The Bureau of Land Management can be justifiably proud of some of its work to control wild horses, protect sage grouse, preserve spectacular landscapes and cooperate with ranchers.

But it should not be proud of its efforts with ranchers and Congress on Steens Mountain.

With the way Congress works, a member can seldom say: I wrote this law. But with the Steens Act of 2000, U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Hood River, can say: I wrote this law.

The act transformed Steens Mountain into a wilderness-like area. President Bill Clinton considered designating Steens as a national monument. Walden worked to come up with a compromise. The Steens Act has environmental protections and allows cattle to graze.

So in 2014, Walden was frustrated when the Bureau of Land Management told cattle ranchers they had to pay to build fences to keep cattle out of the livestock-free zones. A rancher filed a lawsuit.

Walden said the BLM was getting the law wrong. That was not the intent. The government was supposed to build the fences.

The BLM insisted it was right. And what made matters more difficult was that the language about fencing in Section 113(e)(2) was not clear.

Walden knew, though, what he had meant.

He began to work the issue. He had his staff dig up the documents from the archive.

He met with the BLM and ranchers in April 2014 in Burns. He told the BLM it was wrong.

In July 2014, he got language incorporated into an appropriations bill explaining it was the BLM’s job to build the fences.

The BLM finally has gotten the message. Walden met with BLM officials again recently in Burns, and he told us the agency will build the fences.

The BLM sent us the following: “While BLM still believes that the language in Section 113(e)(2) is ambiguous, BLM also understands that the legislation was the product of unique and collaborative action resulting in a statutory framework that is itself both unique and collaborative. BLM believes that the views of the primary author of the Steens Act tip the scales in terms of how BLM should interpret the language in Section 113(e)(2).”

It took a year for the BLM to take the author of the bill at his word. Good grief.