WASHINGTON — A much-delayed replacement for the 80-year-old St. Croix River bridge in Stillwater has bipartisan support from Minnesota and Wisconsin politicians, and a late push to pass a bill approving the project within the next couple of months began Thursday at a U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing.
Even though funding has already been approved for the $700 million replacement bridge, it still needs congressional approval. A bill authorizing the bridge’s construction has support from both Democratic Minnesota senators, Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Wisconsin Sens. Herb Kohl and Ron Johnson (a Republican) and both states’ governors, Mark Dayton (DFL) and Scott Walker (R).
But the bill needs to pass before Sept. 30, a deadline Dayton has set for receiving the approval. The funds to build the bridge expire in 2014, and it’s expected to take at least three years to get the permits required to construct the span, Sen. Amy Klobuchar said. She testified at a Senate hearing on the bridge bill Thursday.
“The states have the resources necessary to start construction,” she said. “So what are we waiting for? It’s time to break the deadlock and bring this project out of bureaucratic limbo. We’ve waited long enough and it’s time to move forward.”
A replacement needs Congressional approval because it has to navigate a bureaucratic set of laws and regulations that have thus far stopped the project from going forward.
At issue is the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, a bill originally written by Walter Mondale that protects scenic portions of the country’s rivers. Congress added the St. Croix River to the protected list in 1972.
A section of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act prohibits construction of a project that would have “a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was” protected. By that standard, the National Park Service has denied three separate proposed replacement bridges, the first in 1996 and most recently in 2010.
The co-sponsors of the Klobuchar bill are asking for an exemption to that provision. They say the current plans have environmental mitigation measures, developed through a community development process, that are strong enough to fulfill that standard. But National Park Service Deputy Director Peggy O’Dell said the Park Service doesn’t think those measures are sufficient.
“The St. Croix River Project would have a direct and adverse impact to the river ... these impacts cannot be mitigated,” she said in testimony.
In order to get around the standard, and the Park Service’s opposition, Congress and the President need to approve the project.
Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki told the committee about the process that molded the current proposal. A group of 27 different organizations from all levels of government met to consider many different factors associated with building the bridge, including location and environmental and historic impact. By converting the old bridge to a bike and walkway and locating the replacement in an industrial area of the crossing, Harycki said they were able to both preserve the historic nature of the old bridge and protect the environmental aesthetics of the river.
“I assure you that the people who live and work in the St. Croix River Valley have done everything possible to create the best possible plan for the entire region,” he said. “We care deeply about the river that united our communities.”
Questions of size and cost
But the large and expensive freeway-style bridge has spawned opposition.
Minnesota Democrat Betty McCollum has long opposed the current plan, calling it an “irresponsible and over-sized boondoggle,” citing its high cost (three times as high as that of the new Interstate 35W span in downtown Minneapolis) in a letter to lawmakers Thursday.
Roger Tomten, a Stillwater business owner, also testified against the bill, asking the committee to deny the exemption for the new span and urging support for a smaller, less-expensive bridge.
The bridge he pitched is physically smaller and has lower speed limits than the generally accepted plan. Tomten, a member of the community stakeholder review group, said it is a more fiscally responsible proposal than the current plan.
Called the “Sensible Stillwater” bridge, Tomten said it would cost $300 million less and come with a top speed limit of 40 miles per hour.
“To move this mega-bridge plan forward when our nation is locked in debate over spending and the state of Minnesota is coping with a $5 billion budget deficit makes no sense,” he said.
But Klobuchar and others said there is no time to approve a new plan, given how quickly Dayton’s deadline is coming. A new bridge proposal would need to go through a new bureaucratic review process like to the one the current proposal has already completed, and with Dayton’s deadline arriving quickly, she said there’s no time for that.
Klobuchar added that she’s working with the governor’s office to push back that Sept. 30 deadline should congressional action come slowly on her bill.
In addition to the bipartisan group co-sponsoring the bill, it appeared to receive bipartisan support on the committee as well. Both Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, a Democrat, and Sen. Ron Paul, a Tea Party Republican from Kentucky, said they’re in favor of the plan.
Franken jokingly looked to solidify that support during the hearing.
“Colorado and Kentucky are just exquisite states,” he said, overemphasizing reverence for comedic effect, “and we’d appreciate a vote for the bridge.”
Devin Henry can be reached at dhenry@minnpost.com.
Comments (3)
It should be mentioned that the U.S. Park Service in 2005 *approved* a four-lane bridge in the same corridor as the one it rejected in 1996. But when a federal judge asked the Park Service why they'd changed their mind, the Park Service wasn't able to show that they weren't acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. So the reason why Congress now needs to act on a new bridge is because the Park Service has clearly failed to live up to the responsibilities it was given under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
As for the so-called "Sensible Stillwater" bridge proposal, that is nothing more than a rehash of identical proposals that have already been reviewed and found wanting thanks to the lack of land along the river bluff south of downtown Stillwater. The "sensible" bridge would actually have more of a negative impact on the river and its banks than the bridge that Senators Kloubachar, Franken, Kohl and Johnson want built.
Tom, listen to this fact: The lower and slower bridge plan has never been studied before. MNDOT didn't allow it to be considered by the stakeholders (the sham community process Haryski refers to). The proponents of the mega bridge are trying to link the sensible bridge to Option E which was a freeway style bridge low in the valley that just didn't work and was environmentally destrucitve. That misinformation has worked really well for mega bridge propoganda. The truth is that the community was never given any other choice and the sensible bridge has been offered up privately by former stakeholder members. The real tragedy is this: Republicans in congress are siezing this debate as reason to diminish the Wild and Scenic Rivers ACt, perhaps our most effective environmental legislation since the cration of the EPA. How sad is that, the birthplace of the act, the St. Croix, is now sowing the seeds of its destruction. Save the money, save the WSRA, save the future of STillwater businesses and build a more sensible bridge that encourages commerce in Minnesota, not Wisconsin. Reject the mega bridge. The fact is that the mega bridge never conformed to the WSRA and the Park Service won't approve it until it does. MNDOT exhibited extreme hubris in designing a span that required the ACt to be ignored. The reason this bridge has never been built is because it was poorly conceived, not because of any organized resistance. The mega bridge is illegal and cannot proceed until the WSRA is weakened or permanently amended. Shameful.
Mr. Pappas, the "sensible" bridge proposal follows the same corridor as the Option E proposal, which also was not a full freeway style bridge. I'm a bit leery of how the "sensible" bridge sketch depicts what looks to be a figure eight intersection on the Minnesota side - it looks like someone thinks a mega-roundabout would be a good idea right in front of the River Oasis Cafe. The lack of space and the steepness of the river bluff is a real problem that the "sensible" bridge proposal still doesn't address.