Congressman Cliff Bentz publicly tore into a leading conservation leader during a recent televised hearing on proposed Owyhee Canyonlands legislation.
Bentz, a Republican from Ontario, subsequently posted to Facebook a 35-second video clip of his confrontation with Ryan Houston, executive director of the Oregon Natural Desert Association.
At the same hearing, a Malheur County coalition declared its support for Bentz’s proposal, referring to the legislation as a “work in progress.”
The developments came during public hearing on Tuesday, Nov. 19, by the Federal Lands Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee.
Bentz recently unveiled his proposal which would give wilderness status to nearly 1 million acres in Malheur County, part of the Owyhee Canyonlands. He also included language forbidding the federal government from designating any Malheur County land as a national monument and would put other land back into public use for multiple purposes, including cattle ranching.
His legislation in some ways echoes an earlier proposal by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat. Wyden last year proposed a bill that was the result of meetings and negotiations dating back to 2019.
The fate of Bentz’s proposal is unclear. His office didn’t respond to questions about what comes next in the byzantine process of Congressional legislating. In January, Republicans take control of the U.S. Senate, retain control of the House and take back the White House.
The televised hearing featured invited testimony from two Oregonians and witnesses from elsewhere in the country. They spoke about nine bills, with only one directly related to Oregon.
Houston was among the witnesses. So was Elias Eiguren, an Arock rancher speaking for the Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition.
In his opening remarks, Bentz said his proposal was “the culmination of five years of work, hundreds of hours of discussion, argument, negotiation, community meetings and ultimately collaboration between tribes, environmental groups, hunters, ranchers, county leaders and Congress.”
READ IT: Cliff Bentz testimony
The effort he described was orchestrated by Wyden, not Bentz, who wasn’t active in meetings or negotiations that resulted in the widely-supported Wyden bill.
Bentz said his proposal included provisions of the Wyden bill “and is based upon dozens of conversations with members of the local group.”
That apparently referred to the stewardship coalition.
Eiguren testified that Bentz bill in part was based on the coalition’s “direction.”
He described himself as a fourth-generation rancher whose family arrived Malheur County to escape poverty in another country to build a better life.
“Achieving a history like this is a result of hard work and grit, but also requires long-term vision,” Eiguren testified. “Had our ancestors made poor decisions based upon short-term gain, this unforgiving landscape would have sent us elsewhere long ago.”
He explained the coalition formed to fight designation of the canyonlands as a national monument.
“We believe that a monument designation would injure our local economy,” he said. He said the coalition wanted protection from such a monument that would attract Boise-area visitors.
He said the coalition also sought “increased flexibility for the BLM in regard to grazing management to mitigate damage from wildfire and invasive species.”
Under questioning from another congressman, Eiguren said a priority for the coalition was moving land out from being treated as a “wilderness study area” that restricts some activities.
The Bentz proposal would do so, affecting an estimated 1.3 million acres in southeastern Malheur County.
Eiguren said the coalition considered the Bentz legislation “a work in progress, subject to further change and negotiation.”
He told the committee that he had no changes to propose.
“I’m interested to see where this goes and the direction of the committee with Congressman Bentz at the wheel,” he said.
In his testimony, Houston described the years-long effort that resulted in the Wyden legislation. He said Wyden convened all interests starting in 2019 for talks “to help to bring resolution to the many years of disagreement and conflict surrounding public land protection and management.”
He said those negotiations resulted in a “significant milestone” with the Wyden legislation endorsed by a range of interests.
The stewardship coalition was among those praising that proposal.
Houston said the Bentz proposal differed from the Wyden language in “very significant and problematic ways.” He said Bentz dropped the Wyden language that would drive management of the Malheur County region with a focus on long-term ecological health.
He criticized the Bentz proposal for allowing greater vehicle access to wilderness areas and changing membership in a new local group so it would be “weighted in favor of industry.”
He said the Bentz proposal would “reduce the role of science, accountability and transparency in management.”
Bentz said he found the conservationist’s testimony “very irksome,” telling Houston, “I don’t appreciate your testimony as written.”
Bentz pounced on Houston’s statement that his proposal was “eliminating current and future conservation management on more than 3.5 million acres.”
“That’s not true, though, is it? That’s not true at all. Why’d you say it?” Bentz said in questioning Houston.
Houston explained that the Bentz bill would release more acreage to multiple uses. The congressman retorted his bill didn’t repeal federal statutes such as the Endangered Species Act.
Bentz also pinned down Houston about a potential national monument. Gov. Tina Kotek recently added her name to those pressing President Biden to create the national monument before he leaves office in January.
That triggered this exchange between Bentz and Houston, with Bentz opening the way: “You don’t support a ban on a monument, do you? You would not support us including in our bill a ban on an overlay of a monument, or would you?”
“When we sat down at the table…” Houston began to respond.
Bentz: “I don’t have an hour and a half. I have like two minutes. Just yes or no will do.”
Houston: “So, we haven’t discussed a monument at the table as we sat down together and talked…”
Bentz: “So you don’t know. You might support a ban on a monument?”
Houston: “My organization would not support a ban.”
News tip? Send your information to [email protected].
STRONG LOCAL JOURNALISM – The Malheur Enterprise delivers quality local journalism – fair and accurate. We depend on support through subscriptions to deliver our reports. You can read it any hour, any day with a digital subscription. Read it on your phone, your Tablet, your home computer. Click subscribe – $7.50 a month.
