*Editors Note: The bill has now successfully passed the House and moves to the Senate.**
House Bill 2027 impedes public engagement processes on the Deschutes River Trail
A bill now before the Oregon House—HB2027—would imperil planned expansion of the Deschutes River Trail by prohibiting the development of a proposed pedestrian and bike bridge across the Deschutes River in this area; more importantly, it would pre-empt public engagement processes. Our community has enjoyed the Deschutes River Trail for decades. On any day, you can find runners, walkers, cyclists, bird watchers, dog walkers, anglers, and water enthusiasts sharing the trail and soaking up the natural experience.
Being in nature improves one’s health and feeds the soul. Central Oregon is fortunate to have hundreds of miles of public trails in the area; however, there is something special about local trails in town that connect neighbors and open opportunities for non-motorized transportation. Health, community, and environmental benefits are among the significant public goods of the Deschutes River Trail, but they are in jeopardy if this current state legislation moves forward.
Connecting the Deschutes River Trail to the U.S. Forest Service land on the south boundary of Bend has been envisioned by the community for decades. This goal is referenced in several public planning documents, including the Bend Park and Recreation District’s Trails Master Plan, the City of Bend’s Transportation System Plan, the Deschutes River Trail Action Plan, and the Bend Riverway Community Vision. Voters in Bend approved a bond-funded project in 2012 to eventually connect the communities of Tumalo and Sunriver via the Deschutes River Trail, and a 2014 questionnaire of surrounding neighborhoods found that 88 percent of respondents would use the trail and bridge if it were built.
Oregon State Parks regulates “Scenic Waterways” across the state, including a specific segment of the Deschutes River from the Central Oregon Irrigation intake upstream into the Deschutes National Forest. The Bend Parks and Recreation District would like to consider a possible bridge in the reach of the Deschutes River just outside Bend city limits as a key last piece of the Deschutes River Trail. The easy sections of the trail are complete, but the few remaining sections to complete the route from Sunriver to Tumalo are complex.
Our community’s use of the Deschutes River Trail reminds me of the situation on the Oregon Coast when, in 1967, Oregonians committed to providing public access along the coast. The same concept of connectivity and public access along the remaining areas of the Deschutes River Trail deserves a conversation with all stakeholders before options are prematurely foreclosed. Now is the time to voice your opinions to our elected officials about the value of the Deschutes River Trail and what preserving public access to it means to the community.
The District has a reputation of well-designed and maintained trails throughout the community and is committed to balancing public access and protection of our natural resources. We are dedicated to public engagement and would continue to seek community involvement and address concerns if a project is possible in the future. Our preference is always to negotiate and work together on solutions.
Working together to find a way to finish the Deschutes River Trail will bring lasting benefits to our community.
Related Stories
Differing Surveys; Differing Results
This article appears in Apr 26 – May 3, 2017.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Readers: We received a comment on this story tonight that can only be construed as potentially slanderous, so it was removed from our site. Please, feel free to offer your opinion and insight into this contentious issue, but refrain from name calling, libel or slander. Using your actual, full name is nice too.
Please check out ProtectOurRiver.com for a different perspective
There is much more to this issue than simply connecting the Deschutes River Trail. While this has been envisioned by”some”in the community, many in the community are staunchly opposed to the bike and foot bridge. There are pros and cons on both sides. Yes, the access provided by the bridge would be amazing. But please educate yourself on the many negative impacts of the bridge. As previously offered in a comment, please visit protectourriver.com for a different perspective.
Looking at the Google Maps satellite imagery of the area it seems like much ado about nothing: it’s a foot bridge, not a four lane highway. The area is already built up on all sides with houses. Encouraging more people to walk or bike across the river rather than drive around via Reed Market seems eminently sensible to me.
Disappointed that ProtectOurRiver.com isn’t transparent about who is responsible for publishing and maintaining it.
Yeah don’t see what the big deal is. This bridge won’t benefit me, but I bet it would cut down on vehicle traffic, emissions, etc, if people had a walk/bike option across the river. There’s trails and human traffic all over that area already. I checked out ProtectOurRiver.com and wasn’t persuaded by any of their arguments. Is this all some kind of NIMBY’ism ?
Bend Parks has planned an imaginary trail down the Deschutes River since the 1960s. Like many ideas from city planners back then, it was done with little consideration for the environment. The same is true today with this bridge. Sinde then, the Wild & Scenic designation has protected the river from most development.
The concept of linking the human communities of Bend and Sunriver is a good one. But our thinking has matured and we recognize the value of the community that already exists along the river. For ten river miles, eagles, osprey, elk, mink, deer and bears find refuge in the riparian areas surrounding the Deschutes up to Sunriver. They cant drive their Subaru to the other river. They have to make it here. For those who take the time to stop running and just watch quietly, its a priceless experience.
The proposed bridge is an easy crossing in shallow water. The convenience of not having to drive to the west side trails is appealing for locals. That is, until youve seen forty elk cows and their yearlings splash across in the exact same spot. It is a critical ford across the river that is their only access to their spring calving grounds to the South. Deer herds also use the ford in their seasonal migrations. While there are many places humans can build a bridge, wildlife has to use what is available. They need this crossing. They wont bring their young near when people are around.
The Parks dept wants to complete the trail and the bridge so they can collect SDC funds when the remaining elk preserve is bulldozed for subdivisions. How can that happen? Just pay the difference in back taxes and the refuge designation disappears. Eventually, all that remains is the name on the school.
In their short-sighted pursuit of the bridge, BPRD has asked the State Parks to open rulemaking for this one mile stretch. While the proposed legislation coule block bridge building, other rules are up for change as well. Coupled with a bridge, these changes could have a devastating impact on the wild community that graces our river.
Currently, there is a ban on outfitters and events are limited to 150 participants. Outfitters, and running event promoters are requesting changes that would allow marathons and bike races and other commercial ventures that belong in cityscapes, not scenic Rivers. Im sure Don envisions big events like PPP down his trail, but regardless of his environmental assurances, BPRD does not have any jurisdiction on the other end of the bridge and the Forest Service does not currently maintain the trail adequately. Its already in bad shape and the influx of traffic will degrade the habitat and deter wildlife. Heavy traffic and spectators during events will drive them completely away. This is exactly what the designation of,”Wild & Scenic” is meant to prevent
While Dan is certainly only paid to promote human interests, he ignored the rest of the l language of this egislation that would give a great economic boost to humans in the region. HB2027 also calls for Lottery bonds to be available for water storage and distribution projects. This means lining and piping our leaky canals. This is the key to improving the health of the river and every fisherman and irrigator should loudly support the Senate version of this bill.
I want to thank Gene Whisnant for including the bridge ban in this important legislation. He obviously recognizes the connection between rivers and wildlife. I hope th Senate will recognize this proposal as a way to break a local political log jam and move forward .
Lottery bonds would be repaid from the revenues of the small hydro stations on the newly piped canals. But irrigators dont have to be the only direct beneficiaries. Fishing groups with water rights and lottery financing could partner with TID to pipe water from a relined Tumalo reservoir back up its abandon ditch to enhance selected trout streams. Can you dream it? I can.
HB2027 is a major step forward in water management. It will also finally bury an old bad idea about a bridge.
As a point of clarification, HB 2027-1 was amended by Representative Whisnant to remove all the previous text and replace it with just the bridge prohibition text. Therefore, there is no more text referencing Lottery funds for water storage, etc.in the bill. You can see it here: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureAnalysisDocument/37223
or look up Oregon HB 2027 on the web.
OK, I will stand corrected. My information was from the legislative web site that I’m sure isn’t up to the speed this bill received.
I can see that simplifing the bill would get it through quicker, so late in the session.
You would think that this vote would deter BPRD from their plans. But I doubt it.