S-4595-119
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held.
Sponsored by Andy Kim (D-NJ)
What it does
This bill would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to add the Mullica River watershed in New Jersey — including the Mullica, Wading, and Batsto Rivers and 23 named tributary segments — to the list of rivers designated for study as potential wild and scenic rivers. It would require the Secretary of the Interior to complete the study and submit a report to Congress within three years of funding being made available. The study would evaluate whether these waterways qualify for formal wild and scenic river designation, but would not itself grant that designation.
Who benefits
Residents of southern New Jersey who rely on the Mullica River watershed for drinking water, recreation, and ecological services. Environmental and conservation organizations interested in protecting the Pinelands region. Kayakers, anglers, hikers, and ecotourism businesses that operate in the watershed. Future generations who may benefit from long-term protection of the waterway. The Department of the Interior, which would receive a formal mandate and funding to conduct the study.
Who is hurt
Landowners within or adjacent to the watershed who may face uncertainty about future land-use restrictions if a formal wild and scenic designation follows the study. Developers and extractive industries (e.g., sand and gravel mining, timber) that operate in the region and could face tighter regulations under a future designation. Local governments that may have concerns about federal oversight of land and water use in the area. Taxpayers who would bear the cost of funding the study, though that cost is expected to be modest.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Mullica River watershed is one of the most ecologically intact river systems in the northeastern United States, flowing through the New Jersey Pinelands — a federally recognized national reserve — and providing critical habitat for rare and threatened species. They contend that a study is a low-commitment, prudent first step that gathers facts before any binding decision is made, and that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act's study process was specifically designed to allow Congress to make informed designation decisions without prematurely restricting land use.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that initiating a federal study creates a de facto "study river" status that can chill private investment and complicate local land-use planning even before any formal designation occurs, as federal agencies may informally restrict activities in the study area. They contend that the Mullica watershed is already substantially protected through the New Jersey Pinelands Commission and existing state and federal regulations, making a duplicative federal study an unnecessary use of resources that could lead to redundant layers of federal oversight over private property.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to designate rivers for study and potential protection rests on the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2) for federally owned lands and the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) for navigable waterways. No active constitutional tension is raised by a study bill of this scope; the study itself confers no regulatory restrictions. If a future designation were to restrict private land use along the river corridor, Takings Clause questions under the Fifth Amendment could arise, as noted in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) regarding government-mandated property access.
Checks and balances
The legislative branch initiates the study by statute; the executive branch (Secretary of the Interior) conducts it and reports back to Congress, which retains authority to act — or not act — on the study's findings before any formal designation occurs.
Historical precedent
Congress has added hundreds of rivers to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act study list since the Act's passage in 1968, following the same two-step process of study designation followed by optional formal designation; many studied rivers, such as the Farmington River in Connecticut, were subsequently designated after positive study findings.