Oregon’s U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, cleverly included the word “Democracy” in their bill, introduced a year ago and pending in Congress, that would nearly triple the mileage of waterways in the state under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers system.

That august word, so beloved in America, tends to burnish whatever it’s applied to.

But although the senators used the democratic tactic of soliciting suggestions from the public about which streams to include in their River Democracy Act, that’s not the most appropriate method when it comes to potentially imposing federal protection, and the associated potential restrictions, on an estimated 3 million acres (based on the proposed mile-wide corridor along the included streams). That includes about 104,000 acres in Baker County along segments of 31 waterways.

Critics, including the Baker County Board of Commissioners, who on Wednesday, Feb. 2, unanimously approved a resolution opposing the bill, point out that some streams scarcely qualify as such since they might not carry water year round.

The 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is intended to protect rivers that have “outstanding natural, cultural and recreational values in a free-flowing condition.”

“Flowing” obviously requires water.

And although another key word in the 1968 Act — “outstanding” — is decidedly subjective, the senators should use more informed criteria in crafting their bill than the preferences of a minuscule percentage of the state’s population. Wyden and Merkley said they received nominations from about 2,500 Oregonians.

Protecting streams is a worthwhile goal, to be sure.

And designating streams under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not restrict activities on adjacent public land (private land isn’t affected) nearly as stringently as another federal law, the Wilderness Act.

Yet the bill would prohibit new mining permits on public land in the corridors along designated streams (existing permits would be grandfathered in, according to Wyden’s spokesman, Hank Stern).

The bill also could thwart efforts to thin overcrowded forests. That’s a problem rife in the Blue Mountains and one that increases the risk of catastrophic wildfires which would sully any values, outstanding or otherwise, that a stream has.

Wyden points out that the River Democracy Act would not prohibit logging in stream corridors to reduce the risk of wildfires. He also notes that reducing fire risk, with a focus on using prescribed fire to curb fuel loads, is among his chief goals for public lands. The bill also would require agencies that manage designated corridors — primarily the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management — to assess wildfire risks in each corridor.

That all sounds promising.

But it’s hardly far fetched to fret that a wild and scenic river designation would embolden environmental groups to legally challenge reasonable thinning projects under the guise that such work would harm the corridor’s “outstanding” values.

And prescribed fire, though a valuable tool whose use should be expanded on public land, in many places must be preceded by tree-cutting, lest the “managed” fire do more harm than good.

Ultimately, the River Democracy Act is a bit premature. Rather than giving federal protection to 4,700 miles of streams in one fell swoop, and then figuring out later not only how to manage them but whether they actually met the standards of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Wyden and Merkley should call for a more thorough study of the nominated segments and present a refined list in future legislation.

— Baker City Herald