The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS INITIATIVE” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H3434-H3435 on June 4, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS INITIATIVE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons for America's strength and her rise in economic ability is because of the wise use of her rivers and waterways for irrigation, travel, recreation, power, flood control, and all other uses.
Mr. Speaker, through the wise use and allocation of our Nation's waters we have literally turned our deserts into gardens, but tonight I rise to alert my colleagues and inform our constituents of the most recent assault by the Clinton administration on private property rights, States rights, and western values. That is the administration's American heritage rivers initiative, created and tendered solely by the White House, and executed without congressional approval.
Just before the Memorial Day work period the Council on Environmental Quality, an unauthorized agency existing on misappropriated funds, I might add, published this proposal in the Federal Register entitled
``The American Heritage Rivers Initiative.'' It is in the Federal Register, May 19, 1997, page 27253. I urge my colleagues to read it.
Although law requires a 90-day public comment period, this comment period ends June 9, 1997, a mere 3 weeks after its date of publication; 3 weeks, not 3 months, as the law requires. This violates the Administrative Procedures Act and totally ignores the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Fortunately, today, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Don Young, chairman of the Committee on Resources, and the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Bob Smith, chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, along with myself and other Committee on Resources chairmen, have sent a letter to Katy McGinty strongly advising CEQ to extend that comment period to make it legal at least another 90 days. I am sure that the gentlewoman would be wise to follow this advice, and I will enter this letter into the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I have grave concerns about this initiative. The American heritage rivers proposal is just one in a string of the Clinton administration's attacks on our Western public lands. This is a Nation of laws, but from the Utah Monument to ecosystem management projects to the BLM's law enforcement regulations, this administration has demonstrated an absolute lack of regard for our Nation's laws and regulations, including requirements of environmental law.
I ask, where is the documentation required under the National Environmental Policy Act? Where is the notification and full public comment required under the APA? By the way, who is paying for this?
Again, the President is attempting to foist a program upon us, without us. Mr. Speaker, the very nature of how this proposal was constructed raises many troubling questions. For instance, since the American heritage rivers initiative has never been authorized by Congress, exactly which land and water program funds were siphoned to prepare this proposal? How does the administration intend to continue funding this unauthorized project if it is established? I suspect that the Committee on Resources will be holding hearings to get answers to these very troubling questions.
Quite simply, this initiative will simply replace the long established and Constitutionally protected policies that govern the use of our waterways--which are critical to our economic survival, not only to the west, but to the entire nation. That is why for the past century the Supreme Court has held in case after case that in the west it is the States who control the use of water.
Mr. Speaker, there is case after case in the Supreme Court that upholds the fact that the States own the water in the western States. Let me quote from one of the seminal Supreme Court cases on this very issue, the 1978 Supreme Court decision written by Justice Rehnquist entitled ``California v. U.S.''
{time} 2230
It states: To take from the legislatures of the various States and territories the control of water at the present time would be something less than suicidal. If the appropriation and use were not under the provisions of State law, the utmost confusion would prevail.
Mr. Speaker, I agree. 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 States, are declared to be the property of the State, whose duty it shall be to supervise appropriation and allotment to those diverting the same therefrom for any beneficial purposes.
Mr. Speaker, this proposal by the President will be redefining communities. It will redefine watersheds and jurisdictional boundaries. It creates a governing authority called a river community which will redefine what the river and the entire heritage area is, which extends beyond State boundaries and jurisdictional boundaries.
Mr. Speaker, this fictional entity, the river community, will then describe and define the designation which could be the length of the entire area, whether it be an entire watershed, the length of an entire river or a short stretch of river and, as I say, it may cross State boundaries.
Mr. Speaker, we are just beginning to address this issue. We need to take immediate action. I will be here Tuesday night doing a one hour special order speech with a number of my colleagues on this very subject.
We have a little thing in this country called the separation of powers. The legislative branch creates laws. The executive branch implements the laws, and the courts interpret the laws. I think the administration has forgotten about this in this particular move.
When it comes to western resources issues, the Clinton Administration has once again usurped the Congress's lawmaking authority. Nowhere in law can one find the American Heritage Rivers program. This action is tantamount to tyranny, and must stop; or as the Supreme Court warns:
``the utmost confusion will prevail.''
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to leave the Members something to think about. Perry Pendley, in his book ``War on the West,'' wrote:
For the environmental extremists' vision of the West is of a land nearly devoid of people and economic activity, a land devoted almost entirely to the preservation of scenery and wildlife habitat. In their vision, everything becomes a vast park through which they might drive, drink Perrier and munching on organic chips, staying occasionally in the bed-and-breakfast operations into which the homes of Westerners have been turned, with those Westerners who remain fluffing duvets and pouring cappuccino. They are well on the way to achieving their objective.
You'll be hearing more on Tuesday.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, June 4, 1997.Ms. Kathleen A. McGinty,Chair, Council on Environment Quality, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. McGinty: This letter is in response to your May 19, 1997 letter to Chairman Don Young, House Committee on Resources, concerning the Clinton Administration's American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This Committee has strong reservations about this unauthorized initiative, and we are fully aware of the public outcry occurring over the Federal Register Notice on this issue.
We strongly advise that the comment period for the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), American Heritage Rivers Initiative be extended for 90 days, until at least September 9, 1997, to provide sufficient time for the American public to express their concerns.
Furthermore, as the Committee with jurisdiction over the CEQ and the Department of the Interior (DOI), we request that you prepare a detailed briefing for this Committee, and other interested Members of Congress, to fully explain your undertaking of this initiative. The committee is especially interested in a full explanation of any reprogramming of authorized funds involved in conducting the public hearings throughout the United States in April and May, 1997; a full accounting of all personnel involved from the DOI; and, a comprehensive review of what budgetary reprogramming the planned Federal Interagency Team will require in Fiscal Year 1998. This briefing should be provided as soon as possible, but no later than June 27, 1997.
Finally, this Committee has serious concerns about this initiative to designate specific areas for special Federal assistance without any authorization from the Congress. Ironically, it would appear that CEQ has totally ignored the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in undertaking this ``major Federal action.'' We look forward to your immediate response to this letter and especially to our oversight responsibility concerning the short public comment period CEQ has provided the American people.
Please contact Mr. P. Dan Smith, Legislative Staff, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands at (202) 226-7736, to coordinate the briefing requested by this Committee.
Sincerely,Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources.James V. Hansen,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.John T. Doolittle,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power.Helen Chenoweth,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.Robert F. Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture.Barbara Cubin,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
____________________
