Reauthorizes the Deschutes River Conservancy Working Group until 2032 with updated membership guidelines and increased administrative cost limits.
Janelle Bynum
Representative
OR-5
The Deschutes River Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 2025 reauthorizes the Deschutes River Conservancy Working Group, a board representing diverse stakeholders in the Deschutes River Basin, until 2032. The working group consists of no less than 10 and no more than 15 members. The act also increases the limit on administrative costs from 5% to 10%.
Deschutes River Working Group Reauthorized Until 2032, Admin Cost Cap Raised
This bill keeps the Deschutes River Conservancy Working Group operating through 2032. Think of this group as the main planning table for the Deschutes River Basin – it's officially a board of directors tasked with managing water resources. The legislation locks in who gets a seat at that table, requiring between 10 and 15 members representing specific interests, and it also bumps up the cap on how much money can be spent on administrative costs.
Who Gets a Say in River Decisions?
The bill lays out exactly who needs to be represented on the Working Group's board. It mandates seats for:
- Two members from environmental groups
- Two from the irrigated agriculture community (think farmers)
- Two from the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation
- One from the hydroelectric power sector
- One each from relevant federal and Oregon state agencies
- One from a local government in the basin
This structure aims to ensure the major players who rely on or manage the river – from farmers needing water for crops to conservationists protecting fish habitats and tribal nations exercising their rights – have a direct voice in decisions. Extending the group's authorization to 2032 provides a long runway for planning and collaboration on complex water issues.
A Bigger Slice for Admin Costs
One notable change is the increase in the limit for administrative expenses, moving from 5% to 10% of the group's funding. In practical terms, this means potentially more money can go towards overhead – things like staffing, office space, and operational management – rather than directly funding on-the-ground projects. While this could allow the group to operate more effectively, it also means a smaller percentage might be available for direct conservation or water management activities. It's a detail taxpayers might watch, though the overall financial impact is likely small. The goal is likely to ensure the group has the resources needed to manage the complex coordination required by its diverse membership and long-term mandate.