PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 7, 1996
Sudbury, Assabet and Concord Wild and Scenic Rivers Act - Amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (the Act) to designate segments of the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers in Massachusetts as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Requires the segments to be managed: (1) by the SUASCO River Stewardship Council (established by the Secretary of the Interior under this Act) in cooperation with the Secretary through cooperative agreements between the Secretary and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its relevant political subdivisions; and (2) in accordance with the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Wild and Scenic River Study, River Conservation Plan. Limits Federal funds to 50 percent of the costs of any activity implementing the Plan. Deems the Plan to satisfy the requirement for a comprehensive management plan pursuant to the Act. Requires the Director of the National Park Service to represent the Secretary in the implementation of the Plan Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Meehan, Martin T. [D-MA-5] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3405 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3405 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3405 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3405 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.