7846 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Using The Wild And Scenic Rivers Act Successfully On Private Land Rivers: . A Case Study Of The Fannington River In Connecticut Phil Huffman Introduction One of the dominant issues in river conservation today is the question of whether the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act can be used effectively on rivers flowing through private lands. Anyone familiar with the Act knows there is a sizeable list of "private land rivers" that have been studied and found eligible for designation, and that are clearly worthy of federal recognition, but that have not been designated due to a lack of local political support. In almost every instance, the reason for local misgivings has been the fear that designation would lead to a federal take-over of the area, complete with extensive land condemnation and a loss of local control. Those classic concerns bave also prevented many worthy private land rivers from even reaching the study authorization stage. This track record has led some to conclude that the Act may be fatally flawed, that it may not be worth trying to make it work in sensitive private land situations. Despite all the skepticism, encouraging signs to the contrary have appeared in recent years in the Northeast. Beginning with the study and designation of New Hampshire's Wildcat River in 1988, a non-traditional grassroots strategy began to emerge that relies upon cooperation and partnership among diverse interests and the development of a river conservation plan prior to designation. This new approach continued to evolve with the studies and designations of New Jersey's Great Egg Harbor and Maurice Rivers in the early '90's. Building on those earlier efforts, the Farmington River in Connecticut has just been designated as the nation's newest Wild and Scenic river. While sharing many common elements with the Wildcat, Great Egg Harbor and Maurice River projects, the Farmington Wild and Scenic River Study has taken the non-traditional grassroots approach to a new level. With its success, the Farmington initiative provides an effective model for overcoming the historical obstacles that have prevented the designation of many outstanding private land rivers. This model is opening the door to what may be the most significant untapped opportunity for the Wild and Scenic Rivers System: using the Act to provide strong protection for important private land rivers across the country. Background On The Farmington Wild And Scenic River Study Local interest in a wild and scenic river study of the Farmington River began in the early 1980's, when a withdrawal was proposed from existing reservoirs on the river's West Branch to augment public water supply for the Hartford metropolitan area. Local residents, several town governments in the river valley, and the Farmington River Watershed Association became concerned that the proposed withdrawal would severely impact the Farmington's special resources, particularly its fIsheries, canoeing, kayaking, and scenic values. At the same time, the area was witnessing a marked increase in development, and many valley residents were concerned that continued incremental development could pose an equally serious threat to the natural integrity of the river corridor. In response to those concerns, legislation authorizing a study of the upper Farmington River for potential inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1986. The legislation directed the National Park Service to conduct the study, and to work closely with a special advisory committee-- the Farmington River Study Committee -- created to represent the many different interests sharing a stake in the future of the river. 1 1 The study initially included a headwaters segment in Massachusetts in addition to the stretcb in Connecticut that is the focus of this paper. However, well into the project an outburst of opposition to wild and scenic designation erupted in the Massachusetts towns, triggered by the deliberate misinformation and scare tactics of a small local group that was supported by national anti-environrnentaI organizations. By playing on the fears of a