[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2022)]
[House]
[Page H17]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    OREGONIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Bentz) for 5 minutes.
  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.

                          ____________________