Oregonians Have A Right to Know

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 192, the so- called River Democracy Act.

This bill, contrary to what the title implies, has nothing to do with democracy.

Instead, it would, if passed, label some 4,700 miles of Oregon's rivers, creeks, and streams as ``wild and scenic.'' A more appropriate phrase would be just waiting to be burned and ruined.

However, this is not your typical wild and scenic river bill. This bill would designate a mile-wide corridor running the length of every inch of those 4,700 miles of waterways as wild and scenic. This mile is double the half-mile-wide corridor normal for such designations. This means that under this act, 4,700 square miles--an area about the size of Connecticut--would be locked up and left to the high probability of burning up.

Many of the miles of streams, creeks, and gullies to which the bill would apply are within the 20 counties making up my district. Many of those miles run through Oregon's most important watersheds, which are absolutely essential to the life of my communities, particularly in times of drought. Given the damaging impact of such designations to activities necessary to protect these streams, it is no wonder this bill is deeply unpopular, something that has been made crystal clear to me by the overwhelming majority of my 62 county commissioners. They have serious and unanswered concerns about the dangers the act presents.

Chief among them is that this designation will prevent what needs to be done to protect these watersheds, placing them in a bureaucratic wasteland where it will take years, if not decades, to initiate and then complete plans which may or may not allow the treatment activities needed right now.

Also, a top-down approach to land management is wrong because it completely ignores the interests of well-informed local people, businesses, and stakeholders.

The approach the bill's sponsors used in developing this bill was seriously flawed because the river and stream nominations were solicited from various groups and the general public without any clear legal or scientific analysis to identify those rivers, streams, and creeks that would qualify as scenic. If a scientific or legal analysis exists, the sponsors should share it.

Additionally, the public deserves to know which special interest groups crafted the bill, provided the unofficial maps of the streams affected, and conducted the outreach to the public.

It is absolutely clear, whatever the process was, that local stakeholders, elected officials, county commissioners, landowners, users, and experts should have been consulted, and they were not.

Let me explain why so many who truly want to protect our public lands are so outraged by this bill.

So far this year, over half a million acres of forests and other lands have burned up in my district. Last year it was even worse with over a million acres laid to waste by fire.

Inexplicably, the bill focuses upon only one method of protecting this 4,700-square-mile proposed area from fire, and that is by what are called ``prescribed burns.'' I cannot emphasize how dangerous it is to prescribe prescribed burns in overgrown, densely packed, dry forests without thinning the forest first. Prescribed burning before thinning puts at extreme risk the very rivers and watersheds this designation is supposed to protect. It is like dropping a match in a tinderbox. It is impossible to contain these types of fires once they start.

The River Democracy Act, if passed, would threaten watersheds, homes, businesses, ranches, livestock, and most importantly, human lives.

The bill contains provisions throughout that leave the door wide open for frivolous litigation by far-left special interest groups, who have profited for years from lucrative sue-and-settle tactics.

The bill contains no explicit protections for the current multiple uses of the land, including sustainable timber harvests, hunting, grazing, fishing, and mining.

Regardless of legislative intent, the applicable agencies will have broad authorities to restrict these activities.

To date, no official maps have been provided. Oregonians need to have access to clear official maps to see just how much land is affected by this bill. I believe no further action should be taken with regard to this bill until the questions I have raised today and necessary maps are made available to the public so that Oregonians know exactly what this bill would do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source