
assume that this represents a consultation with the people of
Idaho, and you dont expect a nomination to come from the people
of Idaho.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thats not what your testimony indicated be-
fore. You did indicate, if a Congressman or anyone
Ms. MCGINTY. Absolutely. You will have the absolute right to
veto
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Veto power.
Ms. MCGINTY. [continuing] any nomination that should come
from people within your district to nominate a river in your dis-
trict. And on top of that, Senators from the State would have the
veto authority to reject the nomination of citizens from their entire
State, yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. What our delegation has expressed by making
this move is that no petition should even be entertained from
Idaho.
Ms. MCGINTY. Thats fine, and thats the authority that you cer-
tainly have to nominateI mean to veto any nomination that oth-
erwise might be forthcoming.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And will you respect that?
Ms. MCGINTY. I will respect it. I will not make the choices of
which communities are designated, but theres no question that you
have the absolute authority to ensure that no community in your
district, and the Senators from the State have the absolute author-
ity to make sure that no community in the entire State, is a partic-
ipant in this program. And that is fine and that will be respected.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do want to reiterate the fact that at the pre-
vious hearings you saidand its on the recordthat congressional
opposition would stop the initiative in a congressional district, and
in this case weve got all the Senators
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] and Congressmen lined up
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] and it will stop the process in
Idaho?
Ms. MCGINTY. Absolutely. Well, it willit will result in a veto
on any nomination that would be submitted. Now I have no way
of knowing if there is a nomination forthcoming from Idaho, but it
would be a veto, yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, let me ask you again: Will any initiative
petitions be entertained by you from Idaho?
Ms. MCGINTY. I consider that there is now an absolute veto on
any participation in this program by anyone in Idaho.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. Thank you.
Ms. McGinty, you are an attorney, arent you?
Ms. MCGINTY. I went to law school, Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And did you take the bar?
52
Ms. MCGINTY. I never took the bar exam, no. Im not licensed to
practice in any State of the Union.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. You citedlet me back up and say that one
of the biggest questions that I have is the authority under which
this initiative has been put forth. And while I understand that
agencies of the Executive have broad discretionary powers, espe-
cially with generally 2.5 percent of their budget for discretionary
expenditure, that has normally been based on existing authorized
programs.
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now this program has not been authorized by
the Congress. It has not beenmonies have not been appropriated
for it, and you did cite your authority as coming from NEPA. Now
youre not an officer of the court, I understand, because you havent
passed the bar, but you are an attorney.
Ms. MCGINTY. I have not taken the bar exam.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Oh, excuse mehave not taken the bar.
Theres a big difference there.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. But you did cite NEPA. Could you give me the
cite exactly in NEPA that authorizes this?
Ms. MCGINTY. Certainly. I am charged and sworn to execute the
National Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental
Policy Act requires every Federal agency in every major under-
taking that theyin every major action that they undertake that
has significant impact on the environment to coordinate environ-
mental, economic, and social considerations into that decision-
making first, and, second, to afford the citizens of the country, and
including in particular local citizens, to participate in that decision-
making. Thats what is at the heart of what we are trying to do.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you cite within
Ms. MCGINTY. Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy
Act.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Section 101 states the purposes of NEPA.
Ms. MCGINTY. Its section 101(b)(4)precisely requires the Fed-
eral agencies to do what Ive just articulated.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And that is coordinate?
Ms. MCGINTY. It is to integrate environmental, economic, and so-
cial considerations into every major Federal action and to afford
the public an opportunity to participate in decisionmaking.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now the purpose of NEPA, beginning as af-
firmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in a decision beginning with Na-
tional Helium v. Morton, and then never overturned, was that the
purpose of NEPA was to have the Federal Government produce not
only studies, but a decision on government actions on man and his
environment, and it took NEPA absolutely no further than the
study process. And so, therefore, I still actively question that there
has ever been authority to grant certain rivers under a certain des-
ignation and expend funds and appoint people. We may never
agree on that, Ms. McGinty, but I do feel very strongly that the
agencies of the Federal Government need to stay in absolute line
with the authority given them by Congress.
The Anti-Deficiency Act, in fact, that I cited in my opening state-
ments, in Title 31, also very clearly states that an officer or an em-
53
ployee of the United States may not make appropriations outside

that which has been authorized, and in some cases recently, such
as the Endangered Species Act, the courts have adjudged that ap-
propriating funds is in and of itself authorizing programs, but that,
again, departsthis is a new departure from even those concepts.
So I really think that were moving outyoure an adventurous
and very bright woman, but I think that we are embarking on a
new form of law under this United States that may be a bit dan-
gerous, and could amount to a very definite shift of power into the
Office of the Executive.
Ms. MCGINTY. Chairman, if I might, I absolutely understand and
respect the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act, and I think
youre absolutely right to raise that up among the various laws
that this initiative and every initiative needs to be in accord with,
but I do want to underscore again that there is no new expenditure
of funds of any kind here. This is simply an effort to try to facili-
tate a coordination among the agencies and a more efficient execu-
tion of the responsibilities they are charged with under any num-
ber of statutes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. In your earlier testimony, you were stating
what the program would bevoluntary, locally driven, et cetera.
You finished that cluster of items that it would be with a state-
ment that I believe you said it would exert parent authority. Was
that correct? Did I hear that correctly?
Ms. MCGINTY. I wouldnt understand what that statement was
referring to, no. It could be the Philadelphia accent. I dont know.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. According to the Executive Order, it appears
that you are the permanent co-chair of the Interagency Committee
on the American Heritage Rivers, and will develop the procedures
regarding the panel of experts that make recommendations to the
President regarding the merit of particular river designations.
Some would argue that this makes you the administrations rivers
czar, which is a very, very powerful position in these United States.
I just wondered, who, other than the President and his staff, and
the Vice President, and maybe some members of his staff, but I
would doubt that, oversee your work on this particular program?
Ms. MCGINTY. I report directly to the President of the United
States.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. What was the sense of urgency that
caused the President to issue the Executive Order rather than es-
tablishing this program through the more conventional means
through the Congressby having authority, statutory authority
come through the Congress?
Ms. MCGINTY. Let me address the first part of the question,
which is the urgencyto recall for the Committee the history that
the President announced his intention to launch this initiative in
January of this year. Its been since January that we have engaged
in extensive public outreach, public comment, participation, and de-
velopment of the program. So it has been the better part of nine
months that have been invested in putting this initiative together.
So I donttheres been a longer history here to this, and this has
been a program that has involved extensive outreach and public
participation.
54
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just wish that our permitting process in

every area could be as efficient as the White House has dem-
onstrated their willingness to be in this particular issue. And I do
want to bring back the testimony that Nancy Johnson had given
the Committee and comments that you made about how the com-
munities in Pennsylvania had actually gone about cleaning up the
Delaware River, and that is the peoples river. We all do feel very
much a part of that effort and commend the people of that river
basin for their fine work. But there are already-existing programs.
Based on the good testimony that we have heard today, there is the
National Rural Development Partnership Program that was initi-
ated by President Bush, and generally, as far as the general overall
ability to coordinate and try to help communities break rule the
regulatory maze, President Bush had envisioned pulling this to-
gether to help communities.
There are hundreds of examples where communities have been
helped. The only problem is that this new American Heritage Riv-
ers Initiative will have the Director of CEQ as pretty much the
head kahoona, the head honcho in this whole thing. And we are re-
inventing that which seemed to have been working pretty well
under President Bush.
There are many programs and a lot of help that can be given to
communities in the form of grants, and so forth, and I realize there
are small communities who may not have the sophistication to
know where to go, but I know that those of us who are responsive
to our constituents are inundated with casework and are willing to
respond.
Did you wish to respond to that?
Ms. MCGINTY. Just to affirm the point that there are any num-
ber of programs out there that communities turn in any direction
they can, including their congressional representatives, including
having sometimes to hire expensive experts to help them wade
through and access the resources that are their resources and that
should be more effectively and efficiently put at their disposal.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Can you tell me, for the record, how do you
define a river community for the purposes of this new program?
Ms. MCGINTY. There is no one-size-fits-all definition or command
and control of what a river community constitutes. Because this is
100 percent locally driven, the locality will self-select. A community
will decide or not decide to participate and will define itself, both
whos going to be and whos going to be out, and what are the pro-
grams that the community is interested in pursuing.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Ms. McGinty, I want to return to the fact that
our entire delegation asked to have the entire State of Idaho opted
out of this program. What about a river nominated over its entire
length of the water or the watershed, like the Columbia River, from
a source outside of, say, my State? But some part of the river is
within the boundaries of my State or the watershed impacts my
State or my district. I want to get it on the record. Would that kind
of nomination impact a nomination in Idaho, or will the veto that
has been asserted here remain intact?
Ms. MCGINTY. Chairman, if the example is that a nomination
comes forward and proposes that a stretch of river be nominated,
and some part of that river has been subject to a veto, the veto ex-
55
tends to the proposal. That proposal would be vetoed, and it would

be up to those who still want to participate to go back and recraft
their nomination proposal, so that the community that has opted
out is no longer a part of it, yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. Mr. Schaefer, do you have any other
questions?
Mr. SCHAFFER. Yes, I would like to visit the river navigator topic
again. One of the items that I had raised in our private meeting,
as well as in the last hearing that we had, was with respect to
river navigators or other Federal employees involved in the Herit-
age River Initiative, whether they would be permitted or whether
we should expect to see them testifying in a water court or before
a board of county commissioners or a city council with respect to
a zoning decision of some sort? Are thesemy desire, as you know,
is to have them precluded from participating in those kinds of
hearings. Do you see any way to accommodate that desire on behalf
of my constituents?
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, as a result of our conversations, we have ac-
commodated these issues in at least two places in the final Federal
Register notice. For example, the American Heritage Rivers Initia-
tive will not conflict with matters of State and local government ju-
risdiction, such asand land use planning is mentioned there spe-
cifically in a separate item. It also reiterates that this initiative
may not infringe on the existing authority of local governments to
plan or control land use or to provide or transfer authority over
such land use.
So in at least two places, and maybe more, we have made sure
that the sovereignty of local authority over land use planning is ab-
solutely respected here.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Respecting the sovereignty and authority of local
land use planners is good, and I appreciate that. Im speaking to
something different, which is the river navigator showing up in a
water court before a board of county commissioners, testifying
against a landowner. Once again, what were talking about here is
this bill is about cash at the moment, about spending Federal
funds on this particular project, and the question we have to re-
solve is whether this is inherently in the best interest of the public
that will pay for them, If the billif you were to prevail and the
bill would fail, and were rejected by this Committee or some other
body along the process here, what would happen, essentially, is
that landowners, property owners, income taxpayers throughout
the country send their cash here to Washington, and we send it
back to them in the form of somebody who will be employed now
with those dollars to testify against them. That is the activity I
would like to prevent.
Ms. MCGINTY. Well, let me say two things, if I might, on that
well, three. First of all, I do want to reiterate again that there are
no new Federal dollars involved in this program, but, second, spe-
cifically to the point of what the Federal employee, this river navi-
gator, will be doing, the Federal Register notice makes clear that
employees of the Federal Government may not, as a result of this
initiative, infringe this authority of local governments, and then,
further, the Federal Register notice specifies that the community,
rather than the river navigator, will be responsible for the imple-
56
mentation of the communitys plan. The river navigator will have

no authority to, among other things, adjudicate and may not en-
gage in the following: lobbying, leadership of community partner-
ship, or any of its endeavors, et cetera. So there is a clear proscrip-
tion on the river navigator becoming a lobbyist of any kind with
regard to any element of this plan. The plan is the responsibility
of the community.
Mr. SCHAFFER. This is a newthis individual would represent a
new level of Federal presence within a jurisdiction of some sort? It
is a new
Ms. MCGINTY. This would be a person who isthis is not a new
Federal presence. Again, these are existing programs. The people
who have been involved in this initiative to date are all Federal
employees already engaged in working in these areas under the
various laws that govern these kinds of activities.
Mr. SCHAFFER. If the South Platte River in Colorado were des-
ignated as a Heritage River Initiative or designated as a river
within the initiative, a river navigator would be employed and
appointed
Ms. MCGINTY. Yes. Well, a river navigator would be identified
with a community having the right to participate in the selection
of that person, but the anticipation is that that is a person who is
already employed by the Federal Government for these purposes.
Were just asking those people to take on another job, and that is
to be an ombudsman for a local community.
Mr. SCHAFFER. You have a person with a new title, with a new
job description, with a new function, with a new designation for an
existing river
Ms. MCGINTY. Which job description will be written by the com-
munity.
Mr. SCHAFFER. OK, I guess we have a difference of opinion as to
whether that constitutes a new level of Federal involvement. I
think its undeniable that it doesthat it is a new level of Federal
involvement, and that really is the question that is still not re-
solved. Protecting local zoning ordinances and authority, and so on,
is fine, but all of a sudden this initiative has the potential of inject-
ing a new Federal employee with a new job title, with a new set
of responsibilities, and the question I wantlet me just reverse the
question again and see if I can answer it that way. Is it possible
that a Federal river navigator under this initiative could testify
against a landowner in a water court, before a zoning board, or in
any local setting of that sort?
Ms. MCGINTY. If it is possible for that Federal employee to do so
today, there is nothing in this initiative that changes that in terms
of what can happen
Mr. SCHAFFER. But there are no river navigators today. Theyre
not there.
Ms. MCGINTY. But there is no authorityto the point, this pro-
gram is not a piece of legislation. That means it can neither cede
nor abrogate current Federal responsibilities or authorities. There
will be nothing different in terms of Federal responsibilities or au-
thorities tomorrow than there are today.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Is it possible that the person who is designated
as the river navigator will testify in a water court or before a board
57
of county commissioners in a zoning hearing or anything of that

sort?
Ms. MCGINTY. The answer is, if it is possible for that to happen
todayand I have no information or understanding as to whether
it isif its possible for that to happen today, there is nothing in
this program that would change that possibility tomorrow.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, let me askthis is more difficult than it
needs to be.
Ms. MCGINTY. Ifif
Mr. SCHIFF. Let meOK, lets talk about today. Is it possible for
one of these river navigators to go testify in a court today?
Ms. MCGINTY. I would cede to others who have expertise on this.
I do not know
Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, howthere are no river navigators today.
[Laughter.]
Mr. SCHAFFER. Why is this hard to answer?
Ms. MCGINTY. The answer is that there are no new authorities,
that someone whos name today is Joe Smith and tomorrow is Joe
Smith, River Navigator, they will have no new authorities when
they have comma River Navigator after their name than they
have today. And so if Joe Smith doesnt have that authority today,
he will not enjoy that authority tomorrow when hes Joe Smith,
River Navigator.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Im just trying to get this answeryou know, the
American public, who relies on these congressional records and the
records and transcripts from these hearings, or a judge, who I as-
sure you at some point in time is going to be reviewing this record
to make a decision, wants to know what our intention is. And all
I want to know is, is it possible that the river navigator, whether
its an existing person today or somebody that you hire out of the
blue and put the job title and give them the business card, I am
the River Navigator, is that personis it possible that that person
can walk into a water court or a zoning board and provide testi-
mony under that title?
Ms. MCGINTY. Sir, the only answer I can give you is, if, in the
absence of this program, that person would have that authority,
then the answer is yes. But if the answer is no, then the answer
remains no.
Mr. SCHAFFER. So youre suggesting theres somebody who is the
equivalent of a river navigator today?
Ms. MCGINTY. What Im suggesting is that, assuming the title of
river navigator affords a Federal employee no new rights or author-
ity. And so if that Federal employee todaythere are no river navi-
gators, but there are Federal employeesif those Federal employ-
ees do not have the authority that youre referring to, they will not
have it as a consequence of this program.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Is it impossible to get a yes-or-no answer to the
previous question?
[Laughter.]
Ms. MCGINTY. Im being as clear as I possibly can. If there is
if it currently is the case that Federal employees can testify as you
are describing, then it still will be the case that Federal employees
called river navigators will be able to do that, but I am not aware
as to whether or notif weve got an expert who can tell us wheth-
58
er today a Federal employee can testify before a water court, if the

answer to that is yes, then a Federal employee tomorrow would be
able to do that, too, after this program is in effect.
But I dont know if we have
Mr. SCHAFFER. Madam Chairman, Im just going to defer to the
Chairman. I have stated that questionif there is some way to get
a definitive answer on that, I would sure love to have it
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Is the general counsel here? I understand she
is. Would you like to ask the general counsel, so we can get it on
the record?
Mr. SCHAFFER. Oh, sure. Sure. Is there
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Dinah, I wonder if you would stand and take
the oath?
[Witness sworn.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Please proceed.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Would you identify yourself? I dont know you.
Ms. BEAR. Yes, my name is Dinah Bear. Im general counsel of
the Council on Environmental Quality.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, youve heard the question and the answer.
[Laughter.]
Mr. SCHAFFER. But I want to knowis it
Ms. BEAR. OK, let me see if I can give this a try. But it is sub-
stantively the same answer that Ms. McGinty has been giving.
There are a number of circumstances in which Federal employees
can testify in Federal, State courts or local proceedingsobviously,
in their individual capacities, not as a Federal employee, but as a
U.S. citizen; as a Federal employee. Federal agencies occasionally,
of course, are suedsometimes by State and local agencies. They
may be called on as witnesses. They may be subpoenaed in dif-
ferent circumstances and obligated to give testimony.
There is nothing about this program that would change any of
those authorities or responsibilities. Similarly, or conversely, there
is nothing about the designation of river navigator under the Amer-
ican Heritage Rivers Program that would give them any authority
or responsibility, as I understand it, to appear in court or in any
kind of special administrative or arbitrative proceeding as a river
navigator.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thats understood.
Ms. BEAR. If they are a lawyer for an agency or a biologist or an
engineer, and theyre called on to testify in that capacity in court,
in some sort of litigation or proceeding, theres nothing that would
bar them from doing so as a result of their appointment as a river
navigator, but they would not be representing the Federal Govern-
ment in their capacity as a river navigator.
Mr. SCHAFFER. How about in the capacity of testifying against a
landowner in a zoning hearing, before a zoning board, or a water
rights-holder with respect to a water court?
Ms. BEAR. My understanding is that they would not be testifying
in a capacity as a river navigator. I think where some of the confu-
sion may be arising here is theres a reluctance to say they would
not be able to testify, either voluntarily or as a result of a sub-
poena, in any kind of a proceeding in their other capacity as a Fed-
eral employee. I think Ms. McGinty has indicated that this would
59
be in addition to the regular job, not necessarily a substitute for

their job. And because the community would be developing the job
description, it might or might not subsume the rest of the respon-
sibilities.
But I think the key here, I think what youre looking for is
whether or not there would be testifying against a landowner in
their capacity as a river navigator, and I believe the answer to that
is no. You, of courseor the Committee, of coursecould, I as-
sume, ask river navigators to testify, if you wanted to do so, but
thats the only exception that I can think of to that.
Mr. SCHAFFER. I suppose that would be correct. But let me
which raises upwhich raises an old issue, at least as far as this
issue has gone. In repeated questions as to whether anybody can
envision a need or an occasion where the river navigator would tes-
tify against a landowner or a water rights-holder in a Federal
water court, the answer is nofrom Ms. McGinty, from Bruce Bab-
bitt, from Dan Glickman. Everyone says, no, we cant imagine
when this would ever need to occur. My response was, well, it
would make a lot of us feel better if we could just write that into
the Executive Order or into the Federal Register or secure that
guarantee some way or another. And it is the resistance from the
Clinton Administration to providing that safeguard which causes
the concern.
And so it seems to me the question isthe question of, can a
river navigatoris it possible that the river navigator could end up
in front of a water court or a zoning board, testifying against a
landowner, that the answer is yes, but we cant envision when that
would be needed. Why would it be harmful
Ms. MCGINTY. The answer is
Mr. SCHAFFER. [continuing] to preclude the river navigator from
testifying against a landowner or water rights-holder in a water
court or before a zoning board?
Ms. MCGINTY. The answer is yesonly to the extent that that
employee currently has that authority. The answer is no in terms
of whether this initiative grants that employee that authority. It
does not.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, Federal employees currently have the au-
thority, is what Im told. Is that not correct?
Ms. MCGINTY. I have no expertise on whether or not Federal em-
ployees have the authority to testify against local landowners in ei-
ther land use or water use courts. To the extent that they do,
theres nothing in this program that changes that equation. To the
extent that they dont, theres also nothing in this program that
changes that equation.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Ms. Bear
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ill stop asking
questions.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Ms. McGinty and Ms. Bear, I want to thank
you very much for your testimony. Its been a long day. Its going
to be suppertime before too long. And you can be excused now.
I would ask, if its at all possible, for either you or your staff to
remain and listen to the rest of the testimony, if thats possible, but
you are excused now from the witness table, and thank you very
much.
60
Ms. MCGINTY. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And the Chairman now recognizes our first
panel. We have been at this for 5 hours almost, and I want to rec-
ognize Mr. William Perry Pendley from the Mountain States Legal
Foundation in Denver, Colorado; Mr. Robert Lynch, Central Ari-
zona Project Association, Phoenix, Arizona; Ms. Lois Van Hoover,
Idaho Multiple Land Use Coalition, Yellow Pine, Idaho; Mr.
Desmond K. Smith, Trans Texas Heritage Association, Alpine,
Texas, and Ms. Mary A. Yturria, Brownsville, Texas.
We welcome you all.
And while our panelists are taking their place at the witness
table, I want to acknowledge two very special friends of mine who
are present in the room, who came all the way from Idaho. Pat
Barkley, who is president of the Idaho Multiple Land Use Coali-
tionher office is in Boise, Idaho. I know she spends as much time
in Yellow Pine, Idaho as she can. Id like that, too, Pat. Im awful
glad youre here.
And representative and a chairman of one of our more prominent
committees in the Idaho legislature, Sylvia McHeath.
Thank you both for traveling across the country to be present
and join us today.
So with that, I wonder if you might all stand and take the oath,
please. Raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Pendley?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PERRY PENDLEY, MOUNTAIN
STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION, DENVER, COLORADO
Mr. PENDLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You have my pre-
pared testimony for the record.
I will just say to answer the question Congressman Schaffer
askedFederal officials will testify, and they have testified. You
need only look at the example of the New World Mine and the way
the superintendent of Yellowstone National Park tried to prevent
the opening of that mine. The water adjudications now going on in
the State of Idaho have Federal witness after Federal witness. So
the answer to the question is yes.
Just as Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, Regardless of the good
youre trying to achieve, theres no excuse for doing it any other
way than the constitutional way. And thats what were dealing
with here. Weve got the cart before the horse. Were talking about
essentially what is legislation, and I sense the frustration that the
Committee has in trying to figure out, to paraphrase a famous ex-
ample, Wheres the beef? Wheres the pork?because you are
buying essentially a pig in a poke here. You dont know. The ball
is constantly in motion, as you heard the testimony here today, and
anyone who puts any confidence at all in where it will be in the
end is, I think, foolish.
I come from that part of the world, as you know, where the rub-
ber hits the road. We are where all these good ideas and well-in-
tended remarks are implemented by bureaucrats and their win-at-
all-costs attorneys. We are out there where the caveats and the
compromises and the concessions that have been made to protect
us end up in the ditch, while the rights and the privileges and the
61
economic opportunities of the people that are going to testify today

wind up as roadkill in the middle of the highway.
And those who have the wherewithal of paying attorneysthose
that dont, maybe they can get the attention of Mountain States
Legal Foundation, and we can get in the litigationcome back here
and say: What about all the agreements that were made? What
about the compromises that were made to protect our rights? And
we are told its in litigation; Congress cant get involved.
Let me give a couple of examples. Theyre from testimony Ive
given before. Theyre situations that this body knows of well. We
are told theres a self-defense exception in the Endangered Species
Act, and yet the only man ever to kill a grizzly bear in his own
yard is in his seventh year of litigation to try to use that self-de-
fense claim, because the Fish and Wildlife Service doesnt like it
and doesnt want it to be used.
We are told that the Wilderness Act prohibition against motor-
ized vehicles will be implemented sensibly, will use common law,
and will allow for emergencies and dangerous situations and acci-
dents and necessity. But, as you know from the famous Bobby
Unser case, the Forest Service took the position that being in a wil-
derness in a snowmobile accidentally, out of necessity, or out of
emergency is irrelevant; being there alone is a violation of Federal
law.
And, finally, you know as well, when you pass a Wilderness Act,
despite the valid existing rights protections that are put in, we
have the Forest Service taking the official position that when Con-
gress adopted the valid existing rights provision, it did not know
what the phrase meant and so Forest Service can implement it any
way it wants.
We remain optimistic. Hope springs, it seems, eternal. I think we
are forever like Charlie Brown, thinking that Lucy this timethis
timewill leave the ball on the ground, and that were on the same
page, if not maybe the same team, and that she wont pull the ball
away from us, and everything will be OK. And it never is, and we
just keeping hoping that this time it will be all right.
It strikes me as quite incredible that we have created this op-
pressive, monstrous bureaucracy that doesnt work, that cant de-
liver services efficiently, and were told, Oh, but only if we had one
more layer of bureaucracy, then we could assure the efficient deliv-
ery of services.Oops, but only for 10 rivers, not for anybody else
in America.
I point the Committee to the experience of the Natural Historic
Landmarks (NHL), what happened under that oppressive program,
how the National Park Service admitted that it violated property
rights, and how eventually the NHL was used by neighbors to
nominate lands for designation to prevent neighbors from using
their property.
Listening to this, reading the Federal Register, were left with
only questionsquestions after questions of who, when, where,
what, why. Whos going to be on the panel? Whos going to decide
the terms? What is a vision? All unanswered.
And the point that Congressman Schaffer made with regard to
Im sorry, Chairman, you madewith regard to NEPA is a valid
one. NEPA does not compel what Ms. McGinty is doing or what
62
this President is doing. NEPA, in fact, compels that this adminis-

tration do what it has refused to do, which is to comply with
NEPA, publish this, go through an EA, go through a FONSI, go
through an EIS, and allow the American people to comment on it.
The fact of the matter is there is absolutely no statutory author-
ity for what the administration is doing here. There are so many
questions undecided.
When I came here somebody cynically suggested to meI
thought it was cynicallythat people will do this because of pork.
I thought that was cynical until I got here and listened to the testi-
mony, and it strikes me as maybe it is pork, and I say, geez, what
a low price for which to sell ones liberty.
We have a Constitution that guarantee how our government
should do business. The Bill of Rights is not the source of our pro-
tection exclusively. It is the way our government is structured that
is that source. Read, for example, Justice Scalias opinion in the
Brady case earlier this year, where he lays it out very thoughtfully
that source of the guarantee of our rights comes from the way the
government is structured, the vision of our government, and the
fact that this is the body that adopts legislation, and the executive
branch is the body that implements it.
I know my time expired, but let me just add one parenthetical.
What will be the balance implemented out there in the field? Pick
up this mornings copy of The Washington Post and look at the bal-
ance this administration takes with regard to western resources,
where the administration, in balancing the needs of the Nation for
energy, in the most potentially productive area of the lower 48,
Overthrust Belt of Montana, has said, no, were not going to allow
oil and gas activities there; were going to set it all aside for envi-
ronmental purposes. And so anybody who thinks that this Federal
Register notice, where it talks about economic activity, will answer
some recognition of that activity, I think, again, is foolish.
Finally, let me just say that I dont think these people are going
to wait until they are roadkill, until their rights are roadkill, in
this particular program. I dont think were going to have to wait
until the rights are violated for a lawsuit to go forward. I think this
whole program will be challenged, and well have the opportunity
to have a Federal judge asked some of the questions that the gen-
tleman from Colorado and you, Madam Chairman, are asking, and
maybe well get some better answers.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pendley may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Pendley.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Lynch for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. LYNCH, CENTRAL ARIZONA

PROJECT ASSOCIATION, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Mr. Schaffer, for
the opportunity to appear here today and testify on the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative and the Chairmans bill, H.R. 1842,
which I might note with some pleasure will be co-sponsored by my
Congressman, Mr. Shadegg, who I believe notified you of that ear-
63
lier this afternoon. I have submitted copies of my written testimony

to the Committee, and Ill try not to repeat that.
The primary focus of the Central Arizona Project Association is,
of course, the Central Arizona Project itself, formed in 1946 to pro-
mote the project, its authorization, its construction, and its oper-
ation. And Im pleased to report that this year CAP will deliver ap-
proximately 1.5 million acre feet of Colorado River water through
a 336-mile canal system through the metropolitan areas of central
Arizona. It supplies about two-thirds of our population.
We are not, however, without problems, and those are all, you
might imagine, environmental, and they affect the main stem of
the Colorado River. Our interest in this initiative stems from our
activities in Arizona to solve problems and our fear that this initia-
tive may add a layer of bureaucracy that interferes with the prob-
lem-solving that is ongoing in Arizona.
I might note that I have heard a great deal about this initiative
today from Ms. McGinty that isnt in the Federal Register notice,
and it sounds a lot like the beginnings of a second set of regula-
tions and detail. And we were concerned before we heard that de-
tail; were even more concerned now because we cant figure out
where CAP fits into this scheme.
Unfortunately, the beneficiaries of the Central Arizona Project
and the Colorado River dont live on the Colorado River and they
dont work on the Colorado River. They live in central Arizona.
Phoenix is 190 miles from the Colorado River. Tucsons another 120
miles southeast of us. And yet the beneficiaries of the Central Ari-
zona Project have as much concern about the Colorado River as do
our residents and citizens who live on the river. Yet this initiative
pays only lip service to those beneficiaries and doesnt involve them
either in the nomination process or anything other than a tangen-
tial sort of reference to a plan.
Frankly, we dont need a plan. Weve got a plan. In the Lower
Colorado River Basin, its called a multi-species conservation plan.
It is supported by a Memorandum of Understanding with the
United States involving all three lower basin States, major environ-
mental groups, and other interests. We dont need interference with
that plan. What we need is for the employees of the Federal Gov-
ernment who are already committed to that plan, to our plan, not
to be diverted from that by having to pay attention to this initia-
tive.
And one of our great concerns is that, with all the cost-cutting
thats going on and the paring-down of Federal agencies, youre get-
ting down somewhere close to essential numbers of personnel doing
tasks who have certain skills. And if those skills are diverted, and
if those people are diverted to this, were afraid that we wont be
able to get our problem-solving done under the Endangered Species
Act in this plan, or in the upper basins conservation plan, a recov-
ery plan for four endangered fish. So were very concerned about
whats going to happen to the people we need to continue our prob-
lem-solving if they get, because of their expertise, their under-
standing of rivers, and their scientific backgrounds, diverted into
this whole new program.
Were also concerned about the process. I have to disagree with
Ms. McGinty; I think they have, in fact, created new regulations,
64
because theres a consultation mechanism in the Executive Order.

I dont know why people arent paying attention to it, but I consider
that some real problem in terms of figuring out the process, the
consultation requirements that Congress has legislated in several
other areas.
And let me speak about reprogramming. Ms. McGinty said no re-
programming. Theres got to be reprogramming. The beneficiaries
of CAP pay, through water and power charges, for Federal employ-
ees to do work thats considered reimbursable expense. If they are
then diverted to this, theyre going to pay for this, too. This cer-
tainly ought not to be a reimbursable expense to the beneficiaries
of local projects who agreed in contract what they were going to be
obligated to. Now this is being laid on top of it.
I know Im out of time, and there are many more witnesses, but
I just want to say I agreed fully with what Mr. Pendley said. The
National Environmental Policy Act does not authorize this program
and its not a legal foundation for it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lynch may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Lynch, I want to thank you for your testi-
mony, and Mr. Pendley.
We have been called to another vote, and we will look forward
to hearing from Lois Van Hoover when we get back. And I can see
some of you back there who have sat all day long waiting for your
chance to respond to our request, to hear from you, and I thank
you very much for your patience. It is beyond my control, though,
and my responsibility is to make sure that Mr. Schaffer and I can
get over there and vote and do our job like our constituents expect
of us and cast the vote.
So there will be two votes probably, and well hit the tail-end of
this vote, and the next vote will be a 5-minute vote. Hopefully, well
be back in 15 to 20 minutes. So bear with us. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. This hearing will come to order. We will re-
sume testimony by hearing from Lois Van Hoover from Yellow
Pine, Idaho.
STATEMENT OF LOIS VAN HOOVER, IDAHO MULTIPLE LAND

USE COALITION, YELLOW PINE, IDAHO
Ms. VAN HOOVER. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. As you said,
Im Lois Van Hoover, and I represent the Idaho Multiple Plan Use
Coalition. Additionally, I sit on the boards of the Idaho Council on
Industry and the Environment, the Independent Miners, and the
Alliance of Independent Miners. I am a co-founder of a new group
that is forming called the Natural Resource Advocacy Center, and
I live in Yellow Pine, Idaho with my husband, Leo.
I just want to speak briefly, encapsulate my written statement.
When I first reviewed the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, I
think my first response to that was that it was harmlesseven
though it wouldnt do anything, it wouldnt be effective. With a lit-
tle further review, I had some real concerns about private property
rights and State rights. I need to say that I reviewed this with
Katie McGintys office, and they did put some verbiage in to try to
65
appease those fears. I have to say that Im still not totally satisfied,
obviously, with what I was told.
Ms. McGinty, at the Western States Coalition meeting last July
in Spokane, and again today, stated that her inspiration for this
program was the Philadelphia waterfront revitalization. However,
the Philadelphia projects have been done through a partnership of
private and public entities without the benefit of this program, and
it didnt addthere was no added bureaucracy from the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative. Many cities and communities in my
home State of Idaho have done similar projects without the Amer-
ican Heritage Rivers Initiative, and have not required an addi-
tional tax burden on the American people.
Further research indicated that the American Heritage Rivers
Program is practically a carbon copy of the Canadian Heritage Riv-
ers Program. Amazingly enough, one could exchange the verbiage
from one program to the other. The St. Corry River, on the border
of Maine, is part of the Canadian Heritage Rivers Program and is
administered by a joint international committee.
I want to thank you and the rest of the delegation for opting out
of this program. I think that that is one of the best things that
could happen to the State of Idaho.
In June when I was in Ms. McGintys office, I asked them to de-
fineI did not; somebody in the party did, actuallyto define what
a river community was. The definitions variedeverything from a
river basin to a watershed. And if were talking about a river com-
munity being a watershed, Idaho is a watershed and the head-
waters for a lot of different States. And I did hear Ms. McGintys
answer today to your question, Madam Chair, but I still have a
question over the jurisdiction of those headwaters, as the example
you used, being the Columbiafor the headwaters that would
originate in the State of Idaho, and who would have jurisdiction
over those waters. That also raises a question of the States pri-
macy over its water, and as you know, the Supreme Court has held
that up many timesthat the State does have primacy over its
water.
Is it possible that the American Heritage Rivers Initiative could
include efforts such as zoning that typically come under county
government? I suppose that question is a NEPA question. If we are
designating rivers and were going through a NEPA process, and
we have county plans or community plans for the river community,
will those plans come under NEPA? And if they come under NEPA,
that takes away local control. And I have some questions about
that, and I believe those are all the jurisdictional questions. That
does not take into consideration theagain, I would like to state
the international borders.
And as a voting, tax-paying American citizen, I take offense to
programs that are being initiated by Executive Order, when they
should have gone through the legislative process. One of the
strengths the Founding Fathers built into our form of government
was the separation of powers between the President and the Con-
gress.
Cities and counties are perfectly capable of deciding how to man-
age their land. Local control with input from local consensus
groups will provide the best results.
66
It seems to me that the Federal Government has a fiduciary re-

sponsibility to the taxpayers of the United States of America. This
initiative duplicates an existing program: the Rural Development
Partnership established by the Bush Administration in 1991. It is
already operating in 38 States. You do not reinvent government by
duplicating and adding a layer of Federal bureaucracy, nor do you
satisfy your responsibility to the taxpayers.
And one of the major differences between what was put in by the
Bush Administration and this initiative is that it is headed in each
State, and the Governor of each State puts out who is going to
nominate the director for the Rural Partnership.
One of the selling points of the initiative is that it will make use
of existing Federal personnel. In Idaho, we already do that. For ex-
ample, the head of our EPA office is working on the Rural Develop-
ment Partnership. Will he be able to do both? Or would another
Federal employee be pulled away from his present duties to be as-
signed to this program? In any case, who will do the task that
these Federal employees are doing now? In fact, who is paying the
current 12 members of the American Heritage Rivers Working
Group and who is doing their job while they are working on this
initiative?
The additional Federal initiative is proposed at a time when we
are supposed to be downsizing Federal Government and giving
more control to the States. This is the exact opposite.
We do not need a river czar. We do need to have Federal employ-
ees who simply do their jobs. We do not need the American Herit-
age Rivers Program, even though Ms. McGinty said in Spokane
last July that she was doing this program because she could not
trust State and local government and the private sector to do the
job.
If one of the major reasons for the American Heritage Rivers Ini-
tiative is to recognize outstanding efforts by communities on behalf
of our river heritage in this country, I would suggest that the local
communities could be recognized with a plaque that can be placed
at the city limits noting their achievement, or you could even in-
clude a description of the communitys unique efforts in the Con-
gressional Record. But I strongly believe that anything to do within
the boundary of the State and the State waters is best left at the
State and local level.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Van Hoover may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mrs. Van Hoover.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Desmond Smith, and I understand
that you have twice canceled your flight, and will be departing
right after your testimony. So we will excuse you.
STATEMENT OF DESMOND K. SMITH, TRANS TEXAS HERITAGE
ASSOCIATION, ALPINE, TEXAS
Mr. DESMOND SMITH. Thank you for inviting me to testify. My
name is Desmond Smith. Im a rancher from Lampastas, Texas,
where me and my wife operate a ranch thats been in her family
for 147 years. Im president of the Trans Texas Heritage Associa-
tion. Im here today representing our members who own 15.5 mil-
67
lion acres of private property in Texas, and 1 million acres in New

Mexico.
Over the past few years, landowners have been trying to make
Congress and the public understand the concept of the regulatory
taking of private property, but we have not been very successful.
We understand that Federal designations can bring with them lim-
itations of the use of private property. This is why we are con-
cerned about the American Heritage River Initiative.
We found that Garry Mauro, the Commissioner of the Texas
Land Office, was pushing for local officials along the Rio Grande
to petition the river for designation as an American Heritage River.
A friend of ours in the Governors office told us about a meeting
that was going to take place in Laredo on the 28th of April of this
year. My wife and one other director of our organization decided to
go.
When we walked in, the people at the desk started looking for
our name tags, but I told them they wouldnt find them. It turned
out that the meeting was by invitation only. There were people
from all levels of government, also from the Nature Conservancy
the Audubon Society. If we had not shown up, there wouldnt have
been any representation from any property rights group.
Garry Mauro breezed into the meeting for a few minutes, and
there was a lot of back-slapping and glad-handing. It was sug-
gested that he should be made the river navigator during the proc-
ess of the meeting.
Since then, weve learned that this is supposed to a bottoms-up
initiative, but what was obvious that day was that the Texas Gen-
eral Land Office and Commissioner Mauro were really backing
this. At this meeting people talked about AHRI in terms of clean
water, cultural heritage, economical development. I stood up and
asked the question if this would include our friends in Mexico. The
fellow from the Council of Environmental Quality said it wouldnt.
Then I asked him how they expected to clean up the Rio Grande
when Mexico pollutes the river, and he didnt answer.
Right after that the moderator asked everyone to stand and state
their name and organization affiliations. Everyone there except us
was either from the government or the Nature Conservancy or the
Audubon Society. It was clear that the meeting was anything but
grassroots and bottoms-up.
Now Ive lived in Texas all in my life, and my organization has
members who are property owners along the Rio Grande. The peo-
ple who were invited to the meeting do not speak or represent all
the people along the Rio Grande. The landowners I represent do
not want their land designated as an American Heritage River
not now, not ever.
Ever since that meeting, weve been trying to figure out what
AHRI is all really about, and nothing we have been told makes any
sense. The CEQ assured us there would be no Federal dollars and
no new regulations.
When Mr. Ray Clark with the CEQ came to Austin on July the
9th, we asked him if the AHRI was about improving water quality;
if so, given the fact that we already have the Clean Water Act, and
especially since Mexico dumps raw sewage and industrial waste
into the Rio Grande, how would the AHRI, with no new regula-
68
tions, improve water quality? If not water quality, then how about
restoring water quantity? Mr. Clark told us the AHRI would have
nothing to do with removing dams and improve impoundments
along the river.
If there are no new Federal regulations and no Federal dollars,
what can we accomplish with AHRI that cant be accomplished
now? Nothing. If we private property owners hadnt done such a
good job caring for our land, I doubt if the Federal Government and
the environmentalists would be so interested in it. Public owner-
ship and access to land does not offer the same protection as the
loving care it receives at the hands of private property owners. If
resource protection is a problem, private propertynot public own-
ershipis, and always has been, the best solution.
I understand Congressman Reyes and the people of El Paso want
a river walk. Well, San Antonio has a river walk, and have had it
for years, and they didnt have to get a Federal designation to ac-
complish that. What is really going on here?
The thinking people of this Nation were shocked and sickened by
Clintons arrogant designation of the Grand StaircaseEscalante
National Monument. Now he has given us the American Heritage
River Incentive. There are two things that I find very unsettling
about this incident. The first is that the administration thinks the
American people are so stupid we would fall for this. The second
is the negative property rights implication inherent in the Federal
designation of anything.
Im asking you folks to please do the American people a great
service and pass H.R. 1842not just out of this Committee, but out
of the full Congress. I thank you for your time. God bless each of
you and our Nation, and thank you for having me.
Now may I be excused?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Desmond Smith may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. You are a real trooper. I do want to let you
know thatand I wanted to announcethat I have just received,
and will place into the record a letter from eight members of the
Texas delegation to President Clinton asking to have their districts
exempted from the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
And now you may be excused.
Mr. DESMOND SMITH. Thank you.
Mrs. Yturria, you have been patient all day, and we welcome
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARY A. YTURRIA, BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS
Ms. YTURRIA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for being
kind enough to ask me to appear here today.
After explaining a little bit about who I am and where I came
from, I want to make two points about why some of us who live
on the Texas/Mexico border are working so hard to secure an
American Heritage River designation for the Rio Grande. One con-
cerns what border communities will face if we do not get more en-
gaged in dealing with the degradation of our river. The other con-
cerns the opportunity we have to celebrate and share with America
our very unique history and culture. I will then give you a thumb-
69
nail sketch of how we hope to take advantage of the initiative and

share my concern over the legislation you are considering.
The Rio Grande flows 1,800 miles, making it our Nations second-
longest river. In my State it serves as our border with Mexico, and
I am one of over million Texans who live and work in communities
along its banks. My home is in Brownsville, Texas, a city near the
mouth of the Rio Grande. We are property owners, working
ranches that have been in my husbands family for over 140 years.
Fifty years ago, when I married Frank Yturria and came to the
Rio Grande Valley, I quickly learned that the quality of our lives,
our health, and our well-being are linked to the river and its wa-
ters. I soon learned that there is a special Rio Grande heritage that
is very complex and sometimes almost magical. Its a fine place to
live. I knew immediately I would never leave.
The Rio Grande is the principal source of water for our towns
and cities. Its water irrigate our farmland, sustain our industry,
and nourishes vital ecosystems and wildlife habitat. They support
a tourist industry that ranges from hunting and fishing to birding
and whitewater rafting. When the border economy is seen from a
business perspective, it is clear the river is our most important
asset.
Congress has had ample opportunity to examine the conditions
of his river and the plight of communities along its banks. Some
say it is Americas most polluted river. I say lets get to work and
clean it up. Some say border growth will cause water demand to
outstrip what the river can offer. I say lets make better use of
what we have.
If our communities along the Rio Grande are to survive, we all
must work to build the economy in concert with the wise use of our
river. We who live and work along the Rio Grande must be allowed
to create partnerships, plan for the future, and get meaningfully
engaged. If we are prevented from doing so by H.R. 1842, we will
all loserich, poor, Democrat, Republican, colonias dweller, prop-
erty owner, even the Federal Government.
Madam Chairman, I want to make another point. The river is
something more than an economic asset at risk; it symbolizes the
heart of a treasured heritage. In Texas the Rio Grande is both a
dividing line between two nations and the place where two cultures
have joined to produce a unique borderlands heritage. We treasure
our history and our unique mixture of language and customour
food, our architecture, our music. Along the Rio Grande you will
find people from all stations in life working to preserve and cele-
brate that heritage. Some are Anglos; some are Hispanics. Some
have wealth; some do not. Like the waters of the river, our Rio
Grande culture is a precious asset, a key facet of Americas frontier
heritage. Those working to preserve that history and celebrate our
heritage deserve recognition, encouragement, and sometimes a
helping hand. They, too, want to build partnerships. They want to
bring to the Rio Grande the private foundations, great public insti-
tutions, and our own hands that built so many American commu-
nities.
When I first heard of the American Heritage Rivers idea, I was
thrilled. The idea of looking at all the dimensions of our rivers
physical, historical, culturalmade a lot of sense to me, but what
70
really excited me was the emphasis on local initiative to identify

needs and plan responses. Let me repeat that: What really excited
me was the emphasis on local initiative to identify needs and plan
responses. I thought someone in Washington has finally gotten it.
Better than anyone, we who live and work here know our river,
what needs to be done, what we can do on our own, and when we
need help. I hoped our local leaders would seize the opportunity,
seek the designation, and build a partnership with the Federal
Government in which the local authorities and managing partners
are partners. I was not disappointed. Within a few weeks, all along
the Rio Grande, mayors and county officials were looking into the
Presidents proposal, assisted by our representatives and State offi-
cials. Civic groups came forward, as well as private citizens and
landowners like me. When private property concerns were ex-
pressed, the White House made a special effort to brief the Texas
Farm Bureau in Waco, agricultural interests in Austin, Governor
Bushs office, and other State agencies. Throughout the 90-day
comment period, people came forward with suggestions on how to
shape this initiative. Some came with ideas about what to do and
what not to do. There were, of course, those who suggested we do
nothing with the Federal Government.
To fan the flames of anti-government sentiment is not fair to
communities around the country, and those who do so will lose.
That also is an impractical solution when dealing with the Rio
Grande River. We dont want an absence of government; we want
the presence of better government. Fortunately, positive thinking is
prevailing, encouraged by leaders like Congressman Silvestre
Reyes from El Paso, Mayor Saul Ramirez, Jr., and Judge Mercurio
Martines from Laredo. My own mayor, Henry Gonzales from
Brownsville, and his colleagues in city and county government
throughout the Lower Rio Grande Valley have supported
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mrs. Yturria, will you be able to wrap it up?
Ms. YTURRIA. I know, itsoh, this is very hard to do. I would
like to say that the Rio Grande River is in a class all by itself be-
cause it is the river that separates two nations. We have Federal
problems there, as you can well imagine. NAFTA was pushed
through. We were promised all kinds of help. Weve not gotten it.
Were sitting down there desperate. Austin has neglected that val-
ley and Washington almost pretends that we do not exist, and this
is not acceptable.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Yturria may be found at end of
hearing.]
And the Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer for questions.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Before Id ask any
questions, Id note that Mr. Pendleys written testimony contains a
number of very useful and very well-researched commentary on
legal opinion with respect to the legal questions surrounding the
propriety, I guess, of the whole American Heritage Rivers Initiative
in the first place.
What I would suggest, Madam Chairman, and ask it to be part
of the Committees deliberations, is to send another letter to the
Council on Environmental Quality stating specifically these con-
71
cerns that Mr. Pendley has outlined and request, as part of our
consideration of the legislation before us, answers to these par-
ticular challenges and questions and request, in providing it, a
suitable deadline at the Chairmans discretion as to when we would
like to have those questions answered. But I think that would pro-
vide for the Committees deliberations a pretty good picture about
the legal basis for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative and,
again, shed some light on the propriety of the program and the ne-
cessity of your legislation.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection, so ordered, and we will set
a deadline of 30 days.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Id like to ask Mr. Pendleyyou mentioned the
Brady Act briefly. Id like you to speak a little bit more to that, the
relationship between the Brady Act and the Prince v. United States
case, and the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Mr. PENDLEY. Yes, I should give the lawyer disclosure comment.
I am admitted to the practice of law in Wyoming, Colorado, Vir-
ginia and the District of Columbia.
I think its instructive to reflect on the Brady Act case, simply
because of what happened here in the House. Congressman Joe
Skeen, when the Brady Act was coming up on the floor, he said,
We cannot order sheriffs to do this work. This is not a role of Con-
gress. Sheriffs dont work for Congress. We cant do this. Others
said, No, no, its very, very important; weve got to save lives. The
objective is the key thing; the way we do it is unimportant, and we
have to do this.
And it got to the Supreme Court, fortunately, and the U.S. Su-
preme Court said, No, theres certain ways you do things under
the Constitution. In Justice Scalias opinion, he lays out very care-
fully how our Founding Fathers put together our system of govern-
ment; that its a system of dual sovereignty; that we have the Fed-
eral Government does; the Federal Government has certain things
the Federal Government, and we have the State governments and
there are certain things the State government does.
What the Supreme Court opinion finally concluded was that in
earlier decisions the Supreme Court had said Congress cannot
order States to do certain things on pain of receipt of Federal
funds, certain things that fall within the responsibility of a State.
What we are saying in this opinion, said Justice Scalia, is that
Congress cannot circumvent States and order employees of the
Statein other words, sheriffsto do what the Congress could not
order the States to do.
So what the opinion stands for, once again, is this fundamental
principle that we heard in the Supreme Court decision in Lopez
with regard to the Safe School Yard Act. Once again, it was some-
thing everybody agreed on: we certainly cant have people bringing
guns into school yards. But thirty-five States have laws that pro-
hibit guns on school yards, so we dont need a Federal law to do
that. The Supreme Court said, furthermore, its a violation of the
Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause to do so.
So I think thats an effective summary of what the Supreme
Court decided in that case. But I would also say that Scalia pointed
72
out in his opinion that every generation meets new emergencies,

and there are emergencies of the day that we hear about and were
told, Gee, weve got to bypass these technicalities in our Constitu-
tion in order to solve this emergency, this crisis. The fact of the
matter is these provisions are adopted for our protection to ensure
that we dont do that.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Id like to ask Mrs. Yturria, if I could, for a mo-
mentyou mentioned that the Texas Farm Bureau was part of the
meeting with the Council on Environmental Quality when they
came and explained their posture on some of the property rights
issues, and so forth. Does the Texas Farm Bureau support the ini-
tiative as it stands?
Ms. YTURRIA. Oh, well, I am told that they did. I was not at that
meeting, so
Mr. SCHAFFER. The other question that I have in the time re-
mainingyou mentionedyou stated that this bill in front of us
would prevent communities from working together on projects re-
garding the Rio Grande River. Earlier, I dont know if you were
here or not, but Congressman Reyes was here speaking about his
desire to see the river preserved and protected, and communities
come together and work together. I would just point out, by way
of example, my State in Colorado has had a number of projects
over the years where we have had similar concerns and managed
to provide various protections and have communities come together
through the work of a congressional office of a United States Sen-
ators office or other elected officials. Do you believe theres some-
thing that prevents your Congressman or your mayoryou men-
tioned Mayor Gonzales in Brownsvilleor other elected officials
from using the resources and the experience that they have in their
offices to accomplish these goals?
Ms. YTURRIA. That is a very complex question. Brownsville is
about 3 years ago, it was noted that it was the poorest city in the
United States. Now its true, Congressmen and Senators come
down, and what do they do? They go to a meeting place, and they
are there for perhaps 20 or 30 minutes. They never see the
colonias; they never see the horror stories that exist in my area.
We need someone to come to that border and see for themselves
what really exists. I think people know morethe people in Wash-
ington seem to know more about Bosnia than they know about
Brownsville, Texas. Really, you cant believe what kind of a condi-
tion that border is in and how few people come and really take the
time to go out and look at what the reality is.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer.
Mrs. Yturria, the Resources Committee disclosure form that you
completed says that youre representing the General Land Office in
the State of Texas. What is you relationship with the General Land
Office, for the record?
Ms. YTURRIA. I hold no position in the Texas Land Office. Over
the years since I have been very involved in environmental issues,
naturally that would be the office that I would have worked
through over the years, and that is my contact with the Land Of-
fice.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Was your testimony approved by the General
Land Office in the State of Texas?
73
Ms. YTURRIA. Yes, it was.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. Thank you.
Ms. YTURRIA. Youre welcome.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Pendley, could you cite for the record the
similarities between the Presidents use of the Antiquities Act in
Utah and this program, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative?
Mr. PENDLEY. I dont think we want to go on that long, do we,
Madam Chairman? There are a lot of similarities, obviously. Con-
gress was very clear with regard to the Antiquities Act and what
the President could do. The President could set aside areas that are
scientific, areas that are historic. He had to limit it to the
smallest area necessary compatible with the resource. I dont
think theres any way in the world that you can say 1.7 million
acres of scenic land, largely scenic land, meets that requirement.
So, No. 1, you have this situation where there is no statutory au-
thority for the Presidents action.
Lets look now at the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Ms.
McGinty, as you pointed out, Madam Chairman, the only thing she
cites to for authority is the purposes section of NEPA, which is all
the feel good language about what Congress is trying to achieve.
The instructive language, the mandatory language, follows, and the
mandatory language is: Do a study once you propose an action that
significantly affects the quality of the human environment, that
is, if its a major Federal action. So on both issues I think there
is no statutory authority for the President to act.
With regard to the Utah situation, what became clear afterwards
was that nobody in Utah had ever been notified. This was an ini-
tiative that went forward because environmental groups inside
Utah that were not effective in electing congressional representa-
tives that represented their point of view, and people from out-
sidefor example, Robert Redford who was consulted prior to the
designationdemanded it. The President did not consult with any-
body locally. He ignored what the Governor wanted, basically left
the Governor sitting outside the Oval Office awaiting a meeting
with the President. In fact, as I understand it, there was a phone
call made to the Governor of Utah. He was told that: We have no
plans to do this, and then at 2 a.m. another call went in: Were
about to announce it; in 5 hours we will announce it. So there was
no consultation, no recognition of the unique role that the delega-
tion plays.
And here, of course, all we have is this representation you re-
ceived this afternoon that, yes, well consult; yes, well make sure
that the locals are taken care of. In addition, of course, you have
this balance issue. Were told in the Federal Register documents
that theyre going to take recognition of economic activities; that
theyre going to ensure economic activities are taken care of. In
Utah the President had the unique opportunity to permit a trillion
dollar coal deposit that represents $2 billion to the school children
of the State of Utah to go forward, and he choose not to. He choose
to set it all aside. And so no wonder we have great fears with re-
gard to a river initiative where were concerned about economic ac-
tivities. I think any concerns on that issue are justified.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Pendley, does your foundation intend on
suing the Federal Government over this particular point?
74
Mr. PENDLEY. Well, certainly were looking at it. As I lay out in

my statement, I think theres a lot of violations here. We have this
unique situation. I dont think Ive ever seen a situation like this
before where we have a program announced by the President for
which there is absolutely no statutory authority. The only thing
that Ms. McGinty can cite to is the purposes section of NEPA, and
she says, thats our authority; thats why were forced to do this,
compelled to this. Gee, I just think its a no-brainer: they cant do
this.
And when you add the uncertainty, the indistinctness of all of
this, the arbitrary and capriciousness of it is even more question-
able. If we are significantly affecting the human environment
and, of course, Ms. McGinty says we arewere going to make it
all better; were going to improve the environment, then NEPA re-
quires preparation of these documents. They are required not just
when you improve the environment, but when you adversely affect
the environment, both when you adversely affect it and when you
improve it. Anyany impact on the environment requires a NEPA
compliance. So she says were going to make it all better. I think
shes got a major Federal action that significantly affects the qual-
ity of the human environment. At the very least, thats an issue as
well. I think the issue you brought up of the Anti-Deficiency Act
we got this reprogrammingraises serious questions. Also does it
violate the Reorganization Act? I think theres a lot of issues yet
to be decided there, and at bottom Congress is the entity that has
the authority under the Commerce Clause to take action with re-
gard to our navigable streams and our rivers. I think Congress has
to start it.
And this idea that, well, we announced this initiative and then
we came up and talked to you, so its OK now, and youll do over-
sightI mean, wheres your hammer? I dont see where the ham-
mer is. I dont see how you rein them inthe very point the Con-
gressman from Colorado made.
So the bottom line is our board of directors has to approve all the
cases that we undertake. Our board of directors has not yet ap-
proved a case like this, but whenever we see this kind of mischief,
we are interested.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair yields back to Mr. Schaffer for any
further questions.
Mr. SCHAFFER. No, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I have some more. I have a question for Lois
Van Hoover. Thank you, Mr. Pendley.
Why do you not believe that this program will be voluntary, non-
regulatory, as its promoters claim? Why are you suspicious about
it?
Ms. VAN HOOVER. Any time you put another layer of bureauc-
racy, there has to be some guiding mechanism, and guiding mecha-
nism ends up being regulation, either in guidance or in actual reg-
ulation, as we see it today.
There is nothing out theretheyre talking about an initiative
that requires no funding and no additional programs. So why do we
need it? So the only purpose to have it is so that the Federal Gov-
ernment can hold our hand because were not smart enough to do
it ourselves and lead us down the road they want us to go. And
75
there has to be some kind of regulation or they change the word

and call it guidance, but it is the same thing.
EVENING SESSION
I also wanted to ask Mr. Lynch if you would further elaborate
about the possible impacts of the consultation language in the Ex-
ecutive Order to various resource users?
Mr. LYNCH. Yes, Madam Chairman. Ill give you two specifics
that are in statute. The consultation requirement under the 1968
Colorado River Basin Project Act: the seven basin States must be
consulted with by the Secretary of the Interior for plans for oper-
ating the dams constructed on the Colorado River. Thats done
through an annual operating plan process and through periodic re-
view of long-range operating criteria that were established pursu-
ant to that Act.
There is also another Act that pertains to the Colorado River, as
an example, the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act, in which there
are, I believe, three provisions that directly order the Secretary to
consult with affected interests that are named in that Act. I look
atand I think in my written testimony I pointed out that con-
sultation with affected interests does not occur under section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service takes
the position that that is a one-on-one debate between the con-
sulting agency and the Service, and the rest of us are left out of
the process.
I wouldnt be so worried about this if it were in the CEQ pro-
gram, but its in the Executive Order. The President says you will
consult with these entities that constitute whatever this river com-
munity is, if theres been a designation. Thats a direct command,
and if he does have the authority, then he is making an Executive
command to the Federal agencies. He is, in fact, setting up a con-
sultation program, and he has thatif he has the basic authority
for the program at all, he clearly has the Executive authority to
issue those kinds of directions.
Now I agree with Mr. Pendley that there is no foundational au-
thority for this program, but there clearly, if this goes forward, is
Executive authority for him to order the agencies around, and that
is exactly what hes done. And I dont see how you square with the
specifically mandated congressional consultation programs where
youve made these designations and how you square it with the
lack of consultation that we suffer with some of these other pro-
grams. It seems to me that were just asking for trouble, and I
think it was a serious mistake for the Executive Order to make
that provision in sort of a casual way, either without elaboration
or some specificity. I think its going to cause us a lot of problems
trying to go forward with the kind of problem-solving were doing
in the Colorado River Basin now and the changes we need.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. I want to thank the
panelists for their very outstanding testimony, and excuse you now,
and welcome the second panel.
The Honorable Gordon Ross, Coos County Commissioner, Coos
County, Oregon; the Honorable David Young, Buncombe County
Commissioner, Asheville, North Carolina; Mr. Bill DeVeny, Idaho
76
Farm Bureau Federation, Boise, Idaho; Mr. David Allan Ealy,

Perrysville, Indiana, and Ms. Carol LaGrasse, Property Rights
Foundation of America, Stony Creek, New York.
If you would all please take your place at the witness table
would you please stand and raise your right hand?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Young has a plane to catch, and hes
asked if we might go out of order, and we will. Ill call on Mr.
Young first to deliver his testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVID YOUNG, BUNCOMBE COUNTY
COMMISSIONER, ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is David
Young. Im a resident of Asheville, located in western North Caro-
lina. Im here today to speak to you as a citizen, small business
owner, local elected official, and chairman of the Riverlake Task
Force, spearheading the nomination of the French Broad River as
an American Heritage River. French Broadinteresting name for
a riverit was the broad point in a French territory.
In all of these capacities, I fully support the American Heritage
River Initiative. Our task force has been following the American
Heritage River Initiative since the President announced the pro-
gram on February the 4th. Our task force is comprised of inter-
ested citizens, chamber of commerce executives, elected officials
from throughout the river basin, riverfront property owners, rec-
reational enthusiasts, artists, craftsmen, tourists, development ex-
perts, and nonprofit agencies. And Im not going to read from my
text; Im just going to summarize a few points for you, Madam
Chairman.
In forming our task force to nominate the French Broad River,
we have made a conscious effort to not make this a partisan effort.
In fact, we have had tremendous bipartisan support. We have had
over 2,000 endorsements similar to the ones in your packet. We
have letters from the Governor of North Carolina, Jim Hunt, a
Democrat; the Governor of Tennessee, Don Seques, a Republican;
resolutions from the Henderson County commissioners, who are all
Republicans, and the Buncombe County commissioners, who are all
Democratsall in support of this effort to nominate the French
Broad as an American Heritage River.
This issue is bigger than politics in our area. We must look be-
yond politics to the people side of this issue and improving the
quality of life for the citizens who reside in our area.
In our efforts to name the French Broad River as an American
Heritage River, we realize that we have already won the prize. We
have come together in a whole new way, formed new partnerships
and alliances, and discovered are neighbors againnot just nearby
cities and counties, but our sister State, Tennessee. These are
things that perhaps we should have done, but we didnt.
On May 1, we hosted a public input session in Nashville. Many
of the suggestions from that meeting have been incorporated into
the permanent criteria for the American Heritage River Initiative.
During our May 1st meeting, public comments were heard from
residents from two States, along with elected officials, property
owners, business men/women. We basically came together, dis-
77
cussed plans for our future, and excitement has grown from that
initial meeting.
What we discovered is we need the American Heritage River Ini-
tiative. We know that alone no one entity, no one government
agency, no foundation, no one person can accomplish all that we
have planned for the French Broad. The American Heritage River
Initiative gives us the umbrella under which we can continue to
build our plans and development of the French Broad River. It
helps us unravel the maze of Federal grants and technical assist-
ance opportunities and will give us access to programs that we now
dont even know exists.
The Federal Government is big, and often finding the right as-
sistance is difficult. The idea of our own river navigator is exciting
to us. It would help us develop and sustain our great river, which
brings me to my final point.
We, as our committee, have passed a resolution supporting the
American Heritage River Initiative because it is nonregulatory and
will not cause an increase in the Federal budget. Rather, it will
focus resources on our plan of action. It would give an umbrella
under which to work. The initiative will force the Federal Govern-
ment to be responsive to our plan of action for our river. We have
taken this promise to a new level, and I want to read that. We
passed a resolution.
We are pursuing the nominationthis is our committees reso-
lution; we have passed this unanimously at our last meeting. We
are pursuing the nomination of the French Broad River as an
American Heritage River. Our initial plan with other aspects calls
for a greenway along the entire length of the French Broad River
corridor through Transylvania County, North Carolina, to Knox
County, Tennessee, which would be interpreted with public historic
markers.
In pursuit of this greenway and the American Heritage River
status, we pledge individually and collectively that no property will
be condemned, no property owner will be coerced, and that all par-
ticipation in the greenway voluntary, with all due regard for indi-
vidual property rights. We understand our statement and code of
conduct is in complete compliance with the stated objectives, goals,
and the American Heritage River Initiative Program, as outlined in
the Federal Register.
I ask your help for our region to continue to grow and prosper
by allowing the American Heritage River Initiative to continue and
to vote against the bill H.R. 1842. I also ask that you rethink the
timing of this legislation. It might be best to allow this initiative
to continue and to look at the results in a year. I think Mr. Schaf-
fer made that suggestion also, to come back in a year.
In fact, if our river is named, I would like to personally invite
each of the Committee to visit the French Broad in January 1999,
after we have had Federal assistance for one year, and lets look
together at the results. Im convinced that this will be a good pro-
gram for our river and other rivers chosen throughout the country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young may be found at end of
hearing.]
78
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Commissioner, and before you

leave
Mr. YOUNG. Yes, maam.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] I do have a couple of questions.
Mr. YOUNG. Please go ahead.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. In your statement you note the strong support
for the French Broad designation, but the Committee has received
letters of opposition to this designation from State Senator Bob
Carpenter of Franklin, North Carolina; from the Southern Appa-
lachian Multiple Use Council; and the TS Hardwoods, Inc. Were
you aware of this opposition?
Mr. YOUNG. Well, Bob Carpenters district is not in our river
basin, but that would nothes not a senator for any of the coun-
ties that are involved in this, and I had not heard of the others.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. I wanted to further elaborate on
your testimony by asking you, because this program is described as
voluntary, and many property owners believe they should only be
included in a particular river heritage designation, if they give
written permission to do so, would you support such a provision to
this, too?
Mr. YOUNG. That they would not be included unless there
was
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Unless there was written permission to do so.
Mr. YOUNG. You know, thats an interesting question, in that the
idea of them agreeing to be a part of it, I think if were going to
do a greenway, which is one of the things weve talked about for
what our plan is, and they dont want to be a part of that greenway
or have the greenway on their property, they ought to be able to
opt out of that.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. So you will support the provision, then, that
anyone who doesnt mind being included in it would give written
permission to be included?
Mr. YOUNG. Well, when you start talking about trying to get
written permission from every property owner, I think that adds
it makes it very difficult. But, you know, you cannotif our plan
is to do a greenway, we cannot do it without the property owners
consent to do that.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. So, then, you would agree that
Mr. YOUNG. Well, if youre asking, will I agree that before we get
the designation, we get all the property owners to agree, no, I dont
think that would be fair. If you say that
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Oh, no, thats not my question. Im not asking
they agree with each other. Im only asking if you would agree that
they should give written permission to be included in a river des-
ignation.
Mr. YOUNG. Before we get the designation?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Before?
Mr. YOUNG. I dont know. I could not agree to that.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK, then, as its proposed?
Mr. YOUNG. As whats proposed?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The designation.
Mr. YOUNG. Im sorry, say that one more time.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. As its proposed, which it seems to beit
seems to be proposed in Asheville and around that area.
79
Mr. YOUNG. Right.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So at this point in time, would you agree,
then, that there should be written permission from the property
owners to be included?
Mr. YOUNG. Well, like I said, I dont think beforewe have a De-
cember deadline. I think it would be impossible for us to get writ-
ten permission from every property owner before we got after the
designation. If, in fact, we do a greenway, we have to have their
consent and knowIve stated our committee passed a resolution
saying that we would not look at anybodywe would not do a tak-
ing of anybodys land or coerce anybody to give up their land. So,
in effect, they would have to agree to be a part of the greenway.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. All right, with that, well let you catch
your plane
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] and thank you for your patience
in this long day.
Mr. YOUNG. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ross.
STATEMENT OF GORDON ROSS, COOS COUNTY

COMMISSIONER, COOS COUNTY, OREGON
Mr. ROSS. Chairman Chenoweth, Coos County is protective of all
its rivers and streams, just as were protective of all our constitu-
entsour landowners and those who farm along those rivers, and
those who have timber holdings in those watersheds. What weve
done in Coos County is quite unique, although it should not be, be-
cause how we started with our watershed associationsand, inci-
dentally, Ive made copies of pictorials in a blue binder that you
have before you of before and after. Sometimes its hard to vis-
ualize why before and after is better, but if you read what was hap-
pening, you can, I think, see that.
We began on two of our streams in the Coos Bay area with a co-
ordinated resource management plan, which is somethings thats
been available to anyone in the United States for over 40 years. In
fact, it was, I believe, clear back in the Roosevelt era that the Agri-
cultural Adjustment Act include the conservation plans and the op-
portunity for coordinated resource management programs within
your community. At the present time, at the Federal level there are
Memorandums of Understanding between all resource agencies. At
the State level of every State in the Nation there are also signed
Memorandums of Understanding between the resource agencies at
the State level and at the community level.
So every community that has a soil and water conservation dis-
trict made up of local landowners who are elected by the people,
not just by landowners, but by all the people in the county, has this
opportunity to go to the soil and water conservation district in that
the technical expertise of the Soil Conservation Service, now called
the Resource Conservation Service, for a coordinated resource man-
agement plan in their community. The landowners, whether its a
full watershed or just a short area, a small area, can get the assist-
ance of all the agencies to improve their streams or to improve
their watersheds, or whatever the need may be. And this voted on
80
congressionally. This is something thats here and is available to

every community in America.
I want to say that Coos County is one of the most favored coun-
ties in America, I believe, and for some of the reasons I mentioned
in my testimony here: Seventy percent of our land is privately
owned. We have no Scenic River designations. We have no congres-
sionally withdrawn Wilderness Areas in our county. We have con-
sistently, since 1855, harvested more timber than any county in the
State of Oregon, and thats because were on the only deep-water
port on the coast of Oregon, other than Astoria at the northern
end.
We built San Francisco from the days of the Forty-niners until
she burned in 1906, and we rebuilt it after that up until 1920. And
this has been the largest lumber shipping port in the world for
most of my lifetime and for decades before that, and yet we have
more Coho salmon spotting per mile than any county on the coast,
on the West Coast, and we also have more coho salmon than all
the other counties in Oregon combinedand that during a period
of time when we harvest more timber than any other county in Or-
egon.
This seems to defy conventional wisdom, but we also have water-
shed associations partnering with up to 75 percent of the land-
owners in the Coos Basin and a good number in the Coquille River
Basin. And the private landownersthis is a bottom-up, non-
regulatory approach. We have heard that today quite a few times.
I can tell you in Coos County it is.
And I want to say that, with the exception of our Federal part-
ners, this has worked very well. And I want to say also that, in de-
fense of our Federal partners on the local level, it has worked very
well with them also. Its been above that that things begin to bog
downI think maybe partly because people in the Federal Govern-
ment dont understand the ecosystems that we have on the coast
are the Douglas fir region, and our andramous streams are a result
of disturbancesforest fire and flood, now logging and floodand
these disturbance-based ecosystems, we understand now, are the
reason for our tremendous response in Coho salmon and in the tim-
ber industry.
I see the light is coming on. I just want to say that weve had
a lot of great cooperation with our landowners, but when it comes
to our Federal partners, their interpretation of the Food and Secu-
rity Act, the Clean Water Act, and wetland regulations have been
a constant impediment to getting through the permit process in
order to do Coho habitat enhancement with, for instance, projects
ranging from side-rearing ponds to taking sediment out of the
streams in order to allow for Coho enhancement have been viewed
as wetland violations, and one of our best cooperators was even
charged with discharging pollutants into the waters of the United
States. He had taken sediment out of his ditch from a previous
storm and placed it on his farmland, and that was the charge.
In conclusion, I wish to say that the bottoms-up, nonregulatory,
cooperative approach to enlist the efforts of every private land-
owner can and does accomplish far more than the Federal presence
in our communities. I believe it was the Fiddler on the Roofin the
Fiddler on the Roof where someone asked the rabbi, Is there a
81
proper blessing for the czar? And he said, Yes, God bless the czar
and keep him far, far from us.
[Laughter.]
Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ross may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Ross, and Mr. Schaffer and I
both have reviewed this. Its very, very good. Thank you for pro-
viding it to us.
The Chair now recognizes my friend from Idaho, Mr. Bill
DeVeny.
STATEMENT OF BILL DeVENY, IDAHO FARM BUREAU

FEDERATION, BOISE, IDAHO
Mr. DEVENY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of the
Committee, and visitors. Thank you for the opportunity to present
these comments.
My name is Bill DeVeny. I am a rancher from Riggins in central
Idahomaybe I should say west central Idaho. I am speaking on
behalf of the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, representing 47,000
member families, and also on behalf of myself. My testimony is in
support of H.R. 1842, to terminate further development and impli-
cation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
One contradiction follows another in the initiative. Creating an-
other layer of government cannot possibly make existing govern-
ment agencies function more efficiently. Allowing nongovernmental
organizations to coordinate delivery of Federal services, as stated
in the initiative, is a lot like having the fox guard the chicken
house. These nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, as they are
often called, have no respect for the heritage of the American West.
Most of them are bound and determined to eliminate every aspect
of the heritage of the West.
Ours is a heritage for trappers of furs, then miners, followed by
grazers and farmers; next, loggers, and more recently,
recreationists. Trappers are virtually extinct, and the NGOs are
the very ones attempting to send the rest of us the same way.
The initiative usurps State powers and ignores constitutional
provisions. Water is the lifeblood of Idaho, so the way it is man-
aged and used is a concern to all of us in Idaho. This initiative cir-
cumvents the right of States to manage and control water, which
is clearly a right of each of us in the State.
Another concern I have is that there is no constitutional author-
ity for the Federal Government to become involved in the issue of
water. The Constitution enumerates the powers granted to the Fed-
eral Government and reserves to all others the States or to the in-
dividuals.
This initiative is duplication of efforts between other Federal
agenciesfor example, the Rural Development Councils. In some
cases, the initiative appears to be in violation of existing law such
as NEPA.
This initiative circumvents the authority of Congress and vests
authority in yet another bureaucracy. It introduces another layer
which we do not need. Agencies have become the fourth arm of gov-
82
ernment, and this is detrimental. We need less bureaucracy, not

more.
From personal experience, about two weeks before this hearing,
I was contacted by two Federal employees wanting to come on my
private property to make a stream-side survey to see what kind of
fish and habitat are in a very small stream that crosses my private
property. When questioned why they wanted to make the survey,
the employees would not say, nor would they tell me by what au-
thority they were coming on my property. And last of all, they were
not willing to provide me with a copy of their survey data or any
of the results.
From experience, I am very certain that whatever they might do
with the information would not be to my benefit and would be det-
rimental to my interest, as well as that as to the general public in
the long run. This is just an example of the increased intrusiveness
of the government that will be created by the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative.
Knowing Federal agencies like I doand I have for 50 years
their help does not have to be helpful or even be nice. When the
prospect of grant money is added, local units of government have
a hard time saying no. Several years ago, I was asked to testify at
the Idaho Association of Counties concerning some of the heritage
legislation that was being proposed by Congressman Udall. Earlier
versions had been rejected or ignored, but when the counties were
promised a share of the money, many county commissioners had a
hard time saying no. They were not interested in the heritage
areas. They knew very little about them in most cases, but they
were definitely interested in the pork. They were willing to accept
the money regardless of the consequences, but, fortunately, there
was enough commissioners present who could see the down side
that the group voted to reject the proposal.
This country was founded on several important principles, not
the least of which is the right to own private property. One of the
primary reasons many immigrants come to this country is the right
to own and control land outright. This initiative is just another
chink in taking away private property rights and a step toward
Federal land use control. I know of no instance where the govern-
ment does a better job in the long run for managing property than
property owners themselves. We need less government control, not
more. So I encourage you to do whatever is in your power to curtail
this initiative. Withholding funding is certainly a step in the right
direction.
In summary, we do not want another Federal designation, a
greater Federal presence, enhanced Federal control over our wa-
ters, and we do not want the government to come up with yet an-
other way to spend our taxpayer dollars. Additional detail is pro-
vided in my written testimony, and I thank you for the opportunity
to present my comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeVeny may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. DeVeny. I appreciate your
good testimony.
Mr. Ealy, wed like to hear from you.
83
STATEMENT OF DAVID ALLAN EALY, PERRYSVILLE, INDIANA
Mr. EALY. Hello, Madam Chairman. Im from Indiana, for those
who dont know me here, and I live along the Wabash River. I am
not a part of any group or organization. The grassroots kind of
nominated me to come and speak to you because they felt I could
answer your questions.
Ive heard a lot of comments today, and Im going to direct my
time at some of those. First off, in Indiana they talk about this
thing being a bottom-up. The National Park Service is who is be-
hind getting this initiative started in Indiana, and we have fought
them all along. They took the proposal for the American Heritage
River to a little environmental group called Banks of the Wabash,
and when we found out about their meeting on June 30, about 40,
50 farmers showed up, and they realized it wasnt a good idea to
take a vote at that point, they passed the initiative on to a non-
elected State commission. We already have an Indiana State pro-
gram that is more advanced and more aggressive than what theyre
proposing at the Federal level from the White House.
Anyway, this Wabash Commission then had a meeting and de-
cided that they really didnt have the authority to deal with this.
So they decided to pass it back to the county commissioners and
try to get their approval to move forward by July 16. That didnt
happen. The county commissioners either said no or they were si-
lent. So then what happened, the Wabash Commission decided to
make themselves the river, and they scheduled three public meet-
ings, and the advertised purpose of those meetings was to solicit
public input. But no public input was allowed.
What we were given was a 50-minute presentation by officials,
including the Federal Government. It was a sales pitch, primarily,
I think, for the media to absorb. And then if we wanted to, we
could ask questions for 10 minutes about the presentation, but we
were allowed no input. There was no give-and-take; there was no
opposing viewpoints allowed.
They were very vague initially as to what was going to be in-
volved in this as far as the amount of land. At the Lafayette meet-
ing they were also very vague about these new regulations and
things, again claiming, as weve heard today, that there would be
no mandates, no new regulations. Finally, a farmer asked a ques-
tion: You mean to tell me youre just going to hand us all this
money with no strings attached? And the Federal official said,
Well, of course there will be strings attached. Now that kind of
tells us folks in Indiana that theres going to be some regulations.
Incidentally, that statements on this tape and Ill put that in as
one of my exhibits.
Mr. EALY. Thank you. Down at Vincenze, the question had come
up at Lafayette as to how much land would be involved, and they
got very vague at Lafayette, but they were specific at Vincenze,
and they decided that they would take all of the lands of these 19
counties, which is about 4 million acres in the initial application.
Now this appointed commission has no authority over the lands or
the Wabash River. Theyre there just to promote the historical, cul-
tural, get people to work together, that type of thing.
84
As a result of that, the county commissioners have realized that,

hey, this thing is serious; these people are talking about extending
their authority well beyond anything that was ever given to them
by the Indiana legislature, and since that meeting 10 counties have
issued letters telling their commissioners to vote against this thing,
when it comes up on October 1; 7 counties have said were with-
drawing from the State designation, so that they cannot include
our county in the Federal designation. Well have three more by the
end of the week.
Where this is coming from is the original language that came out
for this was they were going to restore and protect rivers. Well, re-
store to what and protect from what? And what are they going to
measure this and how are they going to accomplish it?
They talked about incorporating sustainable development. That
raised a lot of eyebrows right away in our country, and then with
the Federal official talking about there would be strings attached,
people started getting real understanding that what they were
talking about was creating out of thin air a new level of govern-
ment, a regional planning authority that would be a Federal au-
thority and it would consist of this Wabash Commission; it would
consist of 12 or 13 or 14 Federal agencies. There would be a river
navigator involved, and there would be at least one Federal board
involved. And our county officials looked at this as an unfunded
mandate that was going to potentially come down on them and on
the State, and of course it affects the Congress as well.
The newest stuff is calling for a clearly defined plan of action,
and before a legislative services committee a couple of weeks ago,
the Federal official held up this and said: Youre a plum. The Wa-
bash is a plum because you already this State designation, and you
already have a clearly defined plan of action.
Well, this clearly defined plan of action is a warmed-over version
of our wetlands bill which was rejected by our legislature. It has
not been approved by our legislature or any county government. It
includes things like creating a 510-mile-long greenway, stopping all
agricultural runoff into the Wabash watershed; transfer taxes; en-
vironmental courtsall of these types of things, which is a part of
the more advanced environmental agenda, which of course is not
going to get through our State legislature, but this could end up
being implemented as the voluntary plan through our river commu-
nity, this Wabash Commission, and we could end up in court trying
to fight Federal officials from implementing this or helping them
implement it. So thats why the counties are opting out. They dont
want to be any part of that.
When we got really pushy down at Vincenze and it looked like
we brought this up, I explained to them that these counties could
opt out. The Federal official said, well, if the commission doesnt
vote for this, well see if we can get a nomination from a lions club
or a church. So this idea of a community literally is anything;
theres no definition of it.
And it is only the community who can withdraw. I, as an indi-
vidual, if I dont file the application and if the community doesnt
write some kind of rules for me to get out of it, Im stuck with it.
Thank you. I support H.R. 1842.
85
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ealy may be found at end of

hearing.]
Mr. DEVENY. Im glad you made that clear.
Mr. EALY. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I am very glad to know that.
Mr. Ealy, I also wonder if you might introduce your son. Ive no-
ticed that hes been sitting here through hours and hours of testi-
mony.
Mr. EALY. Well, I have three sons.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. You have three sons? They have been remark-
able in this hearing.
Mr. EALY. I have Brian over here. Hes taking notes for his jour-
nalism class.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Brian.
Mr. EALY. Benjamin is behind me, and Patrick is in front of him.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. That is great. They are very, very fine young
men.
[Applause.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And you are teaching them well.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Madam Chairman, if I may?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Schaffer?
Mr. SCHAFFER. I was commenting to those youngsters back there
a little earlier that their behavior during the hours theyve sat here
is far superior to that of Members of Congress on the House floor
today.
[Laughter.]
Mr. EALY. I have been impressed.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And even here, Mr. Schaffer. They stuck it
out, and its just you and me, Tonto.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. So you are to be commended, and your sons
are to be commended.
Carol LaGrasse, it is so good to see you again, and welcome.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF CAROL LaGRASSE, PROPERTY RIGHTS
FOUNDATION OF AMERICA, STONY CREEK, NEW YORK
Ms. LAGRASSE. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you for the
honor of testifying today.
My name is Carol LaGrasse. Im the president of the Property
Rights Foundation of America in Stony Creek, New York. That or-
ganization is a grassroots, nationwide organization dedicated to
preserving, in all its fullness, the fundamental human right to own
private property, as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.
Im a retired Stony Creek elected councilman and also a retired
civil and environmental engineer. For the past 4 years, I have been
studying the National, or American, Heritage Areas (or Corridors)
and exposing the grandiose scope of this program and its implica-
tions for private property rights and local representative govern-
ment. Now the President has pronounced the American Heritage
Rivers program.
Around the countryside where I live in upstate New York or
down in New York City or on Long Island, where I originally hail
86
from, no one has told me that theyre looking for an American Riv-
ers Heritage Program or for any element of the program, as defined
in any of the written documents. And on the other side of the coin,
many people have called the Property Rights Foundation of Amer-
ica from the States of Washington and California, to the mid-
western States of Indiana and Minnesota, to the eastern States of
Maine and Virginia, and many more, for help to block the program.
The American Heritage Rivers program is of great national con-
cern. Because of the widespread fear, Ive been invited to speak nu-
merous times about the American Heritage Rivers program on
Radio and TV talk shows, and have in fact received more requests
to speak about this topic than any other topic during the year.
After 3 years of successful grassroots private property rights op-
position to the National, or American, Heritage Areas program in
Congress, the Clinton Administration has pronounced this, a very
similar, but more ambitious, in my estimation, program unilater-
ally through the rulemaking or Executive Order process. Of course,
everybody knew that, no matter how much the wording was wa-
tered down in the American Heritage Areas program, it was de-
signed to bring the National Park Service into local zoning and to
transfer land ownership to government. This is the mentality and
future people are afraid of, and I am not ashamed to use the word
fear.
Now I have to add some remarks about New York and get to the
home territory because there were some statements which I think
were misleading today. In New Yorks Hudson Valley, contrary to
the impression left by Mr. Babbitt, Mr. Hinchey, and Mr. Miller at
the July 15th congressional hearing, there is widespread opposition
still remaining to the National Heritage Areas Program. People
still dont like it in connection with the Hudson River Valley des-
ignation, however successfully its been completed. And Ive at-
tached to the testimony two items that demonstrate the continuing
opposition.
The first is a statement by one of the active local citizens groups,
the Coxsackie Awareness Group, which was printed in the New
York Property Rights Clearinghouse published by this organiza-
tion, and explains that the local people oppose the program as an-
other potential infringement on their private property rights.
Now this group which authored the letter that we published had
gotten started because it successfully defeated a local town zoning
program that came down over a period of 25 years from the pas-
sage by Congress of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
The second item Im enclosing is a recent letter to the editor by
a Hyde Park resident in opposition to me personally and the Prop-
erty Rights Foundation. The writer mentions a meeting that was
a forum by the Columbia County Planning Department, where I
was one of six speakers. The other five were government speakers
in support of the Hudson Valley National Heritage Area being com-
pleted. You may recall that the Solomon portion was left out, and
it was later added.
There was $10 million in pork barrel that was concerning these
speakers, as well as the environmentalists who were included in
the six. The writer of this letter states that his group needs Fed-
eral funding because of the problem, as he calls it, to him, and now
87
I quote, The majority of the standing-room only audience appeared

to be supportive of her [meaning Carol LaGrasses] views.
Now, the Council on Environmental Quality has represented the
American Heritage Rivers Program as an honor and ombudsman.
Id just like to make the statement that, at most, the honor is a
very minor feature of the program. Neither is the ombudsman an
adequate explanation, as Ms. McGinty has said repeatedly.
There are no proposed rules applying to any of these agencies de-
scribing how they could possibly be expediting processes or relaxing
enforcement. Those are to me the two elements of an ombudsman.
Neither one is ever elucidated.
Today there was some testimony from the Honorable Congress-
man from Pennsylvania that in the Northeast there is a need for
this program because our rivers are deteriorating. Well, the truth
of the matter is that in the State of New York the Hudson River,
which will be considered, including the Champlain Valley all the
way to the Montreal border (if you want to go into the Jeffords
plan), the Hudson River Valley was once very heavily farmed and
industrialized. The shores were punctuated by wharves and all
sorts of industries, but now its grown up in forests, and it certainly
doesnt need to be restored to any kind of a natural heritage thats
maybe pre-colonial. Its really changed quite a lot in the recent 50
years.
Another remark was made that the myriad of local planning de-
partments in states like Pennsylvaniaand New York which is a
very similar state in its governmental structurearent profes-
sional; local government isnt professional enough. Well, we have
very professional planners in New York, and where we dont have
them on staff as government-appointed officials, were required to
hire them as very expensive consultants. So we really are very ade-
quately professionalized in our government, even dismayingly so.
The heart of each application for designation is a very elabo-
rately stated planning plan for the future of the entire river and
the land along it. Thats the point of concern. The confusing de-
scription of the program seems to denote some kind of a plan to
coordinate a number of important, powerful Federal agencies under
a new national commission established for the purposes of the pro-
gram at each designated river, in order to meet a plan of action to
protect the river, which is nebulously defined as a community,
and apparently this is being worked out in conjunction with the
Federal Government to define this community and this plan.
Now a federally appointed riverkeeper, as you know, for each
American Heritage River coordinates with the community and all
of these Federal agencies. It seems to me that a plan, judging by
how planning takes place in this nation these days, a plan for each
river is presumably one that will further restrict the use of land
and water to protect nature and someones idea of historical impor-
tance.
Now this new body, the American Heritage Rivers Interagency
Committee, includes the heads of 12 agencies, as you know, from
the Defense Department to the National Endowment for the Hu-
manities. The primary agenciesthe Environmental Protection
Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engi-
neersare ones that are historically trampling on private property
88
rights. So it seems to me that this program of more efficient coordi-

nation of Federal enforcement agencies sounds like a juggernaut
the opposite of an ombudsman.
In my estimation, the practical meaning and future of the Amer-
ican Heritage Rivers program is to likely pan out something like
this: The planning process will be led by Federal agencies and pres-
ervation groups which are hostile to private property rights and
will be dominated by professionals, environmentalists, economic de-
velopment types who are experts in the government gravy train
who will go the rounds in each river area. Over the years, even 5
to 20 years, of quasi-voluntary partnership programs and manda-
tory programs of varying nature around the U.S.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mrs. LaGrasse, would you be able to
Ms. LAGRASSE. Oh, Im sorry, I should be done, and I am done.
Anyway, it will pan out in that way, with all of these planning
programs, and there will be stumbling blocks to local government
as responsive to the local populations and problems for private
property owners.
I would just like to say that the Property Rights Foundation of
America obviously supports your bill, and appreciates your bill, and
appreciates the opportunity to testify today.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And we appreciate your being here, too.
And the Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer for questions.
Commissioner Ross, looking through the watershed projects in
Coos County and some of the other projects that you mentioned, I
just have a pretty simple question. In contrast to the statements
by some who believe that the only way you can engage in water-
related projects, river projects, is with the Heritage Rivers Initia-
tive, I just want to know, how did you get all this done without the
Federal Government and without the Heritage Rivers Initiative?
[Laughter.]
Mr. ROSS. We would have gotten farther without them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. ROSS. Excuse me. Mr. Schaffer, Madam Chair, I started with
a small group of foresters and fishermen. We call ourselves the
Coquille Forestry and Fishery Alliance, and we were looking at
ways to solve the problems that some people felt were opposed to
each other, and there are still people that try to drive wedges be-
tween our resource users in Coos County, but we brought these re-
source users together, and we did it years ago. Different programs
that began in Coos County, the Salmon and Trout Enhancement
Program, the Adopt-a-Streamthese all started in Coos County
with people that are interested in fisheries and the resource issues
that are very near and dear to us there. And so weve been able
to work with the farmers, with the loggers, and with the fishermen.
Our loggers all fish, too. Our farmers fish. And our fishermen ap-
preciate the efforts that the other industries, the resource indus-
tries, have come together to help what is their livelihoodour com-
mercial fishing industry as well as our sport fisheries.
So I guess weve just been lucky that people have enjoyed work-
ing together, and weve had some good leadership at different
times. Different people in the community spearheaded these. Its
89
hard to define where it started, but it started with individual peo-

ple. It didnt start with a government person. It started with people
in the community that saw a need and spearheaded something,
and then got the resources together.
Mr. SCHAFFER. You are not the reason the Federal Government
believes we need to have a Federal agent coordinate these projects?
Mr. ROSS. Pardon?
Mr. SCHAFFER. So you are not the reason, then, that the Federal
Government believes that it needs a Federal employee to coordi-
nate these projects?
Mr. ROSS. I hope Im not the reason.
Mr. SCHAFFER. OK.
Mr. ROSS. Id get recalled at home.
[Laughter.]
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer.
I wanted to ask Mr. DeVeny, did you let the Federal agents on
your property
Mr. DEVENY. No.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] to survey the stream?
Mr. DEVENY. Yes, Madam Chairman, I did notI had a little
discussion with one of them the next morning, and when he was
telling me what he wasor how he was going to use it, and so I
said, no; I said, I just cant let you do it. So he said, OK, we
wont look at you, but well go up above you, which is Federal
land. It is Forest Service, and it is a long, long, hard walk around
on either side.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And could you also repeat for me, very quick-
ly, what the response was in Louiston with regards to this designa-
tion?
Mr. DEVENY. Which designation?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Was
there an invitation?
Mr. DEVENY. No, there was not. I was not present, Madam
Chairman, but from what I hear from the locals, no, there was no
sympathy whatsoever for it.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Ross, in your written testimony you state
that one of your cooperating landowners was charged with dis-
charging pollutants into the waters of the United States. What ex-
actly was that, and what was that it he supposedly discharged?
What did he do? And how serious was this charge?
Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, he was part of one of our coordinated
resource management programs for Larson Inlet. Hes a dairyman
on Larson Inlet. Hes a fellow that loves to fish and loves to do
things for the fish, and part of the program had come up with the
need to take the sediment out of Larson Inlet, and he had been
waiting for 2 years to get through the permit system, and then we
had a big storm and it justhe just finally concluded that he and
fish, neither one, could wait for a permit from the Corps of Engi-
neers, and he dug the whole thing out, and it was turned over to
the EPA, and they charged him with discharging pollutants into
the waters of the United States.
90
Now we thought he took the pollutants out of the waters. This

confused us. But the waters was his farmland, you see, because
this might be jurisdictional wetland, and none of us qualify there
for a prior converted farmland. So what we have is wetland pas-
ture.
And the pollutant was the material coming out. Now the inter-
esting thingand I explained it to the EPA before and we did get
them to turn it back over to local resource people to work with him
to mitigate this horrible offense, which did everything a world of
good, the fish included. I explained to him it would be an inter-
esting prospect to go before a Federal judge and have one of your
people on the witness stand and come with two buckets of dirt, and
have you identify which one of them is the waters of the United
States and which ones the pollutant, because theyd be exactly
alike. Both are erosion from the very same watershed. One formed
the land over the years, and the other is what stuck in the creek
that year and took out and put on the land.
But this is a serious offense. This person in Meyersville, Pennsyl-
vania a few years back that was an immigrant from Poland, he was
charged with this same thing because, after years of working as a
mechanic, he was able to realize the great American dream, and
he bought a garage and a wrecking yard, and he got rid of all the
wrecked automobiles, and in an EPA-approved manner, got rid of
a whole stack of tires, and he went into the garage business for
himself, and he put up a sign that said: Fill dirt wanted. Well,
while the tires were there, they had plugged up a culvert and a
couple of skunk cabbages had grown. So he was arrested also for
polluting, for polluting the waters of the United States, and he
served 3 years in a Federal penitentiary, and was fined $206,000.
And I met his daughter a few years ago on the steps of the Capitol
in a fly in for freedom back here; she was trying to get her father
out, and I had read about this in the Readers Digest already. So
I knew what
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And what
Mr. ROSS. This person had a very serious charge, and we worked
to get that turned back to the local people and the local Corps of
Engineers, to work with him on some side-rearing ponds and do
some mitigation, and get out from under this, or Id have had a
neighbor in the Federal penitentiary probably by today.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. That was John Pasquis? Was that John
Pasquis or was that
Mr. ROSS. No, the personoh, I think thats the name of the per-
son from Meyersville. I believe that was his name.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, he was one of my clients, and he was a
Hungarian immigrant, a freedom fighter who waswho had an ad-
mirable reputation as being a freedom fighter from Hungary, and
escaped to America, the land of the free and the home of the brave,
and this is how we treated him. I could spend all evening on this
case, but, anyway, thank you very much.
And, Mr. Ealy, I wanted to ask you, what has been the response
of the Indiana State legislature in the designating of the Wabash
River in the American Heritage Rivers Initiative?
Mr. EALY. Our legislature right now is out of session. So what
we hear from them we hear over the telephone or in different meet-
91
ings. Some of them are saying theyve looked at the Kentucky reso-
lution and they want to put something like that in Indiana law,
which forbids anyone from seeking something like the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative, because that properly is within the ju-
risdiction of the State legislature. If the Indiana people wish a des-
ignation like that, they should petition the State legislature.
An interesting response was the original representative who ac-
tually wrote the bill that created this. He happens to be my rep-
resentative. Hes a Democrat. He went before the Legislative Serv-
ices Committee a week or two ago and asked them to put out an
immediate letter, even though they were out of session, telling the
county commissioners to oppose it. He also lambasted, opposed, the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative. He also lambasted the com-
missioners who where there, including the president of the commis-
sion, and explained to them that we had concerns when we estab-
lished this State designation that it could impact property rights.
We put protection within the law, within the code, to make sure
that that never happened. We gave you no authority over land use
or over the Wabash River. You are ignoring those protections. And
when the legislature gets back in session, were going to deal with
that.
So we have bipartisan opposition in Indiana to this idea of a Fed-
eral designation or this commission exceeding their authority. I
had another senator who said, if they do this, well sue them all
the way to the Supreme Court. Im not sure how he could do that,
but thats what his comment was.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I alsoI might suggest from the Chair that
they might also, as Congressmen, opt out for their districts of the
program, as we did today for Idaho.
Mr. EALY. Now are you talking about State or Federal?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Federal, the American Heritage
Mr. EALY. OK. At the Federal levelI was speaking of the
Stateat the Federal level, we have two of our Congressmen who
have come out vehemently opposed, and two who are somewhat op-
posed. So we need to work on them a little bit.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Good, good. Mrs. LaGrasse, you heard Lois
Van Hoover talk about the same American Heritage Rivers Initia-
tive Program being used in Canada. Have you heard about this, the
Laquois River?
Ms. LAGRASSE. No, I havent heard about it, Im sorry.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK.
Ms. LAGRASSE. I cant comment on that.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. Well, I want to thank the panel very
much for your fine testimony and for your great patience today,
and the Committee may have further questions for you in writing
and I would appreciate if you could have your answers back to us
in 3 weeks. Thank you very much.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair now calls the final panel: Mr.
David Bright, Sr., from Harrison, Arkansas; Mr. Peter Samuel from
the Schuylkill River Greenway and Heritage Corridor in
Wyomissing, Pennsylvania; Dan Blomquist, Montanans for Mul-
tiple Use, Kalispell, Montana; Linda Bourque Moss, Western Herit-
92
age Center, Billings, Montana, and Reginald William Nelson from

Richmond, Virginia.
Would you remain standing and raise your right arm, please?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Bright, I wonder if you can open with tes-
timony.
STATEMENT OF DAVID L. BRIGHT, SR., HARRISON, ARKANSAS
Mr. BRIGHT. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I submitted
quite a bit of testimony, and some of it was the rage we felt for
25 years, and Im not much of a writer, so Ive done some more
here to get it down to 5 minutes.
But, as I listened today, you had very good witnesses on the
American Heritage Initiative. So what Id rather talk about is how
a Federal river worked for us.
And it was something that Mrs. Yturria said, and I hope I got
that name right, but she said Washington had finally gotten it, she
thought. And I would really have liked to have told her, they got
ours 25 years ago. It was called the Buffalo River; its now a na-
tional river, and it was the first national river.
And Im hearing the same terms today that we heard back then.
The Forest Service rangers come to our community church in about
1970 to explain this program to us, and they said they only needed
about 50 foot up the bank for a national river. Thats all they really
needed. Nobody would be moved from their homes. Those were all
rumors, you know, about taking land and stuff; that the benefits
would far outweigh losing that river, because we were going to
have tourists flooding in, and Im hearing that same stuff today,
and I just want to tell you how it works.
Theres no old folksmy community is totally gone. All the peo-
ple were moved off; the houses were burned or dozed down or
hauled off. No old folks died on their place, like they said. In my
community the park boundaries are probably three to five miles
wide, not 50 foot, and I just wantIm hearing this same stuff
today.
And I want to mention about the partnerships. Weve seen these
same partnerships, Federal and State and NGOs, on the biosphere
nomination. Weve seen them on stream teams this year when they
developed them in Arkansas, the same people, Federal and State
and NGOs. Were seeing them nownow were hearing abouton
thispartnerships, and Im going to tell you, Madam Chairman, to
us it looks a lot more like gang activity than it does partnerships.
Theres no way to everand another thing weve heard here
today, and we hear it on all of them, is customs and culture and
heritage. Now let me tell you how they protected my community.
Were talking about communities. I dont know what this commu-
nity is because evidently you can be a community if youre a few
people, and you can designate 200 miles of river. But I want you
to remember what happened to my community, and they were
going to help it, too, and its gone.
My church house is now an eco-tour destination, and the ceme-
tery where I buried my daughter is, likewise, an eco-tour destina-
tion. The cemetery, because of the Civil War graves of that era
there, those people had lived on that land forever; the government
93
patented those people that land. I guess were supposed to believe

the government giveth and the government taketh away, because
thats what they did.
But if you come to my county, youll see what tourism has done
for it. We had a Dog Patch USA Park three miles from the Federal
park. Its bankrupt and closed, and has been for years. It went
bankrupt three or four times. It sits on our main drag, which is
winding, two-lane, no-shoulder, scenic U.S. byway. So thats our
highest traffic density.
And I just want you to come and look around my square. We
have about 7,000 people, or thereabouts, in my county. Come walk
around the square that was supposedsee if you see any highrise
motels or any hiking store supplies. Come and look. The Federal
Government parkIm not aware of them hiring any locals, but
they may, to haul trash off or something. Theyve taken 41,000
acres of our very best farmland, our bottom land. Weve been exiled
in our county to ridgetops and hillsides, and Madam Chairman,
theyre after it. They want the whole watershed, which is what
weve got left on those ridgetops.
Theres 197,000 acres also of forestland. Were under an eco-
system assessment, another partnership, by the Forest Service.
This year they offered for sale 281 acres to cut for timber. Now I
dont cut timber. Im a real estate broker, but the southern part of
my countyand my county coffers depend heavily on the Federal
Government, and I believe its their responsibility, when they have
that much of our land base, to provide some jobs and opportunities
for our people.
Deer School sits down on that forestland and theyre losing kids.
The populations going down. Those people are driving 60 miles to
pluck chickens, people that used to work in the woods, and theres
nothing wrong with plucking chickens; dont get me wrong. I mean,
its honest work, isnt it? But those people are moving out because
they can, for what it costs them in gas and wear and tear on their
vehicle, and the fact that they spend 4 hours a day driving away
from their family to have a jobthey can make payments in Car-
roll County, and thats where theyre doing that. And were losing
families.
Madam Chairman, they call this stuff honorary. Im going to
tell you, weve gotweve had a sackful of honoraries. Weve got
two Wilderness Areas. Weve got Scenic Trailways and Byways.
Every stream that runs 3 months of the year is now a Wild and
Scenic Riverway. We haveIm going to tell you, weve had so
many honors that we can hardly cope. If we get oneevery time
we get an honor, we lose families and jobs, and we have had all
the honors we need.
There is a bill up here, and I think it sits in your Committee,
that mentions Newton County again by name. The last thing we
want to do is you people up here to even know where were at.
Youve found us so many times that, when you mention us by
name, we go to shaking. Weve got a little bit of people left, and
we really just want to be left alone with the lands youve left us
and just live. Is that possible any more in America? Can we own
anything? Is there anything sacred that we can own that you cant
94
take? An acre? A stream? Anything? You know, weve just had just
too, too much honor.
And Im begging youI support your bill, and I dont want you
to think Im one of those right-wing radicals, but there are many
of my heroes that sits on this panel, and I want you to know that.
And I appreciate the two that stayed all day; I really do. And we
have some hope that maybe there will be some sensibility again be-
cause of these kind of bills, and H.R. 901, which we supported
heavily, obviously, last year, that as an American ought to make
everybody cringe and cry that we even need to introduce a bill like
that, but, second, and even worse, that you cant get two-thirds of
the people up here to vote for it. And were watching H.R. 901 with
some interest.
I know youre not here to talk about H.R. 901, but I wanted to
I took my first plane trip to come here, and I wanted to throw my
two cents in while I was here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BRIGHT. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I appreciate that, Mr. Bright, and I appreciate
your entering the tragic story about your community in the record.
Thank you for being here and for waiting so long.
Mr. BRIGHT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I forgotcould I
enterwould you entertain entering this? This is the testimony
and kind of stuff put together by a county judge, and he wanted
you to know that the Park Service is not the best neighbors that
weve ever seen. And he sent this up here with me, and if I could
entertain you to enter what portions you want or take, and look it
over, I would really appreciate that.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Bright.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Samuel.
STATEMENT OF PETER SAMUEL, SCHUYLKILL RIVER GREEN-
WAY AND HERITAGE CORRIDOR, WYOMISSING, PENNSYL-
VANIA
Mr. SAMUEL. Thank you. Im Peter Samuel. Im the director of
the Schuylkill River Greenway and Heritage Corridor, and on be-
half of that group, its partners, and community organizations, I
want to thank you and the members of this Committee for the op-
portunity to provide testimony in opposition to H.R. 1842.
We are opposed to H.R. 1842 because we believe the American
Heritage River Initiative will provide opportunities and benefits to
our region in southeastern Pennsylvania. The Schuylkill River
Greenway Association is a membership organization which has
been working with citizens and community groups and a host of
other partners up and down the river for almost 25 years to pro-
mote the river resources and advocate their protection.
In the 1990s we went through a process to develop a manage-
ment action plan for the Schuylkill as a Heritage Corridor, and in
1995 the Schuylkill River Corridor was designated by Governor
Tom Ridge as Pennsylvanias seventh State Heritage Park.
We in the Schuylkill watershed, including conservationists, elect-
ed officials, municipal governments, landowners, recreationalists,
95
industry owners, and more, are very much interested in the Amer-
ican Heritage River Initiative because it will provide an excellent
chance for the widest range of people to take new pride in their
river. It will enable us to work with the Federal Government as a
partner in efforts to improve and restore the resources associated
with the Schuylkill.
The goal of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is to support
communities within the existing laws and regulations by providing
them with better information, tools, and resources, and by encour-
aging local efforts deserving of special recognition. This is precisely
the kind of assistance the Schuylkill River Greenway Association
needs. This will help people better understand how to access exist-
ing Federal resources.
Let me provide a little background on the Schuylkill River Val-
ley. You heard about the Delaware River a little bit today. We are
a close associate of the Delaware.
The Schuylkill River flows through some of the most historically
significant land in the United States. The river itself extends 128
miles from the mining region of Schuylkill County through four
other counties and into the city of Philadelphia, where it links up
with the Delaware. It comprises three national parks, many acres
of State park and gamelands, widespread residential development,
agriculture, industrial towns, and private lands.
By the 1770s, Philadelphia had become the hub of Americas rev-
olutionary activity. It was the site of the First and Second Conti-
nental Congresses, the birthplace of the Declaration of Independ-
ence. It was along the Schuylkill in the winter of 1778 that General
Washington and his troops camped in Valley Forge, before the
turning point in the Revolutionary War.
By 1900, the use of anthracite coal from Schuylkill County to
power industry caused a total transformation in the valley. During
this period, the entire river valley functioned as an interlocking se-
ries of industrial engines, and Philadelphia became a national lead-
er in industry. All this growth and development of communities
and industries was not without consequence. By 1927, it was esti-
mated that there was 38 million tons of coal silt in the river. The
river was so polluted that it had essentially lost its value as a
river. The canal system was no longer navigable. The drinking
water had seriously been degraded.
The river has been making a slow comeback. In the 1970s, the
Schuylkill River Greenway Association was formed to begin advo-
cating the protection and health of the river and its tributaries.
The Schuylkill was designated by the State legislature as Penn-
sylvanias first scenic river in 1978. After an extensive 3-year plan-
ning process which involved representatives from each of the five
counties and the public and private sectors, the Schuylkill Heritage
Corridor was designated as a Pennsylvania Heritage Area.
The Schuylkill River Greenway Association, which had many
years of experience working with partners throughout the corridor,
expanded its mission to include increasing recreational opportuni-
ties, conserving cultural and historic resources, encouraging re-
gional cooperation, attracting tourism, and generating jobs and per-
manent economic benefits.
96
Since I became the director of the Schuylkill Corridor, Ive real-

ized that there are Federal agencies in our region which have pro-
grams that could provide assistance to our various communities.
The Army Corps of Engineers has indicated an interest in trans-
forming the de-silting basins into wetlands. The Environmental
Protection Agency has funds for creating riparian buffers along the
tributaries. The National Park Service can provide greenways and
trail planning. Fish and Wildlife is interested in the development
of fish ladders along the many dams, and there are probably many
others.
My information about these potential programs has been hap-
hazard, almost accidental, but if the Schuylkill River is designated
as an American Heritage River, information about all these pro-
grams could be made available as a coordinated package of serv-
ices. The Federal Government would begin to work for us. People
have called for a better, smarter, more coordinated way to work
with the Federal Government. The American Heritage Rivers Ini-
tiative seeks to coordinate these existing authorities in a more effi-
cient and complementary way, and proposes that assistance from
the government will come at the request of our community.
There is no existing system to provide communities with a co-
ordinated package of Federal services. In fact, there is so much
lack of coordination, it is very possible that within one very small
agency, such as the National Park Service, that more than one de-
partment or division could be involved with the same project, and
theyd never know what the other is doing. If what is being pro-
posed by the American Heritage Rivers Initiative comes to fruition,
it will be a major advance for government.
Im not talking about more government, not more regulations,
not more interference. Im talking about coordination, organization,
and responsiveness. Im talking about better government, ideal gov-
ernmentone that is there when you want it and one that provides
a coordinated strategy of services that will be truly helpful.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative will allow for recogni-
tion of the contributions of ordinary people in the significant re-
gions of our Nation. The Schuylkill Heritage Corridor provides a
framework for all types of people to take pride in their community,
understand their history, and work together to enhance the quality
of life for their children. We are treating our history and heritage
as one of our greatest resources. The American Heritage River Ini-
tiative will allow us to build on that and ensure that the present
and future is successfully linked to our past.
Thank you. I would also like to provide for the record a letter
from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and an attach-
ment, if I might.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Samuel may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Samuel, I want to thank you for your testimony very much.
Mr. SAMUEL. Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Blomquist, it is very good to see you
again.
97
STATEMENT OF DAN BLOMQUIST, MONTANANS FOR
MULTIPLE USE, KALISPELL, MONTANA
Mr. BLOMQUIST. Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Welcome to Washington. We will entertain
your testimony.
Mr. BLOMQUIST. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Yes, Im presi-
dent of Montanans for Multiple Use, a grassroots organization with
five chapter groups spread throughout the State of Montana, and,
yes, its good to see you again. I remember the first time that I met
you there up in Kalispell, where we were talking about forest ac-
cess, and as I started to talk about my personal experience with
forest accessand Im going to do it again here in a secondI
ended up crying about it, and you said, I wish that all of Congress
could have seen that. Well, I thought this was where they were
going to be.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BLOMQUIST. So its bad that there is so many demands on
other peoples time today.
One of the first things that I want to bring up is that our county
commissioners, both for Flathead County and Lincoln County,
which is most of northwestern Montana, they cover an area of
probably bigger than a couple of States back here. Both of them
have unanimously signed resolutions that they do not want the
American Heritage River; they dont want any part of it. If its in-
troduced, they will not participate. They will not allow it into their
counties, and those are in the written record there. So I also know
that theyre working with other counties within the State of Mon-
tana to come up with the same thing.
Ive rewritten this thing about 27 times today because I keep
hearing just gross inaccuracies. Ms. McGinty, she makes lots of
promises, but follows through, in my personal experience, on very,
very few. She spoke at the Western States Coalition Summit Meet-
ing in July 1997 in Spokane, Washington, and Im going to have
to paraphrase this a little bit, but she said something to the effect
of she would like to trust people, but she cant always trust people
to do the right thing. Well, apparently, she has reasons to believe
this because she didnt follow through and do the right thing, and
put into thethe promises made at that meeting, put them into
the documentation in the final deal of the American Heritage Riv-
ers Initiative.
She specifically said, and I asked her again todayI walked over
here to the side of the room and asked herI says, In Spokane,
you said that a private property owner could opt out of the Amer-
ican Heritage Rivers Initiative if they so desired. And she says,
No, I said a community. And I says, No, you were specifically
asked the question and you said that a private property owner
could opt out of it. Theres many other instances throughout there
that shes done the same thing.
And I tried to explain to her that its this kind of vagueness, this
kind of saying one thing one time and doing something elseher
response to me was, Well, its our intentions to make government
better. Give me a break. All your actions, everything that youve
done has said exactly the opposite.
98
Now something that doesnt have anything to do with American

Heritage Rivers, but it has to do with rivers and water qualities
I have a book hereCongressman Hill has a copy of this, if youd
like to see it, and if you would like to have a copy, I will get it to
you, if you will let me know about it. This is water quality money
that was set aside to reduce sedimentation in the streams. This is
full of pictures of what happened when the Federal Government
got involved in removing culverts for the sake of closing roads on
the Flathead National Forest. One stream, two culverts, 80 tons of
sediment into the stream because of what theyve done. Thats one
of the hazards you run into when you take moneys from one pro-
gram that are set aside to do something and divert them over here
to do something totally different. You run into these kind of prob-
lems. Now they have no money to fix it.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Blomquist, let me ask you, would you like
that to be a part of the record?
Mr. BLOMQUIST. Yes, you can have it, sure.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. So ordered.
Mr. BLOMQUIST. OK. We have onein fact, Ms. Moss will speak
to this, and we have one river thats proposed for listing in Mon-
tana, Yellowstone River, and I had heard a lot of things about what
the proposal was. So I asked her today specifically what it was, and
its to bring out the history of the river and have little sites along,
kind of a walk-down-memory-lane. And surprisingly, I support
that, but I do not and cannot support the American Heritage Riv-
ers Initiative.
This is a wayI dont think that she really understandsor not
her personally, but the committee thats down therereally under-
stands what happens when you start working with the Federal
Government. I cant outdo Mr. Bright over here, but weve got the
spotted grizzly bear; weve got the spotted gray wolf; weve got the
spotted bull trout; weve got National Park Service; weve got 78
percent of our county is administered by the Federal Government,
and we know what kind of partners they are, and it aint the best
ones in the world.
I would have the opportunity to come here today for a little dif-
ferent reason than what most people have had. We didnt have the
money to come here. I didnt have it personally; my organization
didnt have it. But when I was invited, I started asking people and
organizations from all over the State of Montana. That was a very
humbling thing for me to doto go around with my hand out and
ask for donations to get here. And the response was just over-
whelming.
And I always think of Isabelle Fratt, who called me and says,
Im so sick of what the Federal Governments been doing to us. I
cant send much, but could I please have your address and send
you $10 to help you get to Washington, DC?
Excuse me. Id better go back to reading something so I can get
through this.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania said this morning that the
Northeast has led the way in independence. Well, the ancestors
from the Northeast moved to the West, looking for the same things:
independence and liberty. And for 150 years, theyve taken care of
99
the places like Montana, so that theyre still the last best place. We
are still leading the way for freedom and liberty, and we dont want
a river rammed through it.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blomquist may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Blomquist. I appreciate your
testimony. And can you give up another notebook for the record?
Mr. BLOMQUIST. Pardon?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Can you give up another notebook for the
record, the exhibit there?
Mr. BLOMQUIST. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right, good. thank you.
And the Chair recognizes Linda Bourque Moss, and thank you
for your patience, Ms. Moss. We welcome your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LYNDA BOURQUE MOSS, WESTERN HERITAGE
CENTER, BILLINGS, MONTANA
Ms. MOSS. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chairman and
members of the Committee. My name is Lynda Bourque Moss and
I am the director of the Western Heritage Center, a regional mu-
seum located in Billings, Montana. Founded in 1970, the Western
Heritage Center is a museum dedicated to interpreting and reflect-
ing Yellowstone River Valley life. I am here this evening to present
the background of a regional project of the Western Heritage Cen-
ter, the Yellowstone Heritage Partnership, and to relate our re-
gional interest in support of the American Heritage Rivers Initia-
tive. I am here today with the encouragement of the Yellowstone
County commissioners, the Western Heritage Center board of direc-
tors, and supporters of the Yellowstone Heritage Partnership. Im
just going to summarize my written statement for you.
Several years ago the Western Heritage Center began two
projects: one called Our Place in the West, which was a long-term
exhibit and oral history projects, and public programs, and publica-
tions that looked at living in the Yellowstone River Valley from the
perspective of residents. We also embarked on another project
called The Real West: Farming and Ranching Families of the Yel-
lowstone Valley.
With both of those projects, we visited people. We were in kitch-
ens and back yards of farmers and ranchers throughout the Yellow-
stone Valley, getting their sense of their history and perspective of
this remarkable region. Many of those people were very interested
in continuing this history project. We worked with small, local mu-
seums. We looked at their artifacts and collections, and saw that
there was a remarkable wealth of information within the Yellow-
stone region. Out of this dialog, we saw that there was a need to
develop a regional partnership, and in 1996 the Western Heritage
Center became the lead organization for the Yellowstone Heritage
Partnership.
For the Yellowstone Heritage Partnership, we focused on the Yel-
lowstone region, which involves Montana, northern Wyoming, and
western North Dakota. To begin building support, and the process
to establish this partnership, we requested technical assistance
from the RTCA program, which is with the National Park Service.
100
For that assistance, we enlisted the support of counties and all

types of nonprofit organizations and museums throughout the Yel-
lowstone Valley. We had over 40 letters of support for that applica-
tion. One of my favorite letters came from McKensey County in
North Dakota, and they even called me and said, We are so
pleased that youre including us in this regional project. Weve al-
ways felt that we are part of the Yellowstone Valley, and in west-
ern North Dakota oftentimes we go unnoticed.
In January 1996, the Western Heritage formed an advisory coun-
cil, and that was comprised of many individuals that sent in letters
of support. And we have letters of support from that from county
commissioners throughout this region.
The Yellowstone Hertitage Partnership advisory council includes
representatives from Federal, State, and local agencies, museums,
colleges. The Crow and Northern Cheyenne communities have rep-
resentation on our advisory council. Agriculture, recreation, and
natural resource management organizations in Montana, northern
Wyoming, and western North Dakota are involved. We have three
appointees from each of the Governorsfrom the Governor of Wyo-
ming, the Governor of Montana, and the Governor of North Da-
kota.
In February 1996, the advisory council formulated a vision state-
ment. Our vision statement is this: The Yellowstone Heritage
Partnership, working together to promote the Yellowstone River
Valley: a place valued for its quality of life; communities that re-
spect their regions natural and cultural heritage, and consider
these in their developmental projects; a region with a sustainable
economy that offers opportunities for growth and employment
while managing change; and a people that cooperate through the
free exchange of ideas and develop consensus.
Since 1996, weve had many public meetings throughout the Yel-
lowstone Valley. Weve had meetings in Billings, in Colstrip, Lame
Deer, Hardin, Crow Agency, in Livingston, Red Lodge, Joliet. Weve
had meetings in Williston, North Dakota, and in Sheridan, Wyo-
ming, we had over 100 people attend a meeting.
We also worked with another organization who is a partner, the
Yellowstone Center for Applied Economic Research, and that orga-
nization has conducted several focus group studies throughout the
region, asking residents their perception of the region, the quality
of life, resource use, and economic development. And one of those
is cultural tourism.
And Im going to read some of the statements from people from
those meetings. This is from Bill Michaels. Hes a sugarbeet farm-
er. He lives in Huntley, which is near Billings, and hes also on our
advisory council.
He said, I could support any program that does not in any way
diminish private property rights. My concern is agriculture and its
future. Family farms are very important. It is my belief most rivers
need some type of flood control and effort to diminish the destruc-
tion of timberlandhe was talking about deer habitatand pro-
ductive farmlands. Strange how farmers and ranchers are not part
of many of these programs.
Ivy Brubaker in Terry, MontanaIvy is probably 80 years old,
and whenever I see her, she gives me a big hug. We think the
101
State and county should have charge of our area. We are concerned
for the farmers and ranchers, fishermen, and those with their fun
boats.
Dallas Johannsenthis is from a meeting in Hysham that I at-
tended. Hes the executive director of the Eastern Plains RC&D.
We went through very intense discussion of the Yellowstone Herit-
age Partnership with many of their members, and Dallas com-
mented, We need to begin to build trust as we look at these types
of initiatives.
Based on the public input through these methods, the Western
Heritage Center identified the following projects and tasks as part
of our partnership. One is to develop a traveling exhibit. Thats
called Explore the Yellowstone! and were going to take that to
fairs and pow-wows, rodeos, places where people gather, to begin
talking to people about the Yellowstone region, sharing this won-
derful history of this area.
Were conducting a regional economic study of cultural tourism
in the Yellowstone region which will create information that is
user-friendly, so all these organizations can be using the same
data, as we talk about cultural tourism as one leg of the economy
of the Yellowstone region.
We looked at the need to obtain what we called a circuit rider
for the region or someone that could facilitate multi-agency coordi-
nation and collaboration, and also further expanding the support
base of the partnership. At all of our advisory council meetings we
have representation from our three congressional offices, and they
have been very helpful in providing input from their perspective as
well.
When the American Heritage Rivers Initiative was announced by
President Clinton, the partnership began gathering information
about the initiative. Many of the partnership members saw par-
allels between our regional initiative and the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative. In May we received a consensus to continue to
evaluate the initiative while conducting a regional survey to gather
other information related to the initiative, and we submitted com-
ments as part of that public review process.
Our preliminary approach is based on information gathered from
17 surveys, and the strongest
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Ms. Moss, will you be able to wrap it up pret-
ty soon?
Ms. MOSS. Oh, sure. Im sorry. OK.
The strongest surveys, the projects look at the Lewis and Clark
Bicentennial, the Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and the Yel-
lowstone River Greenway.
While I was here today, two of my colleagues were meeting with
the Montana Stockgrowers Association to talk about our plans for
this initiative, and I will just conclude by stating something from
Mike Penfill, the director of the Montana State Parks Association.
We believe in community-based, citizen, grassroots action as the
best way for people to secure a positive future for Montana. With
that as the background, we are excited about the American Herit-
age River Initiative for the Yellowstone River in Montana, Wyo-
ming, and North Dakota.
Thank you.
102
[The prepared statement of Ms. Moss may be found at end of

hearing.]
The Chair recognizes Mr. Nelson.
STATEMENT OF REGINALD WILLIAM NELSON, RICHMOND,
VIRGINIA
Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I guess Im the one
youve been waiting for, being last on the list.
[Laughter.]
Mr. NELSON. No one will be happier than I when my time is up.
[Laughter.]
Mr. NELSON. Im here today to support H.R. 1842. My name is
Reginald Nelson, and I live at 1820 New Market Road in eastern
Henrico County, which is just outside the city of Richmond.
Mr. DeVeny from Idaho could have written my testimony for me,
and I could have changed the name and a few facts. Im a full-time
farmer also, and have experienced many of the same things that
he has dealing with the Federal Government and bureaucrats.
The land that we farm is in sight of the James River, which has
a watershed of over 10,000 square miles, as mentioned earlier.
Weve been farming most of this land for the past 75 years.
I have no business really being here today. This is the height of
our harvest season, and time is very precious to us now. Im spend-
ing 12 to 16 hours a day this time of the year, and I had a hard
time explaining to my two young daughters yesterday why I had
to come to Washington today to testify before this Committeeto
protect our rights.
I elected representatives to Congress to protect my interest and
my rights, not to be run over with Presidential Executive Orders
in which Congress had no say. This seems to be dictatorial, not
democratic.
In my testimony, you will see that I have stated that my Con-
gressman is Thomas Bliley. He is the one who represents my inter-
est. I live on the edge of the district, and technically live inmy
Congressman is Mr. Scott.
As a farmer, I already know about excessive regulation. I comply
and filecomply with and file a nutrient management plan, a
Chesapeake Bay plan, an integrated pest management plan, record
the pesticides which I use on my property, and at the same time
have to comply with local land use regulation. And, yet, none of
these regulations have changed the way my family has farmed this
land over the years. We have been good stewards of the land since
the beginning. My father and grandfather took care of it and
taught me how to take care of it. We havent needed the Federal
Government to tell us how to farm. What has changed is the
amount of time and the cost that it takes to report these things
back to the Federal bureaucrats.
A question I have: If this initiative is truly voluntary and non-
regulatory, why is there a Federal presence? Why will Federal
agents be involved? Why? Its because there clearly will be addi-
tional regulations or policies placed on the property that has this
designation. Is this going to mean that were going to have more
records and more reporting to do with more regulation?
103
Weve dealt with some of these so-called partnerships over the

years with the farm, and it seems to be a way to pass the buck.
One agency tells us we need to see the next agency, and that agen-
cy tells us we need to go back to the first agency.
Another question Ive got is where the funding comes from for
these policies. If its not going to cost any more and we dont have
to hire any more people, what have these people been doing if they
didntthey didnt have anything to do before now?
There are 12 agencies that have been identified to work with this
initiative. FSA is one of those agencies, I believe, the Farm Service
Agency, and many of the offices have been consolidated and closed
recently due to budget cuts. They apparently dont have an excess
amount of money to support these things.
What really irritates me more than anything is the fact that my
Senators and my Representatives didnt have the opportunity to
approve this Federal program, nor did they have a part in creating
it. This initiative has been created with the rules yet to be estab-
lished, it appears. The devil is in the details, and we havent been
given those details in advance of this program being written.
Now for years we were asked as farmers to sign up in the farm
programs, where the rules and regulations were written sometimes
after we signed up. This doesnt work; it never has worked; it never
will work.
We have dealt within our neighborhood we have had a lot of
problem with the National Park Service coming in and trying to
overrun us with historic preservation. It appears that some of these
bureaucrats must go to the same school and learn how to avoid an-
swering questions, as we saw Ms. McGinty earlier. The question
was asked if the Federalif the person could testify at a zoning
board hearing. The National Park Service representative, super-
intendent of Richmond Battlefield Parks, stands up frequently at
the board meetings and the zoning meetings in uniform and testi-
fies. So it does happen.
Some years ago, we had the opportunity in the State to have a
road, Route 5, voluntarily designated as a Scenic Byway. Nothing
was done then except a few pretty signs were put up along the road
stating this designation. Now we have a group of citizens in the
area who are using this designation, trying to obtain a 1,300-foot
setback off of Route 5 back onto our property. Theyre trying to stop
development, and they want no further improvements to Route 5,
saying its an historic road. Well, farm equipment has become rath-
er wide, and with the traffic we have on Route 5, if the roads not
improved, we wont be able to continue to farm it, and then the de-
velopment will come, and then the road will be improved.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Nelson, will you be able to wrap it up in
the next minute or two?
Mr. NELSON. Yes, I will.
I am fortunate that my local jurisdiction, Henrico County, is in
strong opposition to the designation and is preparing a letter to be
sent to all of our congressional delegation stating and clarifying
their opinion. I would like to provide a copy of that letter to this
Committee to be attached to my testimony as soon as it is avail-
able.
104

Mr. NELSON. Again, I would just like to strongly support H.R.
1842, and thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Being the daughter of
a farmer, and knowing what farm life is like, I certainly under-
stand. I understand your sacrifice today, and I understand the sac-
rifice of every single one of you who are here. I just want you to
know there is a committee markup going on in the Commerce Com-
mittee and in ISTEA, and even as we speak, my staff is giving a
major speech for methat theres a lot of times things have to go
by the wayside. That pales in comparison to the sacrifice of all of
you in coming here to offer your testimony.
And although theres just two of us here, remaining here, I want
you to know that this becomes a part of the permanent record, part
of the permanent congressional record that will last in the archives
of the Library of Congress, and your contribution today will be ref-
erenced a lot and reviewed by many people. And so I just want to
say, for my colleagues who cant be here, thank you so very, very
much for coming.
I would like now to yield to Mr. Schaffer for any questions he
might have.
I like to think in terms of quality instead of quantity when it
comes to Committee members here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. SCHAFFER. So I can assure you were in good shape here.
Id like to ask Mr. Samuelif this Heritage River Program con-
tinues to move forward as it is suggested by the Clinton Adminis-
tration and you pursue ityoure in southwest Pennsylvania?
Mr. SAMUEL. Southeast.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thats right.
Mr. SAMUEL. Philadelphias southeast.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Oh, youre in southeast, OK. Youre in southeast
Pennsylvania. What are your thoughts about this opt-out provi-
sion? Youve heard the exchange between Ms. McGinty and I on
who would establish the standards associated withthe terms of
who would be opting out or not. She suggested that its her inten-
tion to give quite a bit of authority to the local proposal, the orga-
nizing group. In your case, stating your desire to pursue the Herit-
age River Initiative on your particular river, do you plan on allow-
ing property owners along the river to opt out of the program right
at the beginning?
Mr. SAMUEL. I dont quite understand what opting out is going
to do for someone. And the reason I say that is the Schuylkill has
been designated a Heritage Corridor. That didnt do anything to
landowners along the river, and you have to understand south-
eastern Pennsylvania, obviously, is very different from Idaho and
many parts of the West. Its very densely populated. Its very heav-
ily residential. Were talking about a lot of residents with small
properties. Were not talking about a lot of large farmers or land-
owners.
And I thinkyou know, there was some discussion earlier that
perhaps everyone whos a landowner along the river should be sur-
105
veyed and given the opportunity to opt out. I guess I dont under-
stand, with the Schuylkill being a greenway, with the Schuylkill
being a Heritage Corridor, with the Schuylkill being a designated
Scenic River, what did that do to landowners that created any re-
strictions for them? And I also dont see the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative imposing any restrictions on landowners.
So I dont understand truly why theres a real need for opting
out, and I guess thatsexplain it to me: Whywhat there is to
fear? I guess Im not sure whats going to happen to landowners
along the river that they need to opt out of something.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Im less interested in explaining to you the fears
that need to be associated with the Heritage River Initiative. As for
me, I sat through quite a bit of scary testimony from others who
have been affected by the Federal Government in various ways, but
thats not really the point of my question. It is, though, presum-
ably, you would be primarily involved in formulating the proposal
and working with the community on drafting the proposal to the
Federal Government to establish the Heritage River Initiative on
the Schuylkill River, and Im just trying to inquire, at least at this
pointso much of this is speculative, even the rules and regula-
tions and how they will eventually unfold. But from your perspec-
tive, do you envision allowing local property owners who live along
the river, who own land along the river, to opt out in your pro-
posal?
Mr. SAMUEL. Oh, I would say there certainly can be people who
do not support it. I guess I dontand Im sorry that I was not
clear, but I dont understand what opting-out means. I guess I
can
Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, it would meanlets say Farmer Jones has
a little farm, one of these little farms, you mentioned thats right
along the banks of the Schuylkill River, and he hears that youre
applying for the Heritage River Initiative and you want the des-
ignation, and he sends you a letter and says, You know, this
might be fine for everybody else, but I would appreciate it if the
boundary went around my property. Are you going to allow that.
Thats what that means.
Mr. SAMUEL. OK. I guess, again, my confusion is that I didnt see
that there was any boundaries here. I mean, we already have a
Schuylkill Heritage Corridor that has very, very mysterious
unclarified boundaries, and its really more a partnership
among
Mr. SCHAFFER. OK, but Im suggesting that Farmer Jones wants
you to establish a boundary around his little farm on the banks of
the river.
Mr. SAMUEL. Then I do not have a problem with that. Thats the
answer.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Do you anticipate that your proposal will allow
for the opt-out provisions so the boundary can be drawn around his
land?
Mr. SAMUEL. Yes.
Mr. SCHAFFER. You do?
Mr. SAMUEL. If there are boundaries drawn and someone needs
to be outside of those boundariesI mean, I guess Iyou know,
were functioning on a model of
106
Mr. SCHAFFER. Im not suggesting need; Im suggesting desire

that he just wants to be outside the boundary.
Mr. SAMUEL. Yes, I mean, it seems like youre using a model of
like a national park, where they draw a boundary around some-
thing and say, This is all now under the jurisdiction of the Federal
Government, and I dont think thats what a Heritage Area or a
Heritage River is about. Theres not a firm boundary. Its a way of
developing a partnership amongst interested people who are inter-
ested, in this case, in a river, in a river corridor. I dont see a hard
boundary, but if we do draw a boundary and someone does not
want to be in that boundary, then they have, certainly, the free will
to be outside of it.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, that is encouraging. My times up, so Ill
stop. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Ms. Bourque Moss, Id like to ask the same
question of you that was posed to Mr. Samuel. Do you believe that
people ought to give written permission before they are included in
a designation under the American Heritage Rivers Initiative?
Ms. MOSS. As it stands now, we have a task force thats working
on our proposal for the Yellowstone River as an American Heritage
River. And based on the latest information from the Federal Reg-
ister, it doesnt have to be the entire river, and that helps us con-
siderably. Well be looking at specific areas.
And the focus of our projects look at public places, at museums,
at sites, whether theyre national historic sites or parks, places that
are in the public interest. So we wont be looking at private prop-
erty at all. We are working with the Montana Stockgrowers Asso-
ciation and they have offered their assistance to work with us on
this nomination, as we proceed to make sure that it meets the in-
terest of that particular organization. Weve always felt that its
important to be open with our project and our partnership and in-
vite the views of many different groups of individuals and associa-
tions in this region, so that that dialog hasnt come up yet with our
advisory council members; it certainly will. We have a meeting in
October, and Im sure that will be part of the discussion.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. So, generally, what you are saying is that the
property owners will not even be considered as being included?
Ms. MOSS. Theyre an important voice to the Yellowstone region.
We arent defining boundaries at this point.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. But if they want boundaries defined around
their property, define them out of the project, would you support
that?
Ms. MOSS. I think so. That would be fine with us.
Mr. Blomquist?
Mr. BLOMQUIST. Yes, just for clarification here, I know the Mon-
tana Stockgrowers Ive been talking with them, too, and I know
that they do support the idea of some kind of history beinga lot
of what theyre talking about as far as the history sites, putting up
a display, or whatever it is, working with the museums and all
that, but I also have a letter here from theits in with my testi-
mony therefrom the Montana Stockgrowers, and Ill justits
quite lengthy, but Ill just read a couple of sentences here at the
very end of it.
107
It says, We support your effort to bringthis is addressed to

me, by the wayWe support your efforts to bring badly needed in-
sight to this ominous program through testimony during the con-
gressional hearings. We also offer our support for your efforts to
have this initiative withdrawn until a full congressional review has
been completed and a fully developed program is presented for ade-
quate public comment.
They are interested in working with the group in Billings, be-
cause if its going to go ahead anyhow, which apparently this Presi-
dent has the idea that this will go ahead regardless of what we do,
they certainly want to be part of it. But they are very, very con-
cerned because this thing has not been up for public comment; it
has not been fully developed; it has not been fully explained.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Mr. Bright, could you briefly de-
scribe the National Park Services policy regarding roads within the
Buffalo National Park?
Mr. BRIGHT. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. When they came
to our community, they talked about better access for more people,
and in reality theyve taken roads that were historically our county
roads and blocked them. And Id just like to give you one example,
if I could.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Oh, wait a minute. Wait a minute. They
being
Mr. BRIGHT. I mean the Park Service put boulders in part of
them because they say that our roads were not surveyed off and
that we just had a proscriptive easement, but you have to under-
stand, this was not Federal land; this was private land, and we had
those easements in there. We had a visitor fall off a bluffthey
love to climb bluffs, you know, and he fell, and it took our first re-
sponders, local people, 3 hours to haul him out for medical atten-
tion. He fell within 100 yards of our county roads called
Centerpoint Road. They had a horse die down there; they unlocked
the cable on it and took a backhoe down and hauled the dead horse
out. But we had to haul thethey had to haul the gentleman that
had fell out by hand; it took them 3 hours. They have no common
sense.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, where is your sheriff and your county
commissioners?
Mr. BRIGHT. Thats a good question.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. They have absolutely noIm sorry about get-
ting so excited, and Im not supposed to testify here, but they have
no jurisdiction over your county roads. Whats wrong with your
local units of government?
Mr. BRIGHT. Theyre intimidated; theyve been bullied and intimi-
dated, and we are a very poor county and they dont have the guts
to wind up in court, and the Park Service tells them that when
they put that gate there, that if they go through that, theyll be de-
stroying government property and theyll be
Mrs. CHENOWETH. It isnt governmentIm sorry.
Mr. BRIGHT. I know, I understand. The cables there; you have
to understand, Madam Chairman. The cable they put up is theirs,
and I guess if you knock it down, that would be government prop-
erty; I dont know. I dont get it, either.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, this is shocking to me.
108
Mr. BRIGHT. We would really appreciate some help. I know

youve got so much to investigate up here, though; you probably
dont have time to investigate something in poor little Newton
County, but if you ever get around to it, wed love to have you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, Im telling you, I am exceedingly inter-
ested in this particular issue. You have certainly gotten my atten-
tion. The Park Serviceno national or Federal agency has jurisdic-
tion over ingress or egress using county roads, and I dont know
where your county attorney is, or whos protecting you people, but
you need protecting, and thats not from the Federal Government.
Mr. BRIGHT. I understand. We had an attorney generals opinion,
and he really agreed with them. He also joined a suit with the Si-
erra Club on a timber sale in Newton County, and probably will
again, and is currently suing three property owners along Crooked
Creek, trying to prove that it is a navigable stream, because they
have fences there, and theyve had them there for 50 years. So we
dont get much help at home in places.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Bright, I know the hour is late, but I want
you to stay in personal contact with me on this.
Mr. BRIGHT. I would be happy to do that, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you, please?
Mr. BRIGHT. Yes.
Mr. BRIGHT. Thank you.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Nelson, would you please elaborate more
about what you testified to, about the Park Service superintendent
standing up in uniform and testifying at county zoning board meet-
ings?
Mr. NELSON. The superintendent has attended several meetings.
I believe one of them had to do with the mining, a farm that was
going to be mined for gravel that was in the viewshed of the park.
They objected to that. They hadthey presented in front of the
board of supervisors on differentwith their different plans and
other things as well.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, I guess its a new trend, but Im not
pleased with it.
Mr. NELSON. Were not pleased with it, either.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. No.
How much of your property would beis therelet me ask it
this way: Is there a part of your property that aligns a river?
Mr. NELSON. We have a road that separates us from the river.
There is the property right on the river, then the road, and then
were across the road from that. We can see the river.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Nelson, tell me, where does your county
come down on the American Heritage Rivers designation?
Mr. NELSON. The county, to myas I have been informed, is in
opposition to it, to that initiative.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would suggest you go home and get your
county to petition or just simply to opt out.
Mr. NELSON. OK. As I stated in here, theyre supposed to be
writing a letter to their congressional
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And I would very much appreciateand I
know Mr. Schaffer would, tooreceiving a copy of that letter.
Mr. NELSON. Yes, maam.
109

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK.
Mr. NELSON. And as an individual, I opt out of it.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thats good. Mr. Nelson, would you please get
Mr. Bliley to sign onto my bill? You work on him from the home
front; Ill work on him from this front.
Mr. NELSON. We will try.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank
you so much for your patience. Your testimony has been very, very
valuable. I must commend Ms. Moss on the work that she is doing,
especially on the local level, and all of you, thank you very, very
much for your testimony. And, again, its been a long day, but my
hat is off to you for your perseverance, and please stay in touch
with me as things develop in your State. Thank you.
This record will remain open for three weeks. If any of you wish
to alter or amend any of your testimony, please do so within that
timeframe. I want you to know also members of the Committee
may have additional questions, and if they do, they will be submit-
ting them to you in writing.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Schaffer, do you have anything for the
Committee?
Mr. SCHAFFER. No, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. With that, this Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 7:53 p.m., the Committee adjourned subject to
the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
110
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to discuss this bill. I am proud to
be a cosponsor of H.R. 1842. I along with many of you here today have serious con-
cern about the need for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Although this national rivers proposal has been in the Federal Register for three
months and was the subject of a recent hearing by the House Resources Committee,
few of my fundamental questions about this proposal have been satisfactorily an-
swered. I, along with 54 of my colleagues, signed a letter to President Clinton on
August 14 asking him to postpone the comment deadline for the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative. We were denied our request. The Administrations response was
that in the 90 day comment period, they had received enough comments and enough
suggestions. In fact they had received less then 2,000 comments from across this
country. But it appears that no number of comments would have affected the Ad-
ministration because the individuals who had proposed the program had already
made up their minds.
Limited input is not sufficient input. Last year, my home state of Utah had eleven
days notice before the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was created
notice given in a leaked story of the Washington Post. Utahs elected officials ap-
proached the Administration and objected to the proposal. The Administration ada-
mantly claimed that no action was imminent. Now the Administration claims that
Utahans had input. Of course that is silly. Now, I guess I shouldnt complain. I
would have been exhilarated to have had the chance to solicit some 1,700 comments
and suggestions on the Administrations actions last Fall in Utah.
There is another aspect of this initiative that is important to me. I have serious
concerns that this initiative will be used as a political tool to reward friends of
the Administration. Now that we have exposed the White House fundraising scan-
dals, I foresee a partisan political agenda that will grant American Heritage River
status as favors to various supporters nationwide. My fear is that political undercur-
rents will soon be driving the river designation process.
I support H.R. 1842 because the American Heritage Rivers program is not good
for our rivers, a River Navigator is not good for our communities or the programs
that would be raided. This Administration has proved it does not care about private
property rights. A voluntary program should not take 13 agencies for implementa-
tion. If we need a program to help our rivers, let us do it on the local level, where
states and local communities can run it without layering another bureaucratic blan-
ket across our nation.
Ms. McGinty, chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, has said that they
have worked diligently to address the concerns about private property rights. If
they were serious about answering our concerns, they would have at least taken the
time to listen to them. In my view they have not done that, and our private property
rights are seriously in jeopardy. That is why I support H.R. 1842.
STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY BONILLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF TEXAS
Chairman Young, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to your
Committee today on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI). I have many
concerns about the initiative the President just implemented, without Congressional
approval.
I represent the 23rd Congressional District of Texas, which includes 800 miles of
the Rio Grande. For those of you who have never seen the river, let me tell you
it is majestic river that twists and turns its way through some rough but beautiful
country. The river has contributed a great deal to the rich culture and heritage of
the region and just imagine, it has managed to do all of this without a Federal ini-
tiative, program or declaration.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) asserts this initiative will create
a government that works better and costs less through focusing on customer service,
developing partnerships and delegating power to the front lines. The Federal Gov-
ernment should already be doing this. Efficiency should not require a new Federal
order. Why do we need this or any other initiative to direct the Federal agencies
to do their jobs? Since when is duplicative government a good idea?
The initiatives authors claim it will not cost any additional money or add new
regulations. My understanding is that communities can already apply for money
and they can apply without any type of Federal designation. We just do not know
what kind of strings will be attached to the designation and any money that may
111
come with it. The AHRI only says the communities will receive assistance with the
application process but it does not guarantee any money.
I am also concerned that this initiative will lead to increased Federal intrusions
into communities and may regulate or control the use and access of the rivers. The
possibility that it may be defined as including watersheds is particularly alarming.
This could lead to government control of an entire region. Any time the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service is hunting for new tasks I am very worried. Let the bureau-
crats in and there goes the use and control of the river and any property along the
river to say the very least.
I am particularly concerned about the directive to the Federal agencies to go into
the communities to restore the river. Until Congress is able to bring common sense
to many of the overburdensome laws and regulations such as the Endangered Spe-
cies Act, and Federal wetlands policies, to name a few, these agencies be able to
wield as much power as they want in these communities and on private ranch and
farm land.
CEQ has also promoted this as a grass roots or bottom up program that is good
for the communities and the rivers. But I have to wonder about this. Most of my
constituents are vehement in their opposition.
I also have to wonder why CEQ rushed this initiative limiting thereby citizens
input. Why did they need to rush the initial comment period? Only after being inun-
dated with requests to extend the deadline did they add another 60 days to the com-
ment period.
I would also add that since the initiative was first proposed I have received many
letters and phone calls from constituents asking me to oppose the initiative. And
that is exactly why I am here today, to allow the people in my district to have a
voice. Most of the people I have heard from live in rural communities along the river
and depend on the river for their livelihoods.
The significance of the Rio Grande will not change based on this designation nor
will it be diminished in any way if it does not receive this designation. I will con-
tinue to stand strong for property rights and recognition to the area for the rich her-
itage and culture that the river has brought the region. We need not sacrifice any
right to obtain Federal recognition of our regions beauty and importance. We know
far better than any Washington bureaucrat the unique nature of our region. This
is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1842 and I have come here today to support the
passage of this bill. I look forward to voting for this bill on the House floor.
The only things clear about the AHRI are the questions it raises. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAY LAHOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear here today to express my
support for the Presidents American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
When the President announced this initiative during his State of the Union Ad-
dress, many of us in Illinois, who have been working since 1994 to develop an inte-
grated management plan for the Illinois River, were elated that such national prom-
inence was being placed on the protection and restoration of our nations rivers.
Without the leadership of Lt. Governor Bob Kustra, the monetary commitment of
Governor Jim Edgar, and the teamwork of the Illinois River Strategy Team, Peoria
Lakes, in my hometown, would be nothing more than a mosquito infested mud flat
in a very short time. Over the last eight years, nearly a foot of silt has been depos-
ited across the bottom of the river in Peoria Lakes.
Additionally, serious flooding in many areas along the river has caused tremen-
dous damage. While increased rainfall contributes mightily to flooding, there is no
doubt that a shallower river, altered landscapes, and channelized streams through-
out the watershed have a strong influence on where that rainfall, and the silt car-
ried in flood waters, is deposited. Water naturally follows the easiest path. When
the volume of the river is reduced due to a shallower base, the flood water will rise
into surrounding farmlands and communities, bringing the financial damage that
goes with it.
Illinois cannot afford to wait to take action on plans to restore the river to what
was once a national treasure. Thats why the Illinois River Strategy Team was cre-
ated. This team is a diverse group of farmers, environmentalists, local company ex-
ecutives, college professors, and elected officials. I am a member of that team. And
let me take this opportunity to emphasize that our plan recognizes that both the
public interest and private property rights must be protected if this plan is to move
forward. The plan brings together local citizens and all levels of government in a
grassroots, coalition-building effort to maintain the watershed. We are all interested
112
in the long-term maintenance of the river for our future generations. By asking his
Administration to focus on coordinating Federal resources for the restoration of our
national waterways and to serve as a network, the President has given all of us a
tremendous boost in our efforts to implement our plans. We would be very dis-
appointed to have to go back to the people that have worked so hard to develop
these plans and tell them that this initiative will not receive the support of Con-
gress.
Clearly, we believe that implementation must be controlled at the local and state
level, but with the help of the Federal Government as a partner. I, for one, will
work to see that control under this initiative is maintained at the state level. But
I believe the Federal Government has an important role to play.
While I have given my support to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, I re-
main a fierce advocate of personal property rights. Additionally, any attempt to
alter, limit, or restrict farmers and ranchers access to traditional agricultural envi-
ronmental programs, will not be favorably looked upon by me.
Agriculture has made tremendous strides in the last decade in meeting its envi-
ronmental obligations. Todays farming techniques have come a long way. These
techniques make the Federal Government a partner with producers in addressing
environmental challenges, rather than an adversary. It is voluntary and incentive-
based and that should not change. I view the American Heritage River initiative as
another incentive-based, voluntary program available to agriculture.
The Illinois River is a tremendous natural, recreational and economic resource for
the country. And nine out of every ten Illinois residents are in some way touched
by the Illinois River watershed, which is why our entire Illinois delegation has writ-
ten to the President supporting the National Heritage Rivers Initiative, and, in par-
ticular, our own Illinois River as one of the National Heritage Rivers. A copy of our
letter to the President is attached to this statement for the record. It is my hope
that this process will be allowed to continue and to provide much needed national
attention and a coordinated effort by all of us to improve our nations rivers.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear here today.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESSS FROM THE

STATE OF TEXAS
I appreciate the Committees willingness to allow me to testify today about the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Congress has an important responsibility to protect citizens Constitutional guar-
antees such as the right to own and use private property. I am extremely concerned
about the recent Proclamation issued by President Clinton that creates the Amer-
ican Heritage Rivers Initiative.
When the President announced in his State of the Union address that he was cre-
ating a program such as this, I never dreamed that he would completely dismiss
the legislative process. As we all know, this proposal was rammed through the ad-
ministrative process without Congressional comment or review. Had the normal
process for the creation of new programs been followed, the American Heritage Riv-
ers Initiative would have had the benefit of congressional hearings. And the public
would have had maximum input. It would have been carefully considered and
amended, if necessary, in a series of legislative steps that begin with full and open
debate on the floors of the House and Senate and end with recorded votes.
Full and open debate on a bill that was supported by a majority of Senators and
Representatives would have yielded authorization and appropriation of the pro-
gram. However, because the program was created by Presidential proclamation,
Congress has done neither.
Absent any express funding, the President has chosen to ignore Congressional in-
tent and reprogram funding. Money is being taken from legitimate, authorized pro-
grams that have already undergone cuts to pay for this unauthorized and unstudied
new program. The Presidents plan is taking personnel from many of these same
programs and requiring them to work on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
This is not fair to those programs who are already strapped for funding and per-
sonnel, nor to the constituents who rely on them.
The lack of protection for private property rights within this program is of great
concern to me. I have expressed my concern repeatedly since the program was first
published in the Federal Register. There are no substantive protections for private
property rights. And given that a majority of the land in the United States is pri-
vately held land, I think there is cause for concern.
While the final rule has been issued for this program, a number of questions re-
main about the protection of private property rights. First and foremost in my mind
113
is how much control over private property would ultimately be placed in the hands
of Federal regulators?
From my reading of the final rule I believe that an enormous amount of power
would be granted to Federal agencies and in particular the one Federal agency from
which the river navigator is chosen. This river navigator would have the power
to dictate how land abutting a designated river could and could not be used. Why
are local citizens not trusted to care for local resources?
This power raises serious concerns, especially in my home state of Texas where
many farmers and ranchers rely heavily on rivers, streams, and watersheds. In
many cases it is their only source for irrigation purposes or for the survival of their
livestock. Much to my dismay this issue has never been adequately addressed.
Problems occur when Federal agencies are allowed to run rampant and given new
authority without Congressional approval. This is precisely what will happen with
the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Federal agencies have been given no pa-
rameters to work within. I cringe at the thought of farmers, ranchers, and especially
private property owners fighting this unchecked power in the future.
It is a shame that President Clinton did not have the confidence in his program
to allow it to bear the burden of public scrutiny, whether from the citizens or from
Congress. Since the announcement of this program the President and Kathleen
McGinty from the Council on Environmental Quality have said they are baffled
by the outrage that has been generated. Once again the Administration has com-
pletely misused the American people. However, they decided to move forward amid
much public discontent and officially create the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
As Members of Congress we have an obligation to our constituents to protect their
rivers and their land. It is our duty to ensure that the money that we authorize
and appropriate is spent on its intended programs and not reprogrammed. The
American Heritage Rivers Initiative is in direct contrast to the will of the people
and the Congress and should not receive any money until it authorized and appro-
priations are made. I am a cosponsor of Mrs. Chenoweths bill because I feel that
it is our best opportunity to halt the forward movement of this program and hope-
fully bring it to Congress to be fully vetted by the peoples representatives.
As the Chairman of the House Coalition on Property Rights, I am supportive of
any steps that this Committee takes in moving Mrs. Chenoweths bill forward. A
vote on the House floor will reflect the voice of the American peoplethe voice that
was ignored by the administration when it created this program.
Again I thank the Committee for allowing me to testify today on this important
issue.
STATEMENT OF HON. ASA HUTCHINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Chairman and members of the Resources Committee, I thank you for inviting
me here to testify before you today, and I commend you for the outstanding leader-
ship you have displayed throughout the months since the announcement and publi-
cation of the Administrations American Heritage Rivers Initiative. I am grateful
for the opportunity to express to this body the concerns of many of the constituents
I serve in the Third District of Arkansas, and, I am delighted that later on today
you will welcome one of those constituents, Mr. David Bright of Jasper, Arkansas,
to speak to those concerns himself.
Mr. Brights is a story which, I am sad to say, is not the only one of its kind.
But it is my hope that through the efforts of this Committee and citizens like Mr.
Bright, the potentially negative effects of innocent-sounding Federal involvement in
local land matters will be brought to light and scenarios like the one Mr. Bright
and his neighbors endured will not be allowed to take place in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I was first alerted to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative dur-
ing the week of May the 19th, when I received at least fifty calls from angered con-
stituents asking that I oppose the Presidents new river plan and stop the Adminis-
tration from taking their land.
Mr. Chairman, I have a number of concerns about the substance of the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative and about the way the Administration has gone about its
implementation.
The Administration states that the initiative creates no new Federal regulation
but simply allows River Communities streamlined access to Federal programs. It
is designed to be community-driven and community-led, and is not supposed to ap-
propriate any new monies or create any new programs. This, on the surface, seems
commendable. However, I would assert that the implementation of the initiative will
114
not be as simple and beneficial as it seems, and I must question why it is being
implemented by executive fiat rather than through the normal legislative process.
The initiative does not require the authorization of local officials in designating
a river a Heritage River. Nor does it specifically state that if a river communitys
action plan infringes on the rights of private property owners living in a heritage
area, designation will not take place. This is understandably worrisome to those pri-
vate landowners living within the bounds of these areas.
Rivers are not limited by man-made boundaries; they run freely across state,
county and local lines. By designating rivers Heritage Rivers, and allowing people
in those areas to avail themselves of Federal resources, the initiative will create new
Federal jurisdictions that cut across town, city, county and state lines. Moreover,
the initiative allows for designations encompassing not only rivers, but contributing
watersheds and streams as well and will allow the twelve Federal agencies involved
in implementing the initiative to favor these Heritage River communities over
other communities in granting Federal aid. This circumvents the Federal legislative
process and, more importantly, the will of the people who elected Federal legislators
by reprogramming and reallocating Federal funds without the express consent or
authorization of Congress. This is not right.
Mr. Chairman, as I stated before, the Administrations final proposal states that
the initiative will create no new Federal regulations. However, it also states that
the American Heritage Rivers Interagency Committee may assist in overcoming ob-
stacles that arise as many Federal services are provided. This committee is com-
prised of twelve Federal agency heads. In overcoming obstacles, what is to prevent
these agency heads from withholding funds from other projects in the event that
communities do not cooperate unanimously? What will keep them from imposing ex-
isting regulations, to which these areas are nor currently subject, on these areas
from imposing them on the people or land in these areas?
Mr. Chairman, I realize that the President has the prerogative to set rules and
regulations for executive branch agencies, and I believe that the Administration
means well in creating this initiative. However, the Administration is aware of the
concerns of this Committee about the programs refocusing of funds, reallocation of
resources, grant monies and employees, and its new enforcement of already-existing
regulations on areas not currently under Federal jurisdiction. These are all things
that should come under the jurisdiction of Congress, but the President has already
enacted this initiative by Executive Orderwithout congressional hearings or con-
gressional consent.
By doing so, the Administration has already demonstrated an unwillingness to act
in good faith in the process. Why, in this era of cooperation displayed in the recent
enactment of the Balanced Budget and Taxpayer Relief Acts, is the Administration
so unwilling to cooperate with Congress on this matter and submit this initiative
to the normal legislative process? Why, with as much controversy as surrounds the
initiative at this point, should we believe that the Administration will act in any
better a fashion in implementing the initiatives provisions than it has acted in or-
dering its enactment?
This initiative, which is supposed to be part of the re-invention of government
touted so vigorously as of late, will only reinforce a dependence upon Washington
for that which should come from the community. If this initiative is community-driv-
en, why is there a need for focused attention from Federal agencies? If this initia-
tive is designed to make government smaller and more easily accessible, why not
remove the Federal Government from participation all together?
Mr. Chairman, I applaud the effort of this Committee to prevent the further im-
plementation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiativenot because I dont believe
that our nations rivers need to be protected, but because I believe that our commu-
nities and the people living in them know best how to protect these resources and
can do so without Federal oversight or regulation. For these reasons, I have co-spon-
sored H.R. 1842, which is being considered by the Committee today, and I urge my
colleagues to do so as well.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. LYNCH, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, CENTRAL ARIZONA

PROJECT ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman, Members of the House Resources Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today and testify on the American Heritage Rivers Ini-
tiative and H.R. 1842. I have the pleasure of serving as Chairman of the Board of
the Central Arizona Project Association, an Arizona non-profit association formed in
1946 to promote authorization and then construction and operation of the Central
Arizona Project. Our Association membership represents business, resource, local
115
government and agricultural interests throughout the state interested in the contin-
ued success of the Central Arizona Project.
The Project itself consists of over 300 miles of canal system and a regulating res-
ervoir that provides an average of 1.5 million acre-feet of water annually to roughly
two-thirds of the population of the state, industries, agriculture and Indian commu-
nities in central Arizona. That quantity of water represents over half of the entitle-
ment of the State of Arizona to water from the Colorado River and some 20 percent
of the entitlement of the three Lower Basin states (Arizona, California and Nevada)
to water from the Colorado River.
Our interest in the American Heritage Rivers Initiative stems from our interest
in and support of the Central Arizona Project. We are concerned that implementing
this Initiative could very well interfere with ongoing efforts to resolve problems in
the Colorado River Basin that affect the Central Arizona Project and its water sup-
ply. Our concerns fall into three categories: participation, process and personnel.
PARTICIPATION
Both the Presidents Executive Order and the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) Federal Register notice imply some loose geographic standard for defining
non-Federal participation in this Initiative. The Executive Order talks about com-
munities along rivers, 62 Fed. Reg. 48443 at 48445 (September 15, 1997). The CEQ
Federal Register notice talks about communities surrounding designated rivers
and River communities and People . . . who live and work in the area . . ., 62 Fed.
Reg. 48860, 48862 (September 17, 1997). The Phoenix metropolitan area served by
CAP is some 190 miles from the Colorado River. The Tucson metropolitan area is
another 120 miles beyond that. CAP is a vital part of the water supplies of central
Arizona but this Initiative apparently would not consider these vital interests part
of the interests to which the interagency committee established by the Executive
Order would listen concerning the Colorado River.
Similarly, Salt Lake City would have no voice in matters related to the Duchesne
or Green Rivers, even though receiving water from the Central Utah Project. Denver
and other east slope Colorado cities would have no voice in the Colorado, the Green,
the Yampa, the White, the Gunnison, etc. People in Albuquerque could voice opin-
ions about the Rio Grande but not the San Juan. The Los Angeles metropolitan area
would have nothing to say about the Lower Colorado River as this Initiative may
impact it. Presumably national and regional environmental groups and other organi-
zations also would be excluded from this process.
The point is that legitimate interests concerning rivers are not confined merely
to those who live or work alongside them. Nor is proximity much of a test when,
as is often the case in the West, no one lives or works alongside them. It appears
that those who crafted this Initiative, while paying lip service to rural areas and
Western communities, were primarily drawing on their personal experiences as resi-
dents of other parts of the country. In the West, legitimate interests regarding riv-
ers are often at great distance from them. That does not render these interests any
less legitimate nor any less important. The Initiative is seriously flawed in this re-
spect.
PROCESS
We are very concerned about the processes outlined in the Executive Order and
the CEQ program. The Executive Order mandates a consultation requirement that
must precede Federal agency action with regard to rivers designated under this pro-
gram. There is no explanation in the Executive Order or in the CEQ program about
how this gets done and how this consultation requirement relates to similar require-
ments in various laws affecting the same resources. For example, the 1992 Grand
Canyon Protection Act contains some very specific directives from Congress about
consultation. If the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead were
designated under this Initiative, would this consultation requirement add processes
to those required by Congress? There is no requirement, according to the Fish and
Wildlife Service, under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to consult with af-
fected interests when the Service is consulting with another Federal agency (or
itself) as required by Section 7. If a river is designated under the Initiative, must
the Fish and Wildlife Service now consult with affected interests before entering
into consultation with another agency under Section 7? Must the Environmental
Protection Agency add a consultation requirement pursuant to this Executive Order
to permit processes under the Clean Water Act and other programs it administers?
We raise these issues because we have had some experience with the Colorado
River and these programs. There is an ongoing recovery program in the Upper Colo-
rado River related to four endangered fish. There is a program entered into for the
Lower Colorado River between the United States on the one hand and the three
116
Lower Basin states and other affected interests on the other covering over 100 spe-
cies from Glen Canyon Dam to the southerly international border. If the Colorado
or any portion of it were designated, would these processes be impacted by this new
consultation requirement? Would the River Navigator or River Navigators des-
ignated assume a role not currently defined in Colorado River processes? Would the
consultation requirements of the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act be affected?
Additionally, the CEQ Federal Register notice promises that obligations of Federal
agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act will not be disturbed by this
Initiative (62 Fed. Reg. at 48866). Since the agencies in the next breath are being
directed to provide programs and resources aimed at satisfying community interests
in site-specific areas of a watercourse, it would seem that this program is creating
a new class of Federal actions requiring NEPA clearance separate and apart from
existing programs. Will designation require such NEPA clearance before any Fed-
eral help can be received after the designation? Who will pay the cost of that clear-
ance?
PERSONNEL
Finally, we are concerned about the effects of implementing this new Initiative
on Federal personnel and the costs associated with that commitment. The Executive
Order requires agencies to establish a method for field offices to assess the success
of the Initiative and recommend changes. The Executive Order also mandates high-
level participation by 12 departments and agencies, directs the agencies to do a
number of assessments and inventories of programs, regulations, grants and other
assistance and then requires them to reformulate those to fit this Initiative. That
reads like a serious time commitment.
In turn, the CEQ program announces that Federal field staff have been identified
in each state to answer questions (62 Fed. Reg. at 48861). It provides for a River
Navigator to be available for each designation. This person would be a Federal em-
ployee. Other Federal employees would have to be involved in distributing, receiving
and processing nomination packets. A report for the panel of experts would have to
be provided and staffing for the cabinet or sub-cabinet interagency task force would
also have to be provided, as well as the members themselves.
All of this takes time. Presumably, the people involved in this program at the var-
ious agencies will be people with some knowledge and background about rivers and
about the resources typically associated with them. People knowledgeable in the
sciences, people active in cultural, archaeological, endangered species, water re-
sources, power resources, wetlands, and environmental programs, etc., will have to
be detailed to these tasks. We are concerned that doing so will pull them away from
other important tasks that already take too much time to get accomplished. We are
concerned that other coordination and permitting processes could suffer. Specifi-
cally, we are concerned that people already stretched to the limit will be drawn
away from two critical Endangered Species Act programs: the Upper Basin Recovery
Program and the Lower Colorado River Basin Multi-Species Conservation Plan. We
are also concerned that, in a year of stressful hydrologic conditions, personnel of the
Bureau of Reclamation may be diverted from critical tasks on the Colorado River
to other areas because of designations that need to have knowledgeable people in-
volved in them.
We are also concerned that costs associated with implementing this new program
have not been addressed. Even if no new dollars are appropriated by Congress for
grants, loans, construction funds, and the like, the personnel costs associated with
implementing this program have to be borne somewhere. How will those costs be
allocated? To what programs or projects will they be assigned? Will they be reim-
bursable by local sponsors of existing projects and programs? Is there a danger of
significant cost shifting from costs already assigned pursuant to which Congress has
already approved funding?
One thing is clear. There will be costs in both time and dollars associated with
implementing this Initiative. Those costs are real and may be substantial. If the Ini-
tiative goes forward, those costs should be tracked and reported to Congress by each
of the agencies involved. In the meantime, the public should be assured that exist-
ing projects and programs will not be hampered by this additional workload. Justice
delayed is justice denied in the executive branch as well.
Before closing, we would be remiss if we did not congratulate Congressman Bob
Schaffer for his efforts in having inserted in the CEQ Federal Register notice the
savings language with regard to water and water rights. That had been and con-
tinues to be a matter of critical concern to us and to many others in the West. We
remain concerned, however, that the focus of designation pursuant to this Initiative
on a particular watercourse will concentrate interest in applying other regulatory
programs to those water resources in a manner that could create the same problems
117
this savings language seeks to avoid. If Congress is providing no additional money
beyond salaries and administration for this program, what the agencies are left with
is a command from the President to go forward and only existing tools to use. The
Federal tools used on rivers are typically the Endangered Species Act, the Clean
Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and similar laws with Federal enforcement
programs and permit programs. The river community congratulating itself about its
designation may find that the help it is getting from the Federal Government
comes in the form of increased demands for changes in water uses. Concentrated
examination under existing regulatory programs of that river or river segment may
generate local costs, rather than local benefits.
CONCLUSION
Having made a sincere effort to review these documents and understand their in-
tent, we are unfortunately left confused. We do not see how CAP interests can par-
ticipate in, let alone be enhanced by, this new program. We cannot tell how the re-
quirements of this new program mesh with existing requirements that affect CAP
interests and the interests of others similarly situated. We cannot ascertain how the
costs of this new program and the time burdens associated with it will be allocated
and what barriers to accomplishing tasks under other programs will be created.
This new program is uncomfortably vague. We would recommend that this pro-
gram be set aside, at least for the moment. Perhaps CEQ could enter into another,
more inclusive, round of discussions with interested groups and parties around the
country and answer the questions that have been raised such as those we raise
here. Failing interest in doing that, regretfully we would recommend that Congress
withhold funding for any efforts under this Initiative until it can be clarified as to
its purpose and impacts.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today and testify on this
important subject.
STATEMENT OF DESMOND SMITH, PRESIDENT, TRANS TEXAS HERITAGE ASSOCIATION

My name is Desmond Smith. I am president of the Trans Texas Heritage Associa-
tion and I am here today representing our members who own 1512 million acres of
private property in Texas and one million acres in New Mexico. The Trans Texas
Heritage Association has four regional associations; Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos
Heritage Association, Hill Country Heritage Association, East Texas Heritage Asso-
ciation and the Bootheel Heritage Association in New Mexico. Our purpose and goal
as an organization is the preservation of private property rights.
I am a rancher from Lampasas, Texas, where we operate a ranch that has been
in my wifes family for 147 years. Most people know that farmers and ranchers are
the original environmentalists. In fact, if we hadnt done such a good job of caring
for our land I doubt the government and the environmentalists would be so inter-
ested in taking it from us, even though there is ample evidence that public owner-
ship and public access to land does not offer the same protection as the loving care
it receives at the hands of private property owners. So you can see why private
property owners would question the motives of the environmental movement. If re-
source protection is the problem, privatenot publicownership and control is and
always has been the solution.
In Texas, 98 percent of the land is privately owned and wed like to keep it that
way. But its getting more and more difficult. Not because the government has been
on a buying spree, but because the government is taking more and more private
property through regulatory means. Through Federal laws like the Endangered Spe-
cies Act and the Clean Water Act, the government has been telling landowners what
they cannot do with their land.
Over the past few years, landowners have been trying to make Congress and the
public understand the concept of regulatory taking of private property, but we
havent been very successful. For some reason, people think the 5th and 14th
Amendments to the Constitution dont count and that its OK to take peoples prop-
erty in the name of the environment. Now this administration has gone beyond even
regulatory takings to takings by Federal designation.
The people of Utah know how it feels to have their land taken by designation,
and Texas landowners are no stranger to this concept. In 1994, there was a move
to designate 5 water bodies as Outstanding National Resource Waters. The property
rights implications for surrounding landowners were grave. We were able to defeat
that. Then, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service threatened to designate 33 counties
in central Texas as critical habitat for the endangered golden-checked warbler.
118
Again, the property rights of every landowner in those 33 counties would have been
gone, except that Texas landowners said absolutely not.
We understood then as we do now that Federal designations necessarily bring
with them limitations on the use of private property. And this is why we are so con-
cerned about the impact of the Federal designation of the Rio Grande River as an
American Heritage River.
I first became aware of the AHRI from a rancher who noticed low-level helicopter
flights over his land. He asked the pilot later at the local airport what was going
on and he was told the Texas General Land office was conducting aerial mapping
of the private property along the Rio Grande as part of an effort to map
transnational resources. I learned more about this mapping through an article in
the Marfa, Texas newspaper dated February 13, 1997, but not nearly enough. And
nobody I have talked to yet can tell me what a transnational resource is. Some
of our members who are landowners along the Rio Grande were naturally concerned
that their land and water might suddenly be classified as a transnational resource.
Then we found out that Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro was pushing the
local officials along the Rio Grande to petition for Federal designation as an Amer-
ican Heritage River. A friend in our Governors office told us about a meeting on
the AHRI in Laredo on April 28, this year, and my wife and I and one of the direc-
tors of our organization decided to go.
When we walked in, the people at the desk started looking for our name tags and
I told them they wouldnt find them. It turns out the meeting was by invitation only.
There were people from all levels of government and also from the Nature Conser-
vancy and the Audubon Society. If we hadnt just shown up, there would have been
no representation from landowners or landowner groups.
What we have learned since then, is that this is supposed to be a bottom up
initiative, but what was obvious that day was that the Texas General Land Office
was really behind this. It is generally known that Garry Mauro, the Land Commis-
sioner, is a good friend of the Clintons and we were told that the White House had
suggested the AHRI would be good for the Rio Grande. That sure doesnt sound very
bottom up to me.
Garry Mauro breezed in to that meeting for a few minutes and there was a lot
of backslapping and glad handing going on. He did a TV interview then said he had
to leave for Washington, DC. At the meeting it was suggested Garry Mauro should
be made the River Navigator for the Rio Grande. I wont elaborate on that here,
but if you have any questions about the River Navigator, please feel free to ask me
later.
At that Laredo meeting, the people talked about the AHRI in terms of clean water
and cultural heritage and economic development. I stood up and asked if this would
include Mexico and the fellow from the CEQ said it wouldnt. Then I asked him how
they expected to clean up the Rio Grande if Mexico wasnt going to be made to do
its part. He didnt answer.
Right after that, the moderator asked everyone to stand and state their name and
organizational affiliations. Everyone there was from the government except the peo-
ple from the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society and us. When I discov-
ered a representative from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was there I really be-
came concerned. It was obvious from their presence and that of the environmental
groups that the AHRI was intended to have some environmental consequence.
Weve been trying to figure out what the AHRI is all about ever since and nothing
we have been told makes any sense. The CEQ said the AHRI is supposed to help
Federal agencies do a better job of giving money away at the local level. We were
told it was part of Vice President Gores plan to reinvent government. Somehow, if
a community would apply for a Federal designation as an American Heritage River,
these agencies would magically begin to do their jobs. The CEQ assured us there
would be no new Federal dollars and no new regulationsjust that Federal agencies
would focus more on communities that had applied for and received the Federal des-
ignation.
The CEQ told us the AHRI was about restoring rivers, but how do you restore
a river? When Ray Clark with the CEQ came to Austin on July 9, we asked him
about that. Did they mean restoring water quality? If so, given the fact that we
have a Clean Water Act already and especially since Mexico still dumps raw sewage
and industrial waste into the Rio Grande, how would the AHRI, with no new regula-
tions, improve water quality? He allowed as how a petition for designation of the
Rio Grande on the basis of improving water quality probably wouldnt be very well
received.
If not water quality, then how about restoring water quantity? If you look at the
website for American Rivers, an environmental group dedicated to restoring rivers
to their natural state, youll see that they heartily support the AHRI. This group
119
also supports removing dams and impoundments. Is that what this is really about?
If so, what about water rights and flood control and drinking water supplies and
hydroelectric power from dams? Ray Clark told us the AHRI wouldnt have anything
to do with removing dams and impoundments along the river.
Well, whats left? How else do you restore a river? Did they mean restoring com-
merce to the river? If so, to what previous level and what prevents this from hap-
pening now, without a Federal designation? For that matter, if there are no new
Federal dollars and no new Federal regulations, what can we accomplish with AHRI
that we cant accomplish now? NOTHING.
Why would a local community allow itself to become a Federal community in
order to attract Federal dollars that are already there for the asking through pro-
grams that already exist? I understand Congressman Sylvestre Reyes and the peo-
ple of El Paso want a River Walk. Well, San Antonio has had a river walk for years
but they didnt have to get a Federal designation to accomplish that. What in the
hell is really going on here?
The thinking people of this nation were shocked and sickened by Clintons arro-
gant designation of the Grand Staircase Escalante as a national monument. Now
he has given us the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which will ignore private
property rights in the name of economic development, I guess. Only with AHRI he
wont take it from the people; hell blackmail communities into asking for the Fed-
eral designation using the veiled threat of withholding Federal dollars.
There are two things that I find very unsettling about the American Heritage Riv-
ers Initiative. The first is that this administration thinks the American people are
so stupid we would fall for this. The other is the negative property rights implica-
tions inherent in the Federal designation of anything.
I am asking you folks to please do the American people a great service and pass
H.R. 1842, not just out of this Committee but out of the full Congress. And if there
is anything the Trans Texas Heritage Association can do to help you, please know
we are at your service.
Thank you for your time. God bless America and God bless you all. I will be happy
to entertain your questions.
STATEMENT OF DAVID YOUNG, ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

Good Morning:
My name is David Young. I am a resident of Asheville, located in western North
Carolina. I am here today to speak to you as a citizen, small business owner, local
elected official, and as the Chairman of the RiverLink task force spearheading the
nomination of the French Broad as an American Heritage River. In all of these ca-
pacities, I fully support the American Heritage River Initiative.
Our task force has been following the AHRI since the President announced the
program on February 4th. Our task force is comprised of interested citizens, cham-
ber of commerce executives, elected officials from throughout the river basin, river-
front property owners, recreational enthusiast, artists and craftsmen, tourism devel-
opment experts and non-profit agencies.
We cannot afford to make this a partisan issue. This is a viable program which
will help us both develop and preserve our wonderful river. We have over 2,000 en-
dorsements similar to the ones in your packets. We have widespread bipartisan sup-
port including Governor of North Carolina, James B. Hunt, Jr., a Democrat and Don
Sundquist, Governor of Tennessee a Republican. We have resolutions by the Hen-
derson County Board of Commissioners, (all Republicans) and the Buncombe County
Board of Commissioners, (all Democrats) all in support of this effort to nominate
the French Broad as an American Heritage River.
Our task force has been meeting with officials from Tennessee since the initiative
was announced and we have formed a new bond with our sister state. Like the river
itself our committee has decided that we will not be bound by superficial state, city
or county lines. Rather we will work together, mindful of the fact that we all live
upstream and downstream of each other.
Wilma Dykeman, the author of the book The French Broad, is the honorary chair-
man of our efforts. A native of WNC, Wilma divides her time between her homes
in Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina. She is the State historian for
Tennessee and has written over 17 books and numerous articles that have chron-
icled the French Broad Region. I know she wont mind me quoting from her book,
the French Broad when I describe the French Broad as a river and a watershed
and a way of life where day before yesterday and day after tomorrow exist in an
odd and fascinating harmony as a way of life. The French Broad country, like most
of the mountain region which surrounds it, nourishes paradox. That is the source
120
of much of its allure. Over the years our French Broad has become urban and
rural, suburban and farmlandit carries us toward our future yet reminds us daily
of our pastof our beginnings.
The French Broad River Basin is the ninth largest river basin in the state of
North Carolina covering 2,842 square miles. It is located entirely within the South-
ern Appalachian Mountains region, west of the Eastern Continental Divide. All wa-
ters from the French Broad basin drain to the gulf of Mexico via the Tennessee,
Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. The basin includes the highest point in the United
States, east of the Mississippi River, located atop Mount Mitchell (elevation 6,684
feet above mean sea level ). The lowest elevation in the basin is 1,254, mean sea
level, where the French Broad River flows into Tennessee. There are 4,113 miles
of freshwater streams in the basin and seven lakes, all man-made, greater than
eight acres in size. The French Broad river watershed has only three small dams
making it one of the most free flowing watersheds in the county.
On May 1, 1997 RiverLink sponsored a public input session to help gather ideas
and develop criteria for the AHRI. We are delighted to see that our suggestions dur-
ing that May 1 meeting have been incorporated into the permanent criteria for the
AHRI. Most notably our suggestion that the designation be given to a broad variety
of riverssome smallersome larger. The French Broad may not be the largest
river in the United States, or the widest or the longestbut it certainly is one of
the most diverse.
During our May 1 public comment period, residents from the two states mixed
with elected officials, property owners, businessmen and women, environmentalists,
young and old alikeand you could feel the excitement grow. Our interest in the
French Broad is igniting a prairie fire of action and a new spirit of cooperation.
We have all learned quite a bit on our journey of discovery of the French Broad.
For example, two areas on the French Broad riverthe city of Asheville and Cooke
county Tennessee are each celebrating their bicentennial this year. These areas
were settled as a direct result of the French Broad. The French Broad has been the
regions historic lifeline providing transportation for commerce and routes for explo-
ration. The earliest settlers to the region used the Buncombe County turnpike,
which followed the course of the French Broad, to deliver livestock and others goods
to and from Tennessee, and Western North Carolina to the seaports in South Caro-
lina.
The French Broad watershed has over 20 archaeological sitessome as old as
12,000 years. Our earliest settlers were the Pisgah Culture, ancestors of the Cher-
okee Nation, utilized the river for religious ceremony, for bathing, for farming, for
fishing and for hunting. Hernando DeSoto and his men floated the French Broad
River in search of gold in 1540. One of his campsites, built on top of an ancient In-
dian Mound, in the middle of the French Broad river, is buried today under the
Douglas Dam which provides the power source for Oak Ridgewhere man unrav-
eled one of the secrets of the universe and the first atom was split.
The botanical diversity of the French Broad River is unequaled anywhere in the
U.S.A., perhaps in the world. 25,000 years ago as the great ice cap formed over Lab-
rador and pushed slowly out across North America, animal and plant life fled before
its crushing destruction to our mountain region. Our forests, the Pisgah National
and the Cherokee National, are richer in variety of trees than the whole of Europe.
The French Broad is the area where Northern and Southern vegetation meet and
mingle. While all of the northern United States was buried under ice, the trees and
plants once native to Canada made their last stand on the heights of the Southern
Appalachianthese trees and shrubs and herbs have never deserted the mountain
refuge they found in WNC and Eastern Tennessee.
Also along the banks of the French Broad at George Vanderbilts summer home,
The Biltmore Estate, the first school of Forestry in the United States was founded
in 1898.
During the past decade our focus on the French Broad as a place where people
can work, live and play has been intensified under the leadership of RiverLink.
RiverLink is a non-profit regional organization dedicated to the environmental and
economic revitalization of the French Broad River and its watershed. We view the
river as the linkjust as our name indicatesthe river link to our past and to our
future. The river links our businesses to our neighborhoods, our commercial centers
to our recreational amenities.
The French Broad is our water source, play space, job creator and major attrac-
tion. But above all is a living symbol of our common destiny.
Old warehouses, remnants of the 1920s through 50s industrial riverfront sat
empty for many years. Today they are teeming with life once again as artists and
craftsmen are reclaiming these historic riverfront buildings for studio and living
space. We believe that our efforts to reclaim the French Broad are now paying divi-
121
dends. The French Broad is featured in the September-October issue of Audubon
Magazine as one of three rivers in the United States where the Clean Water Act,
coupled with citizen governmental involvement has resulted in a river that, once
again, can sustain human and animal life.
In meetings with our Task Force for the AHRI, we have talked about the possi-
bility of building a greenway from the French Broads headwaters to where it ends
in eastern Tennessee. This wont be any ordinary greenway! It will encompass two
national forests, the Appalachian Trail, the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Biltmore Es-
tate, the NC Arboretum, the Ramsey House in Tennessee, Dollywood, Civil War bat-
tle sites, neighborhoods, and industrial, recreational and commercial districts, just
to name a few of our attractions. We would like for the greenway to have historical
markers and public art interpreting the many and varied events that have occurred
on the rivers banks. We have also discussed the possibility of reestablishing pas-
senger train service along the French Broad River Gorge. The gorge has some of
the most spectacular scenery in the world and tourists and residents alike will mar-
vel at the vistas. We have also spoken of the need for special economic assistance
programs for Madison County in North Carolina and Cocke County in Tennessee.
These two counties are contiguous and are among the most economically distressed
in either of our states.
We will be seeking additional public comment on October 15th at the North Caro-
lina Arboretum and on October 24 at the Cocke County, Tennessee Community Cen-
ter. We have sent out over 8,000 letters of invitation to attend these public brain-
storming sessions and have invited every foundation in western North Carolina and
Eastern Tennessee to join us as partners as we develop our application to nominate
the French Broad as an American Heritage River.
We know that alone, no one entity, no government agency, no foundation, no one
person can accomplish all that we have planned for the French Broad. That is why
the American Heritage River Initiative is so importantIt gives us an umbrella
under which we can continue to build our constituency for the French Broad. We
need businesses, and environmentalists, and bankers and boaters and craftsmen
and government to sit together and plan for the future. The AHRI umbrella will
help us unravel the maze of Federal grants and technical assistance opportunities;
and will give us access to programs that we dont even know exist.
Our greenway demonstration project at the confluence of the French Broad and
Swannanoa Rivers is a perfect example of the community coming to together to re-
claim the river. Our local electric utility company, Carolina Power and Light, do-
nated 1.9 miles of riverfront property as the first link in an urban greenway system.
This land had been an unofficial landfillpeople would clean out their closets,
their attics or their basements and bring their discarded items to the river. Today,
after years of clean-up work and the cooperation of over 1,300 people, foundations,
government agencies, companies and garden clubs the French Broad River Green-
way is a wonderful example of what can and does happen when a community comes
together in a spirit of cooperation. Thats what we believe is the premise of the
American Heritage River Initiativecooperation and coordination with a single vi-
sion from the broadest cross-section of the community.
In our efforts to name the French Broad as an American Heritage River we real-
ize that we have already won the prize. We have come together in a whole new way,
formed new partnerships and alliances, and discovered our neighbors again, not just
nearby cities and counties but our sister stateTennessee. There are things that
perhaps we should have known, but we didnt.
We support the American Heritage River Initiative because it is non-regulatory
and will not cause an increase in the Federal budget. Rather, it will focus resources
on OUR plan of action. It gives us an umbrella under which to work. The AHRI
will force the Federal Government to be responsive to OUR plan of action for
OUR river.
In addition to the AHRI promise of no additional regulations for rivers selected,
our committee has adopted its own code of conduct in regard to our pursuit of the
AHR designation for the French Broad. I would like to read that to you. This was
adopted unanimously at our last meeting as an additional and personal guarantee.
We the organizing committee for the AHRI, adopt the following as our personal
guarantee and code of conduct in seeking the nomination of the French Broad as
an American Heritage River.
We are pursuing the nomination of the French Broad River as an American Herit-
age River. Our initial plan, along with other aspects, calls for a greenway along the
entire length of the French Broad river corridor from Transylvania County to Knox
County, Tennessee, which will be interpreted with public art and historic markers.
In pursuit of this greenway and the American Heritage River status we pledge indi-
vidually and collectively that no property will be condemned, no property owners
122
will be coerced and that all participation in the greenway will be voluntary with all
due regard for individual property rights. We understand that our statement and
code of conduct is in complete compliance with the stated objectives, goals and
American Heritage River Initiative program as outlined in the Federal Register.
When I am not acting as a county commissioner, or a RiverLink board member
or as the chairman of the American Heritage River Initiative I am a small business-
man. My wife and I own a travel agency. Over the years our business has grown
as our region has been discovered. I know that the national recognition and the co-
ordinated Federal services that will accompany the naming of the French Broad as
an AHR will bring more people, tourists and businesses to our region. Thats good
for my business and good for business in general. I invite you to visit our French
BroadI invite you join us as we applaud the French Broadand I urge you to sup-
port the American Heritage River Initiative.
Thank you for this opportunity to tout the French Broad and to show our regions
support for the American Heritage River Initiative.
STATEMENT OF GORDON ROSS, COOS COUNTY COMMISSIONER, COOS COUNTY,

OREGON
In the opinion of this County Commissioner, Coos County is the most favored
county in the most favored state in the union for some of the following reasons:
1. Seventy percent of our 1 million acres is privately owned;
2. We have no scenic rivers designated;
3. We have no Congressionally withdrawn wilderness areas;
4. We have consistently, since 1855, harvested more timber than any county in
the State of Oregon;
5. We have more Coho Salmon per spawning mile than any county on the West
Coast;
6. We have more Coho salmon than any county on the Pacific Coast;
7. We have more Coho Salmon than all other coastal Oregon counties combined;
and
8. We have watershed associations partnering with up to 75 percent of the land
owners and managers in the watershed, improving habitat conditions in a bot-
tom up non-regulatory cooperative fashion.
I must say, in defense of our Federal partners on the local level, we have the best
of cooperation, but that is where it ends. Almost without exception, Federal regu-
latory agencies and their regulatory mind set, stand in the way of progressive local
problem solving. Agency interpretation of 1990 Food Security Act, the Clean Water
Act, Wetland Regulations, etc. have been a constant impediment in getting through
the permit process in order to do Coho habitat enhancement with our farm land co-
operators. Projects ranging from sediment removal to side rearing ponds have
been viewed as wetland violations and one cooperator was even charged with dis-
charging pollutants into the waters of the United States. He had taken sediment
from the previous years storm out of the creek and placed it on his farm land.
What Coos County does not need is another Federal presence in our county or an-
other Federal designation. It may be argued that the Navigator that would be
hired would help us get through the Federal red tape. I would propose that it is
time Congress take care of the navigation by getting rid of the red tape.
In conclusion, I wish to say that the bottoms up non-regulatory, cooperative ap-
proach that enlists the efforts of the private land owners can and does accomplish
far more than another Federal presence in our community. I believe it was in Fid-
dler on the Roof where the rabbi was asked Is there a proper blessing for the
Czar.? Yes he replied. God bless the czar and keep himfar far from us.!
Please do not saddle us with any more Federal bureaucracy. We dont need any
heritage river designations. We, at the local level, are best suited to protect our wa-
tersheds. We are the true guardians of our heritage, the caretakers of the future.
STATEMENT OF BILL DEVENY, STATE DIRECTOR, DISTRICT V, IDAHO FARM BUREAU

FEDERATION
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee and visitors, thank you for the oppor-
tunity to present comments before this Committee. My name is Bill DeVeny. This
written testimony is submitted in support of H.R. 1842 to terminate further develop-
ment and implementation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. I am a ranch-
er from Riggins which is in Central Idaho. I am speaking in behalf of the Idaho
123
Farm Bureau Federation representing 47,000 member families in Idaho and also in
behalf of myself.
Water is the lifeblood of Idaho, so the way it is managed and used is of concern
to all of us in Idaho. Water is not only essential for all domestic uses, but has trans-
formed the arid southern part of the state into productive, irrigated crop ground
producing grain, onions, beans, potatoes, sugar beets, hay, mint, hops, small seeds,
fruit, and numerous other crops on 3.4 million acres. The value of agricultural prod-
ucts produced including cattle is $35 to $45 billion. Water provides transportation
from the Port of Lewiston to the Pacific Ocean at Portland, Oregon, for 2 million
tons of cargo valued at $1.5 to $2.0 billion. Hydro-power generation of electricity
provides an average of 70 percent of the electricity used in Idaho. Recreation, which
is the third largest industry in the state, depends heavily on water resources includ-
ing lakes, rivers and streams for a variety of uses such as rafting, boating, and fish-
ing. Continued use of Idaho water is essential to the continued well being and qual-
ity of life for residents of this state.
One concern I have with the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is that it cir-
cumvents the right of states to manage and control water which is clearly a right
of each individual state. The Idaho Constitution (as approved by Congress when
Idaho entered the Union) expressly states: The use of all waters . . . (is) subject to
the regulations and control of the state . . .. Additionally, Idaho code 42-101 states:
All the waters of the state, when flowing in their natural channels, including the
waters of all natural springs and lakes within the boundaries of the state are de-
clared to be the property of the state, whose duty it shall be to supervise their ap-
propriation and allotment to those diverting the same therefrom for any beneficial
purpose. The initiative would clearly be in direct violation of state law and the
state constitution.
Another concern I have with the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is that no-
where in the Constitution of the United States is there authority for the Federal
Government to become involved in the issue of water. The Constitution enumerates
the powers granted to the Federal Government and reserves all others to the states
or to individuals.
Furthermore, there is no authority for the Federal Government to expend funds
for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. The following is quoted from IMPRI-
MIS, Our Unconstitutional Congress, by Stephen Moore.
The enumerated powers of the Federal Government to spend money are defined
in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8. These powers include the right to es-
tablish Post Offices and post roads; raise and support Armies; provide and maintain
a Navy; declare War . . . and to conduct a few other activities related mostly to na-
tional defense. No matter how long one searches, it is impossible to find in the Con-
stitution and language that authorized at least 90 percent of the civilian programs
that Congress crams into the Federal budget today.
There certainly is nothing that allows the executive branch to initiate spending
programs. My understanding has always been that spending originates with the
House of Representatives.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is duplication of effort between other
Federal, state, and local agencies: for example, the Corps of Engineers, Rural and
Economic Community Development, Rural Development Councils, Natural Resource
Conservation Service, and Soil Conservation Districts to mention a few. There also
are other rural initiative programs in effect and there is no reason to think that
another Federal program can accomplish what these other programs are not doing,
nor can any other Federal program cause existing Federal programs to be more effi-
cient or effective. In reality, probably just the opposite is true.
A serious anomaly is created by the initiative when nongovernmental organiza-
tions are included to nominate rivers, and to coordinate delivery of Federal serv-
ices and . . . restore, protect, and revitalize American Heritage Rivers that run
through their communities. These nongovernmental organizations are the same or-
ganizations that do not respect any of the heritage of the American West. The herit-
age, at least in the West, relies first on the trappers (which have become virtually
extinct), then miners, later grazers followed by farmers, next loggers, and recently
recreationists. These nongovernmental organizations are the very ones that are try-
ing to send the rest of us, grazers, farmers, loggers, and recreationists, the way of
the trappersinto extinction. The nongovernmental organizations might tolerate a
few recreationists who are hardy souls and want to brave a wilderness, but even
that will require agency permission.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is in conflict with other Federal laws
such as the Clean Water Act and does not comply with existing laws such as NEPA
which requires an extensive environmental assessment for Federal actions or at
least a finding of no significant impact. The initiative attempts to avoid the intent
124
of Congress when it passed the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act by
claiming this is not a rule. It also avoids, in fact violates, the Administrative Proce-
dures Act.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is circumventing the authority of Con-
gress and vesting authority in yet another bureaucracy. It introduces another layer
of bureaucracy which we do not need. Agencies have become the fourth arm of gov-
ernment and this is detrimental. We need less bureaucracy, not more.
From personal experience about two weeks before this hearing I was contacted by
two Federal employees wanting to come on my private property to make a stream
side survey to see what kind of fish were in a very small stream running through
my property and what kind of habitat there was. When questioned why they wanted
to make the survey, the employees would not tell me why they wanted to know,
what they would do with the information, or by what authority they were collecting
this information. From experience I am pretty sure that whatever they did would
probably not be for my benefit and would probably be detrimental to my interests
and well being and in the long run to the general public as well. This is simply an
example of the intrusiveness of government that this new initiative would create
more of.
The river communities that would be created by the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative would have no jurisdictional basis and could, in fact, cross jurisdictional
lines such as those between cities and counties and thus create hard feelings or con-
frontations. The results could be chaotic and entirely unpredictable situations.
When the prospect of grant money is added to a legislative proposal, local units
of government have a hard time saying no. Several years ago I was asked to testify
at a meeting of the Idaho Association of Counties concerning some of the heritage
legislation that was being proposed by the late Morris Udall. Earlier versions of her-
itage legislation had been rejected, but when the counties were promised a share
of the money which most certainly would have been pork, many county commis-
sioners had a hard time saying no. They were willing to accept the money regardless
of the consequences even though there might have been serious bad side effects from
accepting this money. Fortunately there were enough commissioners present who
could see the down side to the proposed legislation that the Association of Counties
voted to reject the proposal. Since the river communities are not legally estab-
lished units of government, the temptation to accept grant money might even be
greater and put the private property owners within the area in jeopardy because
of the obligations that would come associated with the grant money. There always
are some obligations, even though hidden initially. Grant money is a carrot and
stick approach. The promise of grant money is the carrot. Any agency is made up
of human beings, and they can be very unfriendly, then the stick is wielded. In an
initiative such as this one there are myriad opportunities for favoritism. This initia-
tive is particularly susceptible to these failings, and to creating special favors for
selected people or groups of people.
Another concern I have is for the position that would be created of river navi-
gator. This would be yet one more unelected official who would have untold powers
over the rights, lives, and livelihoods of citizens of the area involved yet individuals
impacted would have no recourse for unfavorable actions or decisions. Local control
and decision making will be further diluted. For instance in Idaho, this could inter-
fere with the Snake River Basin Adjudication of water rights that is taking place
for the Snake River System. This is a legal proceeding.
Once a river is designated, the designation becomes permanent and there are no
provisions to reverse this designation or for individuals or groups of individuals to
opt out of the program. The definition of those who can propose a designation would
allow people from entirely out of the area to control local issues. The American Her-
itage Rivers Initiative is yet another tool for use by environmental extremists to
stop the wise use of our lands. This is an issue about the control of resources, Sepa-
ration of Powers, State Sovereignty, private property rights, and freedom from un-
necessary and harmful Federal intrusion.
In my view the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is contrary to every thing I
have ever learned about our form of government. We are a nation of laws. The legis-
lative branch is to create the laws, the executive branch is to implement and to en-
force the laws, and the judiciary branch is to interpret the lawsnot to make the
laws. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is contrary to each of those tenets.
This country is founded on several important principles not the least of which is
the right to own private property. One of the primary reasons many, if not most,
immigrants came to this country was the freedom to own and control land outright.
This initiative is just another chink in taking away private property rights and a
step toward Federal land use control. I know of no instances where the government
125
does a better job in the long run of managing property than private property owners
themselves.
We need less government control, not more, so I encourage you to do whatever
is in your power to curtail the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Withholding
funding as proposed in H.R. 1842 is certainly a step in the right direction.
We do not want another Federal designation. We do not want a greater Federal
presence. We do not want enhanced Federal control over our waters. And we do not
want the government to come up with yet another way to spend taxpayer dollars.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
STATEMENT OF PETER SAMUEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SCHUYLKILL RIVER GREENWAY

AND HERITAGE CORRIDOR
On behalf of the Schuylkill River Greenway and Heritage Corridor, its partners
and community organizations, I want to thank you and the members of this Com-
mittee for the opportunity to provide testimony in opposition to H.R. 1842. We are
opposed to H.R. 1842 because we believe the American Heritage River Initiative will
provide opportunities and benefits to our region in Southeastern Pennsylvania and
others like ours around the country.
The Schuylkill River Greenway Association is a membership organization which
has been working with citizens and community groups and a host of other partners
up and down the river for almost 25 years to promote the river resources and advo-
cate the protection of open space. In the 1990s we went through a process to de-
velop a plan for the Schuylkill as a Heritage Corridor. In 1995 the river corridor
was designated by Governor Ridge as Pennsylvanias seventh Heritage Park. Thus
the Association expanded its mission to include conservation of the historic and cul-
tural resources within the watershed and a focus on economic development.
We in the Schuylkill Watershedincluding conservationists, elected officials, mu-
nicipal governments, landowners, recreationalists, industry owners and moreare
very much interested in the American Heritage River Initiative because it will pro-
vide an excellent chance for the widest range of people to take new pride in their
river. It will enable us to work with the Federal Government as a partner in efforts
to improve and restore the resources associated with the Schuylkill.
The goal of the American Heritage Rivers initiative is to support communities
within existing laws and regulations, by providing them with better information,
tools and resources and by encouraging local efforts deserving of special recognition.
This is precisely the kind of assistance the Schuylkill River Corridor needs.
We believe that our community knows best what resources will benefit us the
most and would like to see the government prioritize Federal spending based on
that community led process, and to help people better understand how to access ex-
isting Federal resources.
Before I explain further why and how this proposed new initiative will help the
people and resources directly in the Schuylkill River Valley I would like to describe
my area of the country. I will discuss our efforts to create a heritage corridor based
on wide ranging partnerships, what works already been accomplished, what the
larger shared vision is for the region and there, how we see this new government
initiative fitting into the entire picture.
BACKGROUND ON THE SCHUYLKILL
The Schuylkill River flows through some of the most historically significant land
in the United States. The natural resources of the region and the people who live
and work there have helped weave the social, political, economic and industrial fab-
ric of Pennsylvania and the nation.
The river itself extends 128 miles from the mining region of Schuylkill County
through four other counties and into the city of Philadelphia where it links up with
the Delaware River. It comprises three national parks, many acres of state park and
game lands, numerous county parks, arboretums, wildlife preserves as well as wide-
spread residential development, agriculture, industrial towns and private lands.
William Penn established his colony relatively late in the history of European col-
onization of North Americas seaboard, but the rapid growth of the colony soon made
Pennsylvania a region of major substance and significance within the world.
By the 1770s Philadelphia stood as the political, economic and cultural center of
colonial America. The citys strategic location, wealth, industrial and commercial im-
portance, large and cosmopolitan population combined to make it the hub of Amer-
icas revolutionary activity. It was the site of the First and Second Continental Con-
gresses and the birthplace of the Declaration of Independence. It was along the
126
Schuylkill, in the winter of 1778, that General Washington and his troops camped
in Valley Forge before the turning point in the Revolutionary War.
By 1900, the use of anthracite coal to power industry caused a total trans-
formation in the valley. The region was still dominated by Philadelphia, but with
many urban and industrial centers, both large and small, thriving and inter-
connected by railroads. During this period, the entire river valley functioned as an
interlocking series of industrial engines, and Philadelphia became a national leader
in industry.
The vast growth and development of communities and industries along the river
was not without consequence. By 1927 it was estimated that there was 38 million
tons of coal silt in the river. The Schuylkill was so polluted that it had essentially
lost its value as a riverthe canal system was no longer navigable, the river was
spurned as a recreational resource and as a supply of drinking water it had become
seriously degraded.
The river has been making a slow come back. In the 1970s the Schuylkill River
Greenway Association was formed to begin advocating the protection and health of
the river and its tributaries. The Schuylkill was designated by the state legislature
as Pennsylvanias first scenic river in 1977.
In the spring of 1995, after an extensive three year planning process involving
representatives from each of the five counties and the public and private sectors,
a Management Action Plan for the Schuylkill Heritage Corridor was completed.
Later that year the Schuylkill was designated by Governor Tom Ridge as Pennsylva-
nias seventh State Heritage Park.
The Schuylkill River Greenway Association which had many years of experience
working with partners throughout the corridor, became the organization to imple-
ment the Heritage Corridor Plan. The SRGA adopted a revised and expanded mis-
sion for improving the river, increasing recreational opportunities, saving historic
structures, encouraging regional cooperation, attracting tourism and generating jobs
and permanent economic benefits.
These actions mirror steps that have been taken in hundreds of communities. Peo-
ple across the nation have begun to realize the promise of heritage tourism. They
are discovering how well the preservation of historic, cultural and natural resources
combines with the development and marketing of tourism to sustain local economies
and ways of life. Resource preservation and economic viability are not mutually ex-
clusive but compatible and mutually enhancing. It has been recognized that mul-
tiple management and funding sources are the most appropriate method of pre-
serving and interpreting the nationally important resources and themes.
The Greenway and Heritage Corridor has committed to work towards the fol-
lowing goals:
Be the keeper of the visioncoordinating, managing and implementing pro-
grams projects and activities within the corridor that serve to celebrate the her-
itage and preserve and enhance quality of life
Linking and Leveragingworking between and among agencies, attractions
and organizations in support of the vision, mission and goals of the Schuylkill
Heritage Corridor
Serve as a resourceproviding leadership and guidance in educational, his-
torical, financial and marketing efforts and technical assistance in training, in-
terpretation, and community involvement
PROJECTS OF THE GREENWAY AND HERITAGE CORRIDOR
Projects range from the creation of trails built on abandoned rail corridors, the
construction or improvement of trail bridges that cross streams and roads, develop-
ment of riverside parks and open space, creation of canoe launches, historic con-
servation and interpretation projects, development of visitor information and a
wayfinding system, and the implementation of an educational curriculum plan.
Projects throughout the five county area in Historic Conservation and Interpreta-
tion include:
Planning for the renovation of the historic Phoenixville Foundry building in
Phoenixville to become a visitor center which focuses on the steel and iron mak-
ing heritagein association with Phoenixville Area Development Corporation
The Reconstruction of the Schuylkill Navigation Canal Lock 60 in Port Provi-
dencein association with the Schuylkill Canal Association
Interpretive Planning and Exhibit Design to develop visitor center exhibits to
describe the agricultural history in the Schuylkill Valleyin association with
the Peter Wentz Farmstead
Development of a plan for reuse of the historic Tamaqua Train Station in
downtown Tamaqua for use as a visitor reception pointin association with the
Save Our Station group
127
Renovation of an historic building in downtown Reading to be used as a herit-
age corridor visitor centerin association with the Berks County Conservancy
Development of Engineering Plans for the restoration of the historic water
wheel at the Fairmount Waterworks in Philadelphiain association with the
Philadelphia Water Department and Fairmount Park
Assistance in the stabilization of the historic Continental Powder Worksin
association with East Vincent Township
It was recognized early on that there would need to be a broad range of support
among financial, community, educational, business, and government leaders and
foundations and existing partners in order to balance programmatic goals and objec-
tives and achieve financial stability within the organization. This diversification of
support allows the organization to develop flexible funding programs that strength-
ens the corridor and ensures its long-term success.
HOW THE AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVER INITIATIVE CAN HELP OUR WORK
Since I became the Director of the Schuylkill Corridor I have realized that there
are Federal agencies in our region which have programs that could provide assist-
ance to our various communities. The Army Corps of Engineers has indicated an
interest in rehabilitation of desilting basins into wetlands, the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency may have funds for restoration projects on the tributaries, the Na-
tional Park Service could provide greenway and trail planning, Fish and Wildlife
may be involved in the development of fish ladders along the many dams. And there
are probably many others. How would I know?
My information about these potential programs has been haphazard, helter skel-
ter. If the Schuylkill River is designated as an American Heritage River, informa-
tion about all of these programs would be made available as a coordinated package
of services. The Federal Government would begin to work for us.
People have called for a better, smarter and more coordinated way to work with
the Federal Government. The American Heritage River Initiative seeks to coordi-
nate these existing authorities in a more efficient and complementary way and pro-
poses that assistance from the Federal Government will come at the request of the
community. Once a river is designated, a team of Federal agency representatives
will be available to help the community determine the role for Federal assistance.
The committee will look for opportunities to reduce bureaucracy, streamline services
and remove policy obstacles.
There is no existing system to provide communities with a coordinated system of
Federal services. In fact there is so much lack of coordination that it is very possible
that within one very small agency such as the National Park Service that more than
one department or division could be involved with the same project and never know
what the other is doing.
If what is being proposed by the American Heritage Rivers Initiative comes to fru-
ition, it will be a major advance for government. I am not talking about more gov-
ernment, more regulations, more interference, I am talking about coordination, orga-
nization and responsiveness. I am talking about better government, ideal govern-
ment. One that is there when you want it to be and one that provides a coordinated
strategy of services that will be truly helpful.
The American Heritage River Initiative will allow for the proper recognition of the
collective contributions of ordinary people in significant regions of our nation. The
Schuylkill Heritage Corridor provides a framework for people to take pride in their
communities, understand their history and work together to enhance the quality of
life for their children. We are treating our history and heritage as one of our great-
est resources. The American Heritage River Initiative will allow us to build on that
and ensure that the present and future is successfully linked to our past.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.
STATEMENT OF REGINALD WILLIAM NELSON

Mr. Chairman, members of this Committee, ladies and gentlemen:
My name is Reginald William Nelson and I live at 1820 New Market Road in
eastern Henrico County, just outside of the City of Richmond, Virginia. I am a full-
time farmer. I farm land within sight of the James River and practice responsible
management of my farmland to ensure the safety of my livelihood for the perpetua-
tion of my farming, and the cleanliness of the environment, as my father and grand-
father before me have done. My farmland is just beyond the urban boundaries of
the City of Richmond.
I and many of my neighbors are concerned that President Clintons Executive
Order creating the American Heritage Rivers Initiative will further denigrate our
128
ability to effectively produce crops from our fields and use our private property as
guaranteed by our United States Constitution.
This Initiative addresses river communities. Those folks lobbying hard for this
Federal bureaucratic program have been defining the boundaries of this Initiative
to include all land within a rivers watershed. That is a broad and inclusive defini-
tion. Along the James River, its watershed includes 10,102 square miles, one fourth
of the land base of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
What we are sure of, is that this Initiative intends to consume more than the
riparian properties adjacent to any designated river.
Further, this Initiative addresses the concerns of those people who consider
themselves to be stakeholders in this initiative. They appear to be many, varying
special interest groupsnot among them, appears to be the affected individual pri-
vate property owner!
There is no provision in this Initiative for even the individual notification of all
property owners which are to be included in any such designation. That is appall-
ing to me!However, from my experience over the recent years with the Depart-
ment of the Interior, this is the Federal bureaucracy functioning in its regular mode
of operation.
Having worked for several years to try to gain local control over the National
Park Services boundary, condemnation authority and land use control over as much
as 250,000 acres in and around Richmond, (including my property), and observing
the bureaucratic attitude to ignore residents and property owners requests and rec-
ommendationsI have had to learn how this mushrooming, land-usurping predator
works. It continually creates additional layers of Federal bureaucrats to confuse the
taxpaying citizen to slowly, but surely, diminish the private property owners Con-
stitutional rights to use his own property. Instead of helping the private property
owner, the Federal bureaucracy works to use private property For the Good of All
such as that non-owner stakeholder I spoke of earlier.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have no business being here before you today. I should
be at home in my fieldson my combinewhere I am presently at the peak of my
corn and soybean harvesting. I usually spend twelve (12) to sixteen (16) hours a day
this time of year away from my familyworking, farmingto support my family
and they know an understand that. My two young daughters were confused that in-
stead, today, I have traveled to, and am sitting in, a Congressional Hearing Room
to tell you about the harm this American Heritage Rivers Initiative will cause for
me and innumerable Americans.
I and my neighbors regularly elect a Congressman from our home district; mine
is The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
Congressman Bliley understands the considerable economic harm this new Fed-
eral program will cause to me and my neighbors as we go about our business of
farming and using our private property without additional Federal bureaucratic
intervention or accountability;and yet, this Initiative can designate and begin
appointing a River Navigator to oversee the activities within a designated com-
munity and a rivers watershedeven over the objection of the duly elected Con-
gressional Representative! This is unconstitutional and just plain wrong!
As a farmer I already know about excessive regulation. I must comply with and
file a Nutrient Management Plan, an Integrated Pest Management Plan, a
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Plan, and I am also required to record the pesticides
I use in my farming, as well as assuring that I am in compliance with local land
use regulations.
And yet, I am here to tell you that none of those regulations has changed my fam-
ilys farming practices or the methods by which my family grow crops. We have al-
ways been responsible guardians of our land and the environment. What it has
changedis the time and costs involved in reporting back to these unelected, gov-
ernment bureaucrats, whose job is perpetuated by my being required to spend time
at my computer reporting minute details of what I have done to grow my crops, in-
stead of either: (1) working my fields, or (2) sharing precious time with my wife and
children.
If this Initiative is truly voluntary and nonregulatory, why is there to be a Fed-
eral presence? Why are there Federal agencies to be involved? Why? Because, clear-
ly, there will be additional regulations placed on all properties within a designa-
tionwritten by nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats. If this Initiative
is truly honorary, there would be no Federal involvement.
The reason I am here to speak in favor of H.R. 1842 is that I fear this Presi-
dential Executive Orders effect on my farm, my family, my neighbors, my commu-
nity and our diminishing Constitutional Rights.
Neither my Senators nor my Representative were given an opportunity to vote
their approval of this Federal program. They were not a part of the process of creat-
129
ing it. They were not given my right for them to vote on this invasive and expensive
Federal program which will add an additional layer of bureaucracy through which
I must weave to earn a living for my family.
There is no reason that localities along any river cannot work together to accom-
plish what this Initiative purports to do. No Federal program is necessary or
serves a constructive purpose.
Along our James River, the localities are meeting and finding creative methods
to promote the river, but, at this time, the Federal Government is not involved
or in control. And in control is what it wants to be. But that is neither necessary
nor desirable.
Years ago the James River was seriously polluted. Today it is recoveringwithout
Federal intervention. It is not neededor wantednow. The cost for this program
is to come from the resources within the 12 Federal agencies already identified to
be involved in this Presidential enacted Initiativefrom agency budgets reportedly
already stretched beyond their ability to function appropriately. Will funds be take
from roadway repair projects? Will they be taken from environmentally sensitive
clean-up programs to fund this Initiative? Clearly, the burden of the cost of this
added layer of bureaucracy will be passed to the over-taxed American taxpayer
of which I am one.
This American Heritage Rivers Initiative was stated to be created to preserve,
protect and restore rivers and their adjacent communities. The vagueness and im-
precision of these words will allow the establishedand yet to be established
bureaucracies to use Federal controls on private use of privately owned property.
This strikes fear in the hearts and minds of property owners anywhere near any
river! And so it should! The devil is in the details! And we have not been given
those to review in advance of the establishment of this Federal bureaucratic pro-
gram! They will, instead, be determined at some later time by those nameless, face-
less, unaccountable bureaucrats!
Any citizen ever hoping to own property should fear such authority for unchecked
Federal control!
This new Federal power will be used to impose the will of the Federal bureauc-
racy on local jurisdictions, usurping the powers Constitutionally reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
Any intelligent person knows that, historically, development began around these
flowing conduits. Rivers wereand area natural mode of transportation for reloca-
tion and trade. And, of course, there is usually fertile farmland near and adjacent
to rivers. So, with no limits, controls, guidelines or opt-out provisions in this Fed-
eral programnot unlike any other trumped-up historic or heritage designa-
tionsvirtually any river in the United States would qualify for control by this cen-
tral, Federal bureaucratthe River Navigatorwho could impose great and costly
restrictions on local government land use control.
I bring to you today a different knowledge and perspective from your other speak-
ers. I have had the unfortunate necessity to research and learn, together with my
neighbors, the details and effect of a historic designation under the Historic Pres-
ervation Act. We were all under attack by the National Park Service in our area,
and were misleadingly assured that such a designation, even over our objection, had
no effect on the use or value of our land. Well, thats what they would like citizens
to believe! But it is absolutely untrue!
This Presidential Executive Order creating the American Heritage Rivers Initia-
tive expressly states that the Department of the Interior shall be one of those Fed-
eral agencies which shall identify all technical tools, including those developed for
purposes other than river conservation, that can be applied to river protection. . . .
My community and others around my state know all too well how that Section 106
Review Process of the Historic Preservation Act can curtail any changes in the area.
Progress stopsnot just damage. If the members of this Committee are not aware
of this Act and its Section 106 Review processand the far reaching effect it can
and has had on communities around the nationplease contact me or have your
staff members look into the matter. It has the propensity to bring this nation to a
halt.
I am fortunate that my local jurisdiction, Henrico County, Virginia, is in strong
opposition to the designation of the river threatening my community, and is pre-
paring a letter to be sent to all of our Congressional delegation stating and clari-
fying their opposition. I would like to provide a copy of that letter to this Committee
to be attached to my testimony, as soon as it is available.
This Presidential-created program, however, does not clarify that my community
can be saved by my local governments refusal to approve of, or request, the designa-
tionwe may still be forced into the designation by the request of other more-nave
130
. . . to say nothing of it being forced upon the unnotified, individual private property
owners!
There are no guarantees under this programexcept that we have no guarantees
that our Constitutionally guaranteed rights to representation and private property
protections haveand will befurther violated by this program.
I ask againif this Initiative is truly honorary and voluntary, why is there a
Federal presence? Why is there no property owner notification? Why is it not, in-
stead, required that the property owner request the designation in writing and have
the right to quit the program at any time?
Why? Is it because these protections from our Federal Government were never in-
tended to be a part of this program? Because land use control being removed from
local control was the primary intent from its inception?
I believe it was and still is.
Mr. Chairman, and members of this Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to
explain my personal concerns about the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, and
I enthusiastically request your strong support for H.R. 1842 so that I may go home
and pursue my livelihood the anticipation of no further Federal manipulation and
regulation of my land and my community. Such an invasive and controlling program
should be created only by the will of the peopleand then must be in compliance
with the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution!
Please take action to stop this oppressive, dictatorially-created Federal program
by passing and enforcing H.R. 1842.
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338

The American Heritage Rivers Initiative: Hearing Committee On Resources House of Representatives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The American Heritage Rivers Initiative: Hearing Committee On Resources House of Representatives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The American Heritage Rivers Initiative: Hearing Committee On Resources House of Representatives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS INITIATIVE

H.R. 1842, TO TERMINATE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND

SEPTEMBER 24, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 10570

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1997

wrote in Federalist No. 47, The accumulation of all powers, legis-

with many of my colleagues. If this program is 100 percent hon-

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRANK PALLONE, JR., A

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. And Madam Chairman, let me say

initiative is going to reduce overlapping efforts among Federal

onstrates a lot of good interest, and I look forward to your testi-

zoning processes historically undertaken at local levels as a func-

to their existing duties and are more accountable to their steward-

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT SCOTT, A REP-

This initiative builds on existing community efforts, both public

local resources in the pursuit of a comprehensive approach in re-

Last year, the administration attempted to regulate eastern

river resources in a way that integrates natural resource protec-

hance, end-quote, our rivers. Enhancing can take on a variety of

itage Rivers Initiative, and concomitantly, to express the adminis-

do, and that why, respectfully, Madam Chairman, the administra-

We believe this designation will accomplish three basic things.

So, 1,250 miles ultimately would be affected by just our initiative

Ms. MCGINTY. Well, the point very definitely is to have those

Mr. CANNON. My guess is youre going to average three districts.

it wont be cut in such a way as to give a disproportionate benefit

did it without Federal participation. I have to tell you that I object

I come from a State, again, thats 48 percent federally owned.

own local communities. You cant develop a Federal program that

Mega-Trend says that the biggest economy in this country in the

of agriculture than anybody. We also have the California coast of

are already Federal employees charged with these responsibilities.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Back on July 31 of this year, this Committee re-

in your opinion, just not as persuasive as those to close the com-

Now, as it turns out, in my State there is great deference to

to that, we have provided that at the time of the nomination or se-

ployee of the United States may not make appropriations outside

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just wish that our permitting process in

tends to the proposal. That proposal would be vetoed, and it would

mentation of the communitys plan. The river navigator will have

of county commissioners in a zoning hearing or anything of that

er today a Federal employee can testify before a water court, if the

be in addition to the regular job, not necessarily a substitute for

Ms. MCGINTY. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer.

economic opportunities of the people that are going to testify today

this President is doing. NEPA, in fact, compels that this adminis-

STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. LYNCH, CENTRAL ARIZONA

lier this afternoon. I have submitted copies of my written testimony

because theres a consultation mechanism in the Executive Order.

STATEMENT OF LOIS VAN HOOVER, IDAHO MULTIPLE LAND

It seems to me that the Federal Government has a fiduciary re-

lion acres of private property in Texas, and 1 million acres in New

nail sketch of how we hope to take advantage of the initiative and

really excited me was the emphasis on local initiative to identify

out in his opinion that every generation meets new emergencies,