Red Lodge Clearinghouse

After a contentious debate over the proposal's merits, the House approved H.R. 415 by a 242-175 vote, with 11 Republicans voting supporting the bill and no Democrats opposing it.

The legislation would protect the river under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act from the headwaters all the way to Mount Hope Bay in Fall River, Mass., the site where Weaver's Cove Energy is seeking to build the LNG terminal.

Republicans had attempted to galvanize opposition to the bill as an extension to the party's ongoing attack on Democrats for being soft on domestic energy production, claiming the lower segment of the river is too industrialized to qualify under the act.

"The only thing that is scenic is the graffiti on the embankments of the river," said Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah). "The only thing that is wild is the gangs that put the graffiti there."

Taking exception to that statement, bill sponsor Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) accused Bishop and other House Republicans of attempting to deny the communities along the river of the right to improve their region's quality of life.

"We are talking about the desire of people in an area that has some industrial parts ... to protect their area and make it better," Frank said on the House floor.

Debate on the floor was evenly divided between whether the wild and scenic act ever intended to protect such a river and whether the bill sponsors' true intention was to scuttle the LNG facility.

Proponents noted that the U.S. Coast Guard determined the Massachusetts and Rhode Island waterways are unsafe for the transport of LNG to the Fall River terminal, a decision upheld last month, and that Massachusetts already has two LNG facilities and another on the way.

Under the 1968 Wild and Scenic law, selected rivers that posses "outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition."

But Republicans also noted that law also requires the rivers' immediate environments to be protected as well, which is impossible given that much of the lower river's environment is highly developed.

"Until we change the law we should not by a simple majority vote change the definition of those words," said Bishop, whose amendment to remove the last nine miles of the river from the designation failed in a roll call vote.

The House adopted two other amendments, one that ensures the designation would not impede hunting, fishing or other activities on the river and another that would require the bill to not affect the supply of domestically produced energy resources.

The proposal now heads to the Senate where its companion bill, S. 868, is part of a 96-bill omnibus package the Senate may consider later this month.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment