Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill adds the Nulhegan River main stem (approximately 22 miles) and Paul Stream (approximately 18 miles) in Vermont to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act list for study. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to complete a study and report to Congress within three years after funds are made available.
Liberals emphasize conservation and habitat protection benefits
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act creating a congressional study and report requirement for specified river segments.
This bill adds the Nulhegan River main stem (approximately 22 miles) and Paul Stream (approximately 18 miles) in Vermont to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act list for study.
It directs the Secretary of the Interior to complete a study and report to Congress within three years after funds are made available.
The study will evaluate those river segments and associated tributaries for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Content is low controversy and narrow, but passage usually depends on appropriations and inclusion in larger land bills.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act creating a congressional study and report requirement for specified river segments. It is precise in statutory placement and geographic description and names an implementing official and a funding-contingent deadline.
Liberals emphasize conservation and habitat protection benefits
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize conservation and habitat protection benefits
Likely supportive because the bill advances federal study of river protection and conservation.
Views it as a step toward preserving habitat, water quality, and public access.
May push for robust public engagement and equity considerations during the study.
Generally favorable as a measured, evidence-based step before imposing protections.
Appreciates the defined timeline and reporting requirement but will watch funding, costs, and stakeholder outreach.
Wants clear process and respect for private property.
Skeptical about federal expansion and downstream regulatory consequences.
Views the study as a likely precursor to federal restrictions on land use, timber, or private property.
Might accept study only if strict protections for private property and local control are guaranteed.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is low controversy and narrow, but passage usually depends on appropriations and inclusion in larger land bills.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize conservation and habitat protection benefits
Content is low controversy and narrow, but passage usually depends on appropriations and inclusion in larger land bills.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act creating a congressional study and report requirement for specified river segments. It is pr…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.