This month, a key House committee endorsed a controversial bill that would prevent the construction of a footbridge over the Deschutes River at the southern edge of Bend. This is the bill, you’ll recall, that Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, called a retirement gift to Rep. Gene Whisnant, the Sunriver Republican who spearheaded the original bridge-ban effort last year.

Clem, whose comment was caught by a live microphone following a public hearing, now insists that he was just joking. But judging by the lack of enthusiasm with which several committee members agreed to support House Bill 4029, its survival sure seems like a gift to somebody.

Why the ambivalence? Five of the nine members of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee — four Democrats and a Republican — acknowledged bluntly during a Feb. 15 work session that they were being asked to settle what is, in essence, a local dispute. That’s not something legislators, who create statewide policy, generally consider appropriate.

Before casting a “yes” vote, for instance, Rep. Susan McLain, D-Hillsboro, said, “I hate to have a local issue not go back to local folks for decision-making.” She also warned “that we cannot make this a precedent that we’re always trying to solve … complaints or conflicts at home here.”

Likewise, Rep. Caddy McKeown, D-Coos Bay, said she was “sorry this is before us,” as “local people ought to take care of local issues.” She then cast what she called a courtesy vote — not to be confused with a vote of conviction — in the affirmative.

Also voting “yes” was Rep. Brad Witt, D-Clatskanie, who took pains “to underscore the earlier statements by so many members of this committee: Don’t bring your land use problems here to the state of Oregon to sort them out on a one-off basis. It’s inappropriate. People need to learn how to get along and solve their problems at the local level.”

The committee’s 8-1 vote was not what you’d call a ringing endorsement, which suggests that it had more to do with effective lobbying and vigorous arm-twisting than the persuasiveness of the bill’s backers. But that’s no surprise, as basic premise repeated by the bill’s supporters is disingenuous. They would like Oregonians to believe that building a footbridge that connects an urban trail to Forest Service land would be an affront to the Oregon Scenic Waterways Act, which regulates development along the Deschutes at the location in question. If that were the case, a one-off bill prohibiting the bridge wouldn’t be necessary.

It is true that administrative rules adopted under the Waterways Act for this section of river do prohibit bridges of any sort. But this prohibition is, by design, not absolute. Rather, the state may deny a proposed use that’s inconsistent with the act’s rules for up to one year, which gives the state and the applicant time to negotiate a mutually acceptable compromise. If that doesn’t happen, the applicant may proceed as planned.

Which brings us to the disputed bridge, with which the Bend Park & Recreation District would like to connect an urban section of the Deschutes River Trail with Forest Service property now used as an off-leash dog park. Assuming an application for such a bridge materialized, the Oregon Parks & Recreation Department could hit the “pause” button for a year, but that’s it. The decision to pursue a bridge after that point would be an entirely local decision that met both the intent and the letter of the Scenic Waterways Act.

What opponents of the bridge contemplate, by contrast, is a one-off use prohibition that violates both the spirit and the letter of the act. Witt, McLain, McKeown and their colleagues are right to be wary of this, as passing HB 4029 would all but guarantee a deluge of similar requests by groups and NIMBYs that want to prevent specific projects in scenic waterways. The best outcome for the public, the Legislature and the Scenic Waterways Act would be for HB 4029 to die in committee.

The second-best outcome is one that gives both sides of this debate some of what they want. Rep. Andrea Salinas, D-Lake Oswego, requested an amendment to HB 4029 that wasn’t considered, but should be. It would prohibit construction of a footbridge over the Deschutes next to Bend until Jan. 2, 2021, creating a “time out” during which a 12-member task force that includes several Bend-area representatives would develop options for a trail alignment along the Deschutes from Sunriver to Bend. This proposal would encourage exactly the sort of local problem-solving so many members of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee claimed to want just days ago.

Clem, the committee chair, urged Witt to amend the bill further in the Joint Ways and Means Committee, to which it has been referred. Salinas’ proposal deserves serious consideration there. Whether that happens will depend upon legislators’ interest in making good policy rather than doing favors for well-connected people and interest groups.