Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Spilyay tymoo. (Warm Springs, Or.) 1976-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 10, 1978)
PAGE 8 JANUARY 10, 1978 Part I Of A Two-Part News Analysis by Cynthia D. Stowell If Included in Wild & Scenic Rivers System . . . Who Will Manage The Lower Deschutes River? Wasco County fears that the Confederated Tribes will. Jeffer son County fears that the federal government will. And the Tribal Council, along with numerous state and federal agencies, fears that if the lower Deschutes River is not given the protection of the 1968 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, nobody will. While the recently drafted bill providing for inclusion of the Lower Deschutes in the Wild & Scenic River System awaits congressional sponsorship in D.C., the Tribes, the State of Oregon and the Bureaus of Land Management and Outdoor Re creation are making moves to cooperate on a management plan for the river. The proposed bill, supported in December by Tribal Council resolution, re quires federal, state and Tribal authorities to recommend man agement and administer the river according to criteria set forth in the 1968 act. Meanwhile, at recent public hearings local counties were apprehensive about further fed eral involvment, Tribal control of the reservation portion of the river, and threatened rights of private landowners. Even some tribal officials have expressed concern about the freedom of the Tribes arid its members to plan the reservation’s industrial, domestic and water develop ment should the bill be passed by Congress. Although the terms of the federal act and the Deschutes amendment clearly spell out jurisdiction of the various part ies, the real impact of the legislation will lie in the specif ics of the management plans drawn up by the state, the Tribes and the Secretary of Interior. How much of their plan will be dictated by federal cri teria accompanying the act? And will local control be forfeit ed once the management plans are in effect? These are questions that can be answered in part by examin ation of the proposed legislation, but time will provide more complete answers. Evolution of the Deschutes Bill The current draft of the Deschutes amendment results from years of growing pressure on the lower river and its environment and the concerns of the various landowners in the canyon (the BLM, the Tribes and private owners) about the preservation of the resource. In 1971 the Deschutes be came part of the Oregon Scenic Waterways System and immed iately Governor Tom McCall suggested inclusion of the lower river in the national system of wild and scenic rivers. This system, established in 1968 by the designation of eight rivers as “wild”, “scenic” or “recreational,” has grown to nineteen rivers by the amend ment procedure outlined in the original act. Wild and Scenic rivers in the western states include: The Rogue (Oregon), Middle Fork of the Clearwater (Idaho), Middle Fork of the Salmon (Idaho),’ Snake (Idaho and Oregon), Rap id (Idaho), Feather (California), Flathead (Montana), Missouri (Montana) and the Rio Grande (New Mexico). Proposed for federal pro tection are such rivers as the Skagit in Washington, the Color ado in Arizona and the Stani slaus in California, along with the Oregon’s Deschutes. Public use of the Deschutes has grown rapidly. As Scenic Waterways Administrator Bob Potter explained at public hear ings in nearby counties last month, recreational use espec ially by drifters has increased 50 percent annually in the last few years. “As use of the river is approaching 20,000 people per year, this is one of the heaviest used rivers in the U.S.,” Potter told the Jefferson County Plan ning'Commission January 26. free-flowing conditions....for the benefit and enjoyment of pres ent and future generations.” (P.L. 90-542, Sec. 1 (b), October 2, 1968). The Deschutes amendment recommends recreational class ification for the lower river excluding the city of Maupin. Classified as recreational and administered as such would be the segments of the Deschutes a) from just below the re-regu- lating dam to the downriver end of the Warm Springs Forest Products Mill, b) the mouth of the White River, c) around Sherars Falls and d) the last mile above the confluence with the Columbia. acquired only by donation, or if purchased by the state after en actment, by exchange. Tribal lands may not be acquired without the consent of the governing body as long as the Tribes are managing and protecting the lands consistent with the Act. The Deschutes Amendment further prevents the “alienation, encumbrance, con demnation or taxation” of reser vation properties including water rights. Future management not so clear While jurisdiction and pro cedures of land acquisition are clear, the restrictions on use of the land are less clear. Within two years of enact ment the land administrators must prepare a comprehensive management plan for the pro tected lands. As Potter explain ed, there will actually be two plans: one for the lands under the jurisdiction of the Confed erated Tribes, prepared by the Tribal Council with active parti cipation by the Secretary of Interior and the State; and one for those lands not within tribal jurisdiction, prepared by the Secretary of Interior with active participation by the Tribes and the State. Potter pointed out that coun ty officials and the general public would have the opportun ity to offer their input through involvement in public hearings such as those held in the last week of January in Wasco, Jefferson and Sherman Counties and with the Maupin Cattle men’s Association. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act itself does little to spell out the restrictions on development that are implied in the scenic and recreational classifications. “The law provides the frame work for the planning that fol lows,” said Potter. “Planning might be more restrictive,” he added. natural character of the are! and a “wide range of agricultj and other resource uses may I permitted.” In a recreational river arl restrictions would be less sevei “Optimum accessibility I motorized vehicle”, is assurt and dense settlements, pub! use areas close to the river, nt structures (for habitation, j] tensive recreation use, and ma agement practice) and a wil range of agricultural, and J source uses, would be allowed Potter noted that whereas the past the BLM has had insl ficient funds and staff to ii prove recreational faciliM funds would be available und the act for the BLM to devel: primitive boater campsites, p| vide portable toilets, and ma tain the sites. Restricting can ing to these improved arl would lift some of the envirt mental pressure caused by J ters and other recreatiol users, said Potter. Karnopp spoke to the fel on the part of tribal plann I and officials that water devel I ment on the reservation may I restricted, by saying “the int I of the act is not to prev I diversion as long as it does I impact the flow of the rive Karnopp also commented future industrial developm noting that expansion oil existing mill would be poss under the act. Tribal zoning along the D chutes corresponds closely the proposed federal classify tions. Much of it is agricultil with the exception of an ini trial and commercial zl around the mill and bridge. ■ Tribes have also provided cal ing areas for recreational usl While federal protect! may aid in the control of i| reation by discouraging ilia camping, fires and trespass,! the Tribes be giving up sol control in its future devel! ment? All other segments would be As the bill for inclusion in the national system was drafted classified as recreational but and redrafted, the Confederated administered as a scenic river. Tribes became involved as a In order to qualify as scenic, vested interest. The Tribal a river must be “free of im Council has long maintained poundments, with shorelines or that the valuable fish and water watersheds still largely primi resources of the lower Des tive and shoreline largely undev chutes canyon must be preserv eloped, but accessible in places ed as well as the scenic and by roads.” A recreational river aesthetic values. Recognizing is one that is “readily accessible the right of non-Indians and by road or railroad, that may Indians alike to enjoy the river’s hav e some development along non-motorized boating and trout (its) shorelines, and that may fishing opportunities, the Tribal have undergone some impound Council has sought to provide ment or diversion in the past.” access to the river while attem Generally, according to the Will The Tribes Be Giving Up Some pting to preserve the river in its act,, an included river “shall be Control In Its Future Development? natural state. adminstered in such a manner The Tribal Council has also as to protect and enhance the General Manager Ken Sir. The only specific prohibition been careful to preserve the values which caused it to be is looking “twenty years d( . in the act is the Federal Power Tribes’ treaty rights to the included.. .without.. .limiting oth Commission licensing of con the road.” What if a futaI water and land forming the er uses that do not substantially struction of any dam, water Council decides to develop a fl reservation’s eastern boundary interfere with public use and conduit, reservoir, powerhouse industry or a private landovfl and to fish therein. enjoyment of these values.” or transmission line unless it is chooses to build a new str • Given these interests, the above or below the designated ture? It would be easier, Sr Tribal Council embraced the area and would not affect the suggested, to change a tri final draft of the bill which Jurisdiction and ownership clear flow, the scenic value or the zoning ordinance than to rev^ classifies portions of the lower Tribal attorney Dennis Kar- resources of the river. or amend a federal act. river as scenic and recreational “I would rather see a 1c nopp noted that there would not (Both Karnopp and Potter leaving the Tribes in control of be “any great change” in juris firmly stated that the Tribes’ governing body like the Trfl their section of the river and diction should the proposed bill tentative plans to install gener Council or a county commis including them in managment pass. The amendment states ators in the Pelton Re-regulating be given a try in control be planning for the whole one that existing or acquired federal Dam would not be affected by the state or federal govfl hundred-mile stretch. lands would be administered by passage of the wild and scenic ment,” said Smith. “They’re Under the proposed amend the Secretary of Interior. Reser amendment.) people that live here.” ment, the river from Vi mile vation lands would be admini Existing uses of the land below the Pelton Re-regulating But Smith sees many bfl stered by the Tribal Council. All along the river may continue Dam to its mouth at the Colum fits in the proposed legisla^ other lands would be under the even if they do not conform to bia River (excluding the city of “I think the bill is good in nfl jurisdiction of the State. the federal criteria. Maupin) would be included in “Very little if any land Regulations accompanying respects. I agree with Cou: the National Wild and Scenic would be purchased, ” comment the act are a bit more specific that the Deschutes River shd■ Rivers System. ed Potter, and it would be a regarding future development. be kept scenic and not o' negotiated contract between the “Management objectives” are developed. “But management fl government and the owner. listed for both scenic and rec have some specific questions . However scenic easements (de reational river areas. To sum Scenic and Recreational Defined velopment or access rights) marize, in a scenic river area this point and will makeH The language of the original may be acquired by condem motorized vehicles would be al effort to find the answers.” I 1968 act allows for inclusion of nation, or the government’s lowed on land, some new habita rivers with “outstandingly re- right to eminent domain, with tions and public’use facilities markable scenic, recreational, compensation by the govern would be allowed as long as they NEXT EDITION: "fl geologic, fish and wildlife, his WILL BENEFIT FROM fl ment at fair market price. are screened from view and toric, cultural or other similar State-owned lands may be have no adverse effect on the DESCHUTES RIVER BILL! values,” to be “preserved in
