Skip to main contentBILL OF THE WEEK: House Bill 3086
Many Oregonians would agree that the state’s natural resources, including its streams, rivers and wildlife habitat, are among its greatest treasures. But there is sharp disagreement over whose vision for those resources should take precedence.
It’s a battle that erupted in the 1990s, when environmental policy shifted to favor habitat over harvest in Oregon’s forests, and it has only intensified as the state’s population has grown, mostly in urban and suburban areas. One of the places that opposing views come into conflict is the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, whose mission is “protecting and enhancing Oregon’s fish and wildlife, and the habitats they use.”
Current state law calls for the governor to appoint a seven-member commission: one at-large member from either side of the Cascades and one from each of the state’s congressional districts. Because redistricting in 2020 added a sixth congressional seat, the statute must be updated. Rather than giving a seat on the commission to the new district, a group of mostly rural lawmakers proposed a new basis for selection that would shift control away from the Willamette Valley.
CHIEF SPONSORS: Reps. Bobby Levy (R-Echo), Emerson Levy (D-Bend), Annessa Hartman (D-Gladstone) and Mark Owens (R-Crane), and Sen. Bill Hansell (R-Athena)
WHAT IT WOULD DO: Change the selection basis from congressional districts to “each of five regional river basin management areas in the state.” The governor would still select one member each from east and west of the Cascades. The change goes at the question of whether the state’s land, water and wildlife belong to all Oregonians or to the people in the areas where those resources are located.
PROBLEM IT SEEKS TO SOLVE: At the ODFW commission, critics from rural Oregon have regularly clashed with environmentalists over such issues as protecting marbled murrelets (a threatened seabird), coyote-killing contests, whether to allow sport hunting of wolves, and the prioritization of water over agriculture for wild fish habitat.
WHO SUPPORTS IT: A coalition of 25 organizations, including the Oregon Forest Industries Council, the Oregon Farm Bureau, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, the Oregon Hunters Association, as well as the Eastern Oregon Counties Association. Those groups and other supporters don’t like representation by congressional district because those districts are drawn up by population, vesting most of the seats in the metro area and Willamette Valley where most of the state’s population resides. (Oregon’s 2nd Congressional District, in contrast, includes about two-thirds of the state’s land area but only about one-sixth of its population.)
In a joint letter to lawmakers, the bill’s supporters wrote that appointment by congressional district leaves “two-thirds of the state underrepresented within the commission structure yet containing a large portion of the state’s most necessary and impactful habitat and wildlife.”
WHO OPPOSES IT: A group of 16 conservation groups, including Oregon Wild and the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, say the bill “represents a concerning move away from proportional representation on state boards and commissions and toward politically motivated models that prioritize land and industry representation.” Many other state commissions rely on appointment by congressional district. “The congressional district model was instituted to ensure the public interest would, in fact, be represented equitably,” the groups wrote in joint testimony.
After three public hearings and two work sessions—a lot of committee time in the House—HB 3086 is currently in the House Rules Committee awaiting further action.