P A G E 8 F E B R U A R Y 24, 1978
Conclusion o f a Two-Part News Analysis
I f Included in Wild & Scenic Rivers System . . .
».»s-i».»««
Who Will Benefit From The Deschutes River Bill?
Private landowners feel the
floaters will. The Tribes feel the
fish will. And the proposed
legislation which would include
the lower Deschutes in the Na
tional Wild and Scenic Rivers
System, states that everybody
will.
As with the management of
the river under the proposed
bill, the benefits of federal pro
tection are not consistently per
ceived. In fact the way individu
als and groups view the bill
appears to be largely dependent
on the management role they
expect to have.
If one were to rely on the
language of the legislation alone,
the intended benefits would be
broad-based. Rivers under the
Wild & Scenic Rivers act are to
be “protected for the benefit and
enjoyment of present and future
generations.” Administration of
the rivers should not interfere
with “ public use and enjoy
ment.”
Implied, of course, is the
health of the river and its
natural inhabitants, perhaps the
most direct and obvious bene
factors of protection.
But who is the public? Will it
be “ generations” of floaters,
fishermen, farm ers or home-
owners who will benefit from the
federal classifications of scenic
and recreational?
A cursory look at the bill
and its accompanying regula
tions reveals a number of de
velopment restrictions on pri
vate landowners. When stru c
tures are allowed in scenic areas
they must be “unobtrusive” or
“screened from the river.” But
restrictions on the recreational
use of the river are not offered.
As was discovered in the
first part of this series (see
Spilyay Tymoo, Vol. 3 No. 3, P.
8) the teeth of the legislation will
lie in the managem ent plans
be developed by the federal,
state and Tribal administrators.
Benefits may not be obvious
until those plans are implement
ed.
Therein lies another concern
of those close to the river. Will
planning for the lower Des
chutes reflect my or my group’s
development ideals?
It appears, then, that there
are two levels of benefits to
consider. There is the advantage
of being assured of a role in
planning for the lower riv e r’s
future. And there is the long
term im pact on the river, its
users and the people living near
it. The two spheres are not
easily separated and are in fact
quite interdependent.
At the agency level
Neighboring counties on the
lower Deschutes - Jefferson,
Wasco and Sherman - feel that
the benefits of the proposed bill
lie anywhere but with them.
County judges are fearing
the removal of control from the
local level. They feel that desig
nation of the Deschutes as an
Oregon scenic river is enough -
they have more confidence in
their ability to work with the
state. Jefferson County Judge
Herschel Read sees the legisla
tion as “ more bureaucracy,”
and opposes “anyone in Wash
ington, D.C. coming in and
setting up rules and regula
tions.”
“ We need local control in
here and if we’re not doing a
good enough job then the federal
government can step in,” Read
said. He already sees planning
for the Deschutes as coopera
tive. “ Don’t we always call on
Cy Katchia and other tribal
officials?”
Judge Holmes in Sherman
County is afraid that once the
bill is law, counties “ would be
out” and their comprehensive
plans would not be considered.
As long as Judge Elder of
Wasco County does not have the
information he seeks about the
bill and its im pact, he feels
hard-pressed to present its ad
vantages and disadvantages to
his constituents. Many people in
Wasco County are opposing the
bill until they receive more
information, he said.
The judges seem to agree
that the lower Deschutes should
be preserved while its recrea
tional value is also utilized, but
“doesn’t the state plan accomp
lish this?” asked Judge Elder.
Generally the counties per
ceived the Tribes as an obvious
benefactor. “ People feel the
Tribes are getting benefits that
others are not getting,” said
Elder, “ and apparently so.”
Their p arts of the river have
been set aside for their own
planning, he feels, and the river is
not bejng “uniformly handled.”
Holmes also understands
“ Indian lands” to be exempt,
and Read feels the Tribes would
have input into planning but
doesn’t see how the counties
would.
"People feel the Tribes
are getting benefits that
others are not getting,
ably generous in its estimation
of the benefits of federal pro
tection. Funds would be avail
able for more aggressive recrea
tional management, according
to BLM D istrict Recreation
Planner Brian Cunningham. He
sees restrictions on recreational
use and on private development
as ultimately beneficial to both
interests.
At the user, owner level
Heavy recreational use has
been the most recognized prob
lem of the Lower Deschutes
River. Cunningham in the Prine
ville BLM office, points to the
environmental damage done by
vehicles going off the road and
people camping where they
please.
On the river itself, Cunning
ham sees weekends and holidays
when there are so many people
floating (“bumper -to-bumper” )
that they can’t enjoy a natural
experience. Once the legislation
is passed, the BLM can work
with the state on analyzing
patterns of use and with addi
tional funds authorized by the
act the agency can begin to
distribute this use. Improved
sanitation facilities, barricades
and gravel roads are possible
but Cunningham does not find
further development desirable.
A permit system for floaters
might also prove to bring order
to recreation on the river, said
Cunningham.
and apparently so"
In reality much of the reser
vation portion of the river would
be m anaged as a scenic river
under the law with the section
from the re-regulating dam to
the mill administered as recrea
tional. The Tribal Council is very
aware of the restrictions but has
put a g reat deal of faith in the
cooperative management be
tween the Tribes, the state and
federal agencies as outlined in
the bill. For the Tribes the re
sources of the river would be the
biggest beneficiary if the bill
should pass, but they also recog
nize the right of all citizens to
enjoy the river.
Bob Potter, Oregon Scenic
Waterways administrator in the
parks and recreation depart
ment, feels that inclusion in the
federal system would “ assure
continuity in management.” He
also looks forward to the state
being directly involved in plan
ning on federal lands, which it
can’t do under the state system.
The Bureau of Land Man
agement, which owns approxi
mately half of the land along the
lower Deschutes, is understand
Some landowners are happy
to see protection offered, how
ever, and have no plans to
develop their land any further.
Tribal Council Chairman
Gene Greene gave assurance
that private property owners
would have a part in planning.
The Council would have final
say in the Tribes’ input into the
management plans, “ but we
have to work with the land-
owners because we can’t stop
progress.”
As far as reservation de
velopment goes, Greene admit
ted there would be restrictions
on commercialization and in
dustrialization. He said there
may have to be tighter controls
on elimination from the Mill
(although waterways admini
strator Potter said the state
standards of environmental
quality would remain the same.)
But it is all for the good of the
river and its environment,
Greene noted.
A question of involvement
If satisfaction with the pro
posed legislation is dependent on
the details of the management
plan, then the real benefits of
federal classification may not be
apparent until the bill is imple
mented. In turn the impact of
the m anagement plan on the
river and its environment'will
require longterm observation.
But satisfaction seems also
to depend on the degree of input
an individual or group has into
the planning. Much of the
groundwork to date has been
done at the agency level. Those
rights will be infringed on same agencies, including the
tribal government, have been
by the recreational users' assured in the bill of a role in
planning.
right to enjoy scenery
The role of local government
and interest groups is less cer
And what of the farm ers, tain. Bob Potter with State
livestockmen and homeowners Parks and Recreation, promises
who currently inhabit and utilize the involvement of the public.
the lands within a half-mile of “Planning will be a very public
the river, the area proposed for process,” he predicted, adding
inclusion in the national system? that the “format of the planning
Many feel that their rights will process” would depend on pass
be infringed on by the recrea age of the legislation.
tional users’ right to enjoy scen
Potter has personally met
ery and the federal govern with the affected counties and
ment’s ability to regulate.
with such private groups as
steelheaders and livestock asso
In Jefferson County private ciations to explain the proposed
landowners fear that more bills. But many questions are
campgrounds will be built a t still unanswered.
tracting more people with less
As Judge Elder of Wasco
control, according to Judge County pleaded, “We need more
Read. In Wasco County the live information . . . a better under
stock association is “quite vocif standing.”
erous” , says Judge Elder. They Satisfaction seems also
and the farmers figure the bill
would allow greater public ac to depend on the degree
cess and endanger rangelands of input a group has
and crops.
Judge Holmes in Sherman into the planning
county acknowledged the need
The Tribes General Mana
for recreation,” but we don’t ger Ken Smith echoed this con
want to lose sight of other cern, listing many questions for
needs,” such as the watering which he sought answers.
rights of private landowners and
The cry for more informa
lessees of BLM land. Holmes tion and the cry for active input
expects his county to strengthen seem ,to be one and the same.
its comprehensive plan with Since the meat of the legislation
these needs and the impending lies in the yet-to-be-drafted man
legislation in mind.
agement plans, today’s ques
On the reservation one-third tions may become tomorrow’s
of the land along the Deschutes input. Thus the current concerns
is allotted. While any “ prior of individuals at the local and
non-conforming” use would be agency level can form the basis
permitted and a “wide range” of future planning.
Compromises will be inevit
(scenic) or “full range” (recrea
tional) of agricultural activities able. But the cooperative plan
would be allowed, landowners ning that is being sought for the
are concerned about their future lower Deschutes through federal
development rights. What struc protection will have become a
tures would be allowed on my reality.
And the benefits to the
property? Can I build a restau
rant or other business near the public will be that much more
obvious.
river?
How will the fish and wild
life of the Deschutes benefit by
federal protection? Bill Pitney,
Chief of the Environmental
Management Section of the Ore
gon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, blamed decreases in
spring chinook and steelhead
populations on the Columbia
River dams, not so much on the
fishery. But “any take is signifi
cant” when a population is de
clining, he said. Pitney fears the
opening of the Deschutes by
improved roads and sees some
advantage in federal protection,
although it would be indirect.
But he added, “I see the hand
writing on the wall irrespective
of federal classification,” mean
ing that controls will have to be
provided" whether the bill passes
or not. Closing the sport or
Indian subsistence fishery is not
an answer, he said.
Resident trout are more
stable, noted Pitney, and the
fishery would affect them less.
Oscar Lange of Madras feels the
fish resource is better now than
it was eight years ago due to the
bag lim it of two per day. Be
sides, 90 per cent of the floaters
are not fishing, so he questions
the impact on fish of heavier
use.
Noting the impact on wild
life and its habitat by too many
people in a confined area, Pitney
also sees the need for regulating
the movement of people, especi
ally the careless ones who camp
The Tribes recognize the anywhere.
same dangers of trespassing on
the reservation, including fire Many feel that their
hazard.
Oscar Lange, who owns a
guide service in Madras, agrees
that better sanitation is needed,
pointing to the “ human filth”
that contaminate the shorelines,
that contam inates the shore
lines. But Lange opposes a per
mit system, saying that it would
just attract more people seeking
a wilderness experience. Lange
rather than letting the “federal
government regulate itself pro
blems.” He simply doesn’t float
the river on heavy weekends.
Judge Read shares Lange’s
skepticism about federal protec
tion. Look at the Rogue River,
he said, which is in the wild and
scenic system. “They opened it
up and now they can’t handle the
number of people.”
Tribal N atural Resources
Director Gene Greene feels en
forcement of trespassing, fish
ing and other regulations might
be easier if the legislation is
passed and a permit system set
up. “Violations are hard to pin
point,” he said, but if rafts are
numbered when registered they
can be more easily identified
and apprehended.