PROVIDENCE — The demolition of the old Jamestown bridge went like clockwork two years ago, but a bill that would let the state take down one last remaining stretch is sparking a battle over the idea of replacing the bridge with a fishing pier.

In a hearing yesterday before the House Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, representatives of Save the Bay and the Rhode Island Salt Water Anglers Association argued that the remaining portion of the bridge section should stand until there is a guarantee that a pier will be built at the same spot, just south of the Jamestown Verrazzano Bridge.

Several North Kingstown residents, some of whom brought a lawyer, argued that the old bridge needs to come down, regardless of whether a pier is built. They also argued that the location, Plum Point, is a poor spot for a pier.

Caught in the middle is the state Department of Transportation, which is under orders from the Army Corps of Engineers to tear down the remaining structure but cannot because there is no money available. There is also a state law, adopted in 1987, that requires a portion of the old bridge to be retained as a fishing pier, said Peter Healey, a DOT engineer.

“You can see we’re in a pickle,” he said.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Kenneth Carter, D-North Kingstown, would remove the language in state law that requires a portion of the old bridge to be retained for use as a pier and would also remove language that requires the Department of Environmental Management to develop and maintain a park at the site.

Carter, who did not attend the hearing, said earlier this week that he sponsored the bill at the DOT’s request because of the deadline to tear it down. But supporters went further during yesterday’s hour-plus hearing, saying a new pier, unless built to bridge-like standards, would damage the Jamestown Verrazzano Bridge in a severe storm, leaving the bridge to contend not only with water but large debris, including pilings.

“This is an engineer disaster to put a structure next to our lifeline to our South County area,” said Thomas Morgan, a member of the North Kingstown Coastal Preservation Association.

Supporters of the bill also said that a pier, if built, would be on a sandbar, preventing access to deeper water where fishermen would catch more fish.

Opponents of the bill said they would support a plan to take down the bridge if there is also a plan to build a pier, as lawmakers intended when they adopted the 1987 with its requirement that a portion of the bridge remain.

They said the issue is making sure everyone, not just the well-to-do, have access to the water.

“For 20 years the residents of Rhode Island have been waiting for access to a fishing pier here,” said Richard Hittinger, a member of the saltwater anglers group. “We cannot support a bill that takes down what we have without a plan … to rebuild.”

Committee members said they would hold the bill for further study, though several agreed that they need to find a way to take down the bridge and find a way to provide public access.

Healey said the Army Corps of Engineers permit that allowed most of the bridge to be demolished in 2006 called for the remaining portion to be removed by April 1 of this year. He said the DOT, which estimates demolition will cost $3.75 million, has asked for a four-year extension, to 2012, when it expects money to be available.

Healey told committee members that the DOT, which has estimated that a new pier could cost $9.25 million, is neutral on the idea of building one.