Reauthorizes the Deschutes River Conservancy Working Group through 2032, updating its board composition and increasing the limit on administrative costs.
Jeff Merkley
Senator
OR
The Deschutes River Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 2025 reauthorizes the Deschutes River Conservancy Working Group until 2032. The bill modifies the working group's board of directors' composition, requiring representation from various stakeholders within the Deschutes River Basin. Additionally, it raises the limit on administrative costs from 5% to 10%.
This bill, the Deschutes River Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 2025, keeps a key group focused on Oregon's Deschutes River funded and operating through 2032. It officially extends the life of the Deschutes River Conservancy Working Group (DRCWG), a body established back in 1996. The legislation also shakes up the group's leadership structure and doubles the allowed spending on administrative costs.
First up, the bill ensures the DRCWG doesn't sunset, reauthorizing it until 2032. This means continued focus on resource conservation within the Deschutes River Basin. Section 2 also redefines the board of directors. Instead of a fixed number, it will now have between 10 and 15 members. The key change here is who gets a seat: the bill mandates representation from specific interests, including environmental groups, agriculture, local tribes, the hydroelectric industry, and various levels of government (federal, state, local) operating within the basin. The idea seems to be bringing a wider range of perspectives together to manage the river's resources.
Perhaps the most notable operational change is the increase in the cap for administrative costs, outlined in Section 2. Previously limited to 5% of the group's budget, the cap is now raised to 10%. Administrative costs typically cover things like staff salaries, rent, and operational expenses – essentially, the costs of running the organization itself, rather than funding specific river restoration or conservation projects directly. This change could offer the DRCWG more flexibility to manage its operations, potentially allowing for better staffing or resources. However, it also means a larger portion of funds could potentially be directed away from on-the-ground conservation efforts, a trade-off worth noting for anyone tracking how conservation dollars are spent.