Clinton Slows Pace Of Rivers Initiative; Chenoweth A Critic

After hearing from angry politicians and landowners, President Clinton decided this week to give the public more time to comment on his new plan to “revitalize” the nation’s rivers.

Clinton originally set aside three weeks for comments on his American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which the White House has described as a way to focus federal support on 10 rivers to be chosen later.

But the proposal prompted criticism from Western members of Congress, including Rep. Helen Chenoweth, R-Idaho. It is offering federal assistance that hasn’t been approved by Congress, she and five other representatives complained in a letter to the Council on Environmental Quality.

Chenoweth also criticized the plan in a speech on the House floor, calling it “the most recent assault by the Clinton administration on private property rights, states rights and Western values.”

The plan is vague and seems to redefine boundaries for watersheds and government control, Chenoweth added.

“It creates an entity called the river community,” she said. “But what is the river community?”

This week, she introduced a bill to stop the initiative. The House Committee on Resources scheduled a hearing for June 26 to discuss the plan.

The White House tried to stem the criticism in its letter from the Council on Environmental Quality that agreed to the extension.

“Because the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is a fully voluntary, community-based program, the administration agrees that an opportunity to receive additional public comments would be valuable,” said Kathleen McGinty, council chairwoman.

Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., also criticized Clinton for not seeking congressional approval of the project. He said this week he was pleased with the extension.

“I find it ironic that the administration believes a federal program is necessary to ensure local control of resources,” he said.

The proposal calls for communities to nominate rivers to be considered for “American Heritage” status. Ten rivers would be chosen from the nominees to get “focused federal support.”

Environmental groups reacted favorably to the plan, first mentioned in Clinton’s State of the Union speech.

“This is a political program that would really benefit grass-roots organizations and put the rivers under the political spotlight,” said Bill Graham of the Rivers Council of Washington in Seattle.

But property rights groups fear it would lead to more federal control of their land.

It would coordinate work by federal agencies and local organizations and tap into more federal programs aimed at improving river basins, Graham said.

“Our concern is with private property owners and the increasing layers of restrictions on our land,” said Nancy Ingalsbee, executive director of the Klamath Alliance for Resources and Environment.

That Yreka, Calif., group includes individuals and organizations that want to improve local economic conditions.

“We see no need for another level of bureaucracy,” Ingalsbee said.

The proposal does not specifically say how, or if, property owners would be affected. A panel would be appointed to find ways to meet the objectives of refocusing programs, money and technical assistance for 10 rivers.

Supporters say it doesn’t call for more money or more rules.

Tom Cassidy, of American Rivers, in Washington, D.C., doesn’t see the initiative imposing new federal regulations on landowners.

“The project is designed for the government to assist local communities in realizing their vision for revitalizing their river,” he said.