WASHINGTON — A House panel approved a bill on Wednesday authorizing the construction of a long-delayed new bridge spanning the St. Croix River in Stillwater, over the objection of some Democrats. The bill now goes to the House floor.
Wednesday was the first time lawmakers had voted on the $700 million project, which is fully funded but needs congressional action to bypass federal environmental regulations. The vote was 30-14, with support from both parties.
The National Parks Service has ruled three times that a new bridge violates a section of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that protects rivers, like the St. Croix, from construction projects with “a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was” protected. Congressional action is required to bypass those rulings.
The funding for the bridge has already been set aside, but it expires in 2014. Since construction is expected to last three years, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton had enacted a Sept. 30 deadline for getting federal approval for the bridge. That deadline was malleable.
Ken Harycki and John Soderberg, the co-chairs of the Coalition for the St. Croix River Crossing, applauded the committee’s actions after the vote.
“We have known for years that the St. Croix River Crossing is the best solution to solve our region’s unique environmental, traffic safety, and historic preservation goals. We are hopeful that Congress will agree and let this project finally move forward,” they said in a statement. “We need to work even harder now to make sure we don’t lose this opportunity to make the new bridge a reality.”
The bridge project enjoys bipartisan support. Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann sponsored the bill the House Natural Resources committee approved today; Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken sponsor the Senate equivalent; and the governors of Minnesota and Wisconsin, DFLer Dayton and Republican Scott Walker, support the project.
Despite that bipartisan backing, some Democrats on the committee worked to pin the legislation all on Bachmann, a tea party Republican who is running for president, calling it “a gargantuan earmark project requested by one representative,” in the words of New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt.
Some Democrats took offense to the bridge’s cost, despite the fact the $700 million needed for constructing the bridge and surrounding roadways has already been approved.
“The proponents of this project are not trying to build a bridge, they’re trying to build an icon,” said Arizona Democrat Raul Grijalva, who compared the $700 million bridge with the much more heavily-trafficked Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, which cost $234 million.
Grijalva and Holt also opposed the bill on environmentalist grounds. Holt attempted to attach to the bill a stringent set of environmental mitigation measures to accompany the bridge’s construction. Holt’s standards would have replaced those already agreed upon by many of the bridge’s stakeholders, including the National Parks Service.
That measure failed, but the angst over Congress’s move to sidestep the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act remained.
“This bill is another … in a long series of assaults on public land and wilderness designation,” Holt said, noting the measure would be the first to bypass the Wild and Scenic River Act for a construction project as large as this one. “To depart from this protection for one giant earmark is a terrible precedent.”
Bachmann’s bill is also sponsored by Minnesota Rep. Chip Cravaack and Wisconsin Reps. Sean Duffy (R) and Ron Kind (D). After a procedural move by the committee, the bill now has the same language as its Senate counterpart, which is still in committee.
Devin Henry can be reached at dhenry@minnpost.com.
Comments (5)
The day still water died.
The extreme local impact of this bridge is evident by those who flew to Washington to lobby for its passage. All of the proponents came from three small towns: Stillwater, Sommerset and New Richmond. They were the mayors of the three towns, the county commissioners of Washington and St. Croix Counties, the heads of the Chambers of Commerce of the three communities, a few union reps, councilman Rousch from Stillwater and elements of the Coalition for the St. Croix River crossing. Not anyone from Bayport, Oak Park Hts, Marine, Hudson, Lake Elmo joined to lobby. Why? Because most of those communities are totally unaffected by the bridge issue, even though they are just a few miles from Stillwater. Yet here we are willing to spend 700 MILLION DOLLARS for the benefit of three small communities, preventing the repair and maintenance of bridges in far worse condition than the Stillwater bridge. To invest this heavily at a time of constrained budgets in a very local infrastructure project is madness on any level. Providing a template for future development on Wild and Scenic Rivers is not a good omen for the Valley around Stillwater or any other designated River all across America. Building a bridge that promotes 20th century growth in the 21st century is not only backward but fiscally insane for Minnesota.
The fix was in. Too the alternate bridge proposal was not given more consideration.
““The proponents of this project are not trying to build a bridge, they’re trying to build an icon,” said Arizona Democrat Raul Grijalva, who compared the $700 million bridge with the much more heavily-trafficked Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, which cost $234 million.”
Sums up my feelings fairly well. Anybody else find the irony in Bachmann sponsoring this?
The delay tactics by a vocal minority kept this bridge from being built for the last 15 years. If they had been so concerned about cost they could have been more compromising in the past.
I live near Stillwater and it is without a doubt one of the most beautiful communities in the country with or without a new bridge. Fall lunch at one of the outdoor cafe’s is perhaps the ultimate Minnesota passive outdoor experience.
But there is nothing wild about the lower St. Croix (where the 9 foot commercial channel is designated) except perhaps avoiding all the boat traffic on a week end. Scenic is in the eye of the beholder, many people find the Golden Gate Bridge scenic. The bridge will be one element in an outstanding landscape. It will not have the same character as the nostalgic old bridge but then neither do the down town condos.
If the bridge offends you don’t go to the area, please. The locals would prefer it. Frankly it’s over crowded. You all can go find someplace else for that fall lunch in full color splendor. Although as a person who tours the rivers regularly I can’t think of a better spot.