# Wild and Scenic Rivers Act *United States federal statute* The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is a federal statute. It enters the Minnesota record through one at-issue pair. That pair concerns a bridge across the St. Croix River that Congress authorized by enacted law "notwithstanding section 7(a)" of the Act.[^1] The at-issue record places the bridge in Washington County.[^1] The record sets agency outputs beside a congressional output. The [[National Park Service]] approved the project in 2005 and later reversed after court challenges. It concluded that "despite the planned mitigation, the project was" not consistent with the Act.[^3] After 2005, a court ruled the Park Service decision "arbitrary and capricious," and the agency declined to appeal.[^3] On March 14, 2012, [[Public Law 112-100]], the *St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act*, was signed. It authorized federal agencies to authorize and assist construction of the bridge notwithstanding § 7(a).[^1][^2] ## Who - **National Park Service.** The Park Service approved the project in 2005, then reversed after court challenges.[^3] - **Sierra Club.** The Sierra Club sued twice. The first suit, in 1996, alleged inadequate environmental review. The second came after 2005; in it a court ruled the Park Service decision "arbitrary and capricious," and the agency declined to appeal.[^3] - **Congress.** The 112th Congress enacted Public Law 112-100, signed March 14, 2012.[^1] The enacted text authorizes "the head of any Federal agency or department" to authorize and assist construction.[^2] The House committee report on the measure carries dissenting views.[^3] A Senate committee report, Senate Report 112-124, is also part of the 112th Congress's record.[^4] The pack does not identify the bill's sponsors, the votes, or the signer, so no party attribution is made here. ## What Section 7(a) of the Act is the provision Congress set aside for this one project.[^1] Public Law 112-100 authorizes federal agencies to authorize and assist construction of a new extradosed bridge across the St. Croix River notwithstanding § 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.[^1] The enrolled bill, S. 1134, makes that authorization conditional. Riverway mitigation items from a 2006 Memorandum of Understanding must be enforceable conditions.[^2] ## When - **1996:** The Sierra Club sued over inadequate environmental review.[^3] - **2005:** The National Park Service approved the project. It later reversed after court challenges.[^3] - **After 2005:** The Sierra Club sued again. A court ruled the Park Service decision "arbitrary and capricious," and the agency declined to appeal.[^3] - **2006:** The Memorandum of Understanding was made. Its riverway mitigation items later became enforceable conditions of the 2012 authorization.[^1][^2] - **March 14, 2012:** Public Law 112-100 was signed.[^1] ## Where The authorized bridge crosses the St. Croix River about 6 miles north of the I-94 crossing.[^1][^2] The at-issue record places it in Washington County.[^1] ## Why The House report records the Park Service's stated conclusion: "despite the planned mitigation, the project was" not consistent with the Act.[^3] The record shows that conclusion, the court ruling, and the later statute. It does not establish why Congress chose a project-specific exemption over other courses.[^1][^3] ## How The exemption works through a single clause. Construction is authorized "notwithstanding section 7(a)," rather than by a determination made under that section.[^1] The authorization is tied to the 2006 Memorandum of Understanding mitigation items, which must be enforceable conditions.[^2] ## In the at-issue record The pair puts two documented outputs side by side.[^1][^3] - **The agency and court record.** The Park Service approved the project in 2005 and then reversed. A court found the Park Service decision "arbitrary and capricious."[^3] - **The congressional output.** In 2012, Congress enacted authorization to proceed "notwithstanding section 7(a)."[^1] The pair's anchor is the enrolled public law itself.[^1] The at-issue record also states that the bridge opened on August 2, 2017, at a cost of $646 million. It attributes those figures to news reporting. No primary source in the pack carries them. ## Notes [^1]: U.S. Congress, *Public Law 112-100, St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act* (March 14, 2012) — authorizes federal assistance for a new extradosed bridge across the St. Croix River about 6 miles north of the I-94 crossing, notwithstanding § 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-112publ100/pdf/PLAW-112publ100.pdf [^2]: U.S. Congress, *S. 1134, enrolled text* (112th Congress) — enrolled text enacted as Public Law 112-100; authorizes "the head of any Federal agency or department" to authorize and assist construction, conditioned on the 2006 Memorandum of Understanding mitigation items being enforceable conditions. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1134/text/enr [^3]: U.S. House of Representatives, *House Report 112-309* (112th Congress) — records the 2005 National Park Service approval and its reversal, the Sierra Club suits of 1996 and after 2005, the "arbitrary and capricious" ruling, and dissenting views. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt309/html/CRPT-112hrpt309.htm [^4]: U.S. Senate, *Senate Report 112-124* (112th Congress) — Senate committee report listed with House Report 112-309 in the legislative record of the measure. https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/112th-congress/senate-report/124