A Democratic bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
S. 5647, titled the River Democracy Act, amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate numerous new river segments and tributaries primarily in the State of Oregon as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The legislation outlines administration rules, requiring comprehensive management plans that must assess wildfire risks, non-native species removal, evacuation routes, and culturally significant native species. It authorizes cooperative agreements with Tribal governments, the State, and political subdivisions for services like firefighting and law enforcement. The bill explicitly protects existing private rights, utility activities, water rights, and Tribal treaty rights without alteration or abrogation. Additionally, the legislation withdraws Federal land within these river boundaries and specific essential wetlands and special management areas from public land entry, mining laws, and mineral or geothermal leasing.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +9
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The legislation expands the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System by designating extensive new river segments and protecting critical wetlands.
- Scored +8
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill mandates comprehensive management plans that address wildfire risks, invasive species removal, and ecological restoration on public lands.
- Scored +7
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
The legislation explicitly protects Tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, and requires assessments for culturally significant native species upon request.
The opposite
- Scored -6
Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced?
Federal lands within designated river boundaries and special management areas are withdrawn from mineral, oil, gas, and geothermal leasing.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 4(a)(2) – Wildfire Risk Assessment and Mitigation: This provision requires the assessment of wildfire risks to public safety, the adequacy of evacuation routes, and the identification of treatments to mitigate wildfire risk near communities. This is positive because it aims to protect nearby residents and property from catastrophic wildfires.
-
Section 4(a)(4) – Culturally Significant Native Species Management: Upon request from an Indian Tribe, the Secretary concerned must assess culturally significant native species and develop a management plan to increase their resiliency. This is a positive outcome for Tribal members who rely on traditional foods like huckleberry, chokecherry, camas, wocus, and wapato.
-
Section 4(d) – Protection of Private Rights and Contracts: This section states that nothing in the Act abrogates any existing right, privilege, or contract affecting Federal land held by any private person without consent, and protects the ability to maintain facilities or obtain permits. This is a positive safeguard ensuring private landowners and contractors do not lose their established legal privileges.
-
Section 4(g) – Preservation of Tribal Land and Treaty Rights: This provision explicitly protects Tribal land, treaty rights, water claims, and the jurisdiction of Indian Tribes over fish, wildlife, land, and water. This is a positive protection for the sovereignty and rights of indigenous communities.
-
Section 4(f) – Protection of Water Rights: This section guarantees that the Act does not affect valid existing water rights, interstate water compacts, or water rights held by the State or the United States. This is a positive protection for individuals and municipalities dependent on existing water allocations.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 5(b) and Section 8 – Mineral and Land Withdrawals: These sections withdraw Federal land within the boundaries of the designated river segments, essential serpentine wetlands, and special management areas from all forms of entry, appropriation, mining, and mineral or geothermal leasing. This could be viewed as a negative outcome or burden for individuals, mining prospectors, or energy developers who wish to utilize these public lands for resource extraction, potentially impacting local economies reliant on those industries.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The legislation expands the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System by designating extensive new river segments and protecting critical wetlands. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill mandates comprehensive management plans that address wildfire risks, invasive species removal, and ecological restoration on public lands. Does this invest in rural communities? — The legislation authorizes cooperative agreements with local political subdivisions and Tribal governments for fire and public safety services in rural areas. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — The bill designates numerous river segments and wetlands as protected areas, helping preserve natural ecosystems and carbon sequestration capacity. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — Federal lands within designated river boundaries and special management areas are withdrawn from mineral, oil, gas, and geothermal leasing.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The legislation explicitly protects Tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, and requires assessments for culturally significant native species upon request. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The legislation mandates wildfire risk assessments and evacuation route reviews to protect nearby rural communities. Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill explicitly protects existing water rights and allows continued livestock grazing in accordance with applicable permit laws.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation requires publication of implementation schedules, wildfire assessments, and public review periods for wetland maps. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill enables cooperative agreements allowing state agencies and local governments to participate in river planning and administration.
- 9/30/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon