Lawmakers douse bill that expands public access to rivers

The state Senate rejected by a 16-14 vote on Tuesday a watered down version of Senate Bill 1060.

Sen. Alan Bates, a Democrat from Ashland, introduced the bill.

The original version of the legislation would have designated dozens of streams and lakes as “navigable” waterways, potentially including some in Baker “When we looked at the composition of the task force, half or more were advocates of recreation. It was clearly a lopsided task forcer,” Ferrioli said, adding that it lacked a balance of representation from landowners and the police, emergency medical staff and others who would wind up having to respond to trespassing problems and medical emergencies on the waterways.

“We killed that bill on the Senate Floor yesterday,” Ferrioli said Wednesday morning.

Bentz said he was particularly concerned about a provision that he believed could potentially lead to landowners having to remove barriers to boaters, including fences that keep animals out of creeks, and diversion dams used to irrigate crops and pastures.

“You can tell I grew up on a ranch with a river on it,” Bentz said of his perspective on SB 1060.

Curtis Martin, who ranches in Baker and Union counties, was among those testifying against the bill. He is also one of the cattle industry’s lead spokesmen opposing a similar but broader change in federal waterways regulation proposed in Congress.

Martin said the federal legislation, S. 1870, would remove the word “navigable” in reference to waterways regulated under the Clean Water Restoration Act.

 He said that would shift regulatory authority of most waterways from the state to the federal government.

 “As a rancher from North Powder, my land is not only my home, it is my livelihood,” Martin said. “I value my right as a private property owner to manage my land in a way that makes sense for the health and well-being of both my herd and my business — just as generations before me have done,” Martin said.

“Unfortunately, lawmakers in Washington are threatening to take away this fundamental American right.”

Under the current provisions of the Clean Water Restoration Act, Martin said federal jurisdiction is limited to navigable waterways that can support travel by boats, barges and other vessels for transporting people and products.

“By removing the word navigable from the definition, the CWRA would expand federal regulatory control to unprecedented levels — essentially putting road ditches, drainage ditches, and stock tanks on my family’s farm under the regulatory strong arm of the federal government,” Martin said.

“Not only is this nonsensical, it is an infringement on our Constitutional rights as Americans to own and manage property without undue interference from the government,” he said.

Considering the federal government is struggling with soaring debt and budget deficits, Martin questioned the wisdom of adding another layer of costly bureaucracy that would be needed to handle a backlog of 15,000 to 20,000 existing permit requests related to the CWRA.

“No doubt ranchers like me would be the ones forced to cover the costs, not to mention the huge administrative burdens of endless government red tape,” Martin said.

A hearing on S. 1870 and its proposed  change to the CWRA to eliminate the word navigability and shift regulation of most waterways from states to the federal government is scheduled May 7 before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.