In recent weeks, U.S. Rep Cliff Bentz announced he’s leading a broad group of over two-dozen Republican members of Congress calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear two cases challenging presidential authority to create national monuments on public land without congressional approval.

Much of the focus of the challenge is related to the June 2000 Clinton administration creation, and January 2017 Obama administration expansion, of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument — a stunning 114,000-acre stretch of forests, grasslands and mountains protecting an expansive range of ecosystems and biodiversity.

Bentz represents Oregon’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes the Rogue Valley, Eastern Oregon and most of the state east of the Cascades. OR-2 is a geographically enormous constituency, roughly the same size as the entire states of Wisconsin or Florida, and home to the majority of the 53% of Oregon land owned by and protected by the federal government.

At the center of the congressional group’s request to the high court are two cases — American Forest Resource Council v. United States of America and Murphy Company v. Biden — with Bentz and other members challenging the presidential use of the Antiquities Act to establish national monuments, and pressing the Supreme Court to establish limits on presidential authority and uphold the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.

Aside from these questions, it was a thoughtful, nuanced concern Bentz raised in comments during public appearances and media interviews last week in the Rogue Valley that is worthy of consideration and recognition in the discussion and debate about the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument and other lands federally set aside for public enjoyment, protection and preservation:

Once land is protected, how do you pay to maintain it? Once preserved, where do the funds come from to preserve federal lands in perpetuity?

In an August 2023 report, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimated the total deferred maintenance backlog for the lands and assets under the management of the four major federal land management agencies stood at $35.54 billion.

This figure includes approximately $21.09 billion in deferred maintenance for the National Park Service, $7.66 billion for the U.S. Forest Service, $4.77 billion for the Bureau of Land Management, and $2.02 billion for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Notably, the BLM, which is the governing agency of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, has seen its deferred maintenance backlog balloon more than four-fold in the past decade, from just over $1 billion in 2013 to $4.77 billion by 2022.

Regarding the upkeep and maintenance of federal lands, Bentz has personal experience and is uniquely positioned to speak to the question.

From a multi-generation Eastern Oregon ranching family, Bentz grew up around and has spent much of his life seeing the positive and negative impacts in how federally protected lands in the region are invested-in and maintained — first-hand experiences he spoke to last week in elaborating on his many concerns over the creation of federal monuments.

The law gives the president the authority, by proclamation, to create national monuments from federal lands to protect significant natural, cultural, or scientific features. But it’s Congress that holds the “power of the purse” and control of government spending.

It’s this dichotomy around the initial creation of and the ongoing preservation investment in protected lands where Bentz raises a notable concern, one worthy of consideration:

Preserving and protecting public lands demands more than the initial proclamation — the investment in long-term caretaking and upkeep is equally essential.