A bill in the U.S. Senate mandating more local streams become designated as wild, scenic or recreational has been met with skepticism and outright opposition by some.

The River Democracy Act of 2021, written and co-sponsored by Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, would add 4,700 miles of rivers and streams in Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system, bringing the total length of protected rivers in Oregon to almost 6,900 miles, or 6.2% of the state’s 110,994 miles of streams.

Many concerns were raised and questions were asked during a meeting of the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District June 3.

In a letter from the South Fork John Day Watershed Council to the Eastern Oregon Association of Counties, Joanne Keerins, the council chair, wrote that the bill leaves out who would create the management plan.

Wyden spokesman Hank Stern said either the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service would and that it would depend on which agency manages the segment.

He said the bill establishes a “flexible” time frame to determine wildfire risks. Additionally, he said, the bill requires the land manager to assess the risk of fire and implement a plan to reduce risks.

Under the bill’s provisions, Stern said, the federal land manager would be mandated to enter into agreements with state and local governments to help fight fires and establish a forest restoration grant program should fire burn within a Wild and Scenic River corridor.

Keerins asked who would be involved in creating the plan.

“Will this be a collaborative effort between agricultural producers and the public land managers?” she asked. “Will this be a blanket management plan further restricting our rural way of life?”

Stern said that local communities and those interested in the process are vital in developing a river management plan.

They help with data collection, establish baseline conditions and identify issues and opportunities that need to be addressed in the planning process, Stern said.

He said that local communities monitor and implement aspects of the plan.

Stern said sections 10(e) and 11(b)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act encourages the participation of federal, state or local governments, landowners, private organizations and citizens in planning, protecting and administering rivers.

Kyle Sullivan, director of the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District, said environmental groups have used the current Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to go after public lands grazing.

“That’s a great concern … because it’s such a vital part of a small agricultural community,” he said.

Stern said the bill, on page 16, reads:

“Nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this Act affects any valid existing right.”

He said, farther down the page, on line seven, it goes on to say “nothing abrogates any existing right, privilege or contract affecting federal land held by any private party without the consent of that party.”

Another concern many had during the meeting is that the new bill will impact existing Wild and Scenic Rivers or change their management.

In an email to the soil and water district that was shared with the Eagle, Wyden’s field representative Kathleen Cathey wrote that administration of Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers applies only to rivers and streams designated as Wild and Scenic under this act.

Many in the soil and water district meeting had concerns that others nominated these rivers, and locals didn’t have a voice.

Cathey said that was her fault in the email.

“I’m sorry for not reaching out proactively,” she said. “The door is open now.”

Stern said many river segments were nominated and supported by ranchers.

Amy Stiner, South Fork John Day Watershed Council coordinator, noted that the current designations require more permitting to remove juniper from private lands.

Additionally, Stiner said, the current legislation has been used as an “excuse” to inhibit necessary restoration along the South Fork of the John Day River.

“We are concerned that adding designations of this sort to streams, rivers or land in general will add restrictions for managing entities,” she said, “private lands included.” This, she said, could hinder the multiple-use goal of the public lands.

An additional question the group had was the reason for increasing the stream buffer from a quarter-mile to a half-mile.

According to Cathey, this will allow for more fuel reduction and prescribed fire to reduce wildfire risk and improve habitat.

The group also asked if there were measures to restrict litigation. According to Cathey’s email, “Senator Wyden has never been open to barring the courthouse door. This plan allows local stakeholders to help write the river management plans and establish the outstanding remarkable values.”

Sullivan said the district is still in the “conversation stage” and does not have an official opinion on the proposed legislation.

“I think we’re still trying to figure out what everyone’s trying to do and what flexibility is there,” he said.

Others, such as Grant County producer Rick Hensley, are worried about the unintended consequences of the bill. Cathey said in the email that his concerns are “absolutely understood.”

Stiner said she is “looking forward to learning more.”

“This bill begins the discussion,” Stern said. “Our office is still inviting comments and modifications to the legislation and the segments proposed by Oregonians throughout the state.”

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is scheduled to hold a hearing on the bill Wednesday, June 23.

Sullivan said the soil and water district will discuss the bill at its meeting July 1. Cathey said comments would be accepted until sometime in July.

“We are concerned that adding designations of this sort to streams, rivers or land in general will add restrictions for managing entities, private lands included.”

—Amy Stiner, South Fork John Day Watershed Council coordinator